Memorandum submitted by the Committee
of the Residents Against Toxic Site (RATS)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Residents Against Toxic Site is
an environmental group in the town of Houghton le Spring near
Sunderland in the north east of England.
1.2 We have strong concerns about Biffa
Waste Services' Houghton Quarry Landfill, on the highest point
in the middle of town less than 200 metres from homes, shops and
businesses. It is a huge sub-aquifer site, deep within the Magnesian
Limestone and Permian Sands aquifers, supplying potable water
to south Sunderland and eastern Co Durham. It is because of this
site that we have had dealings with the north east section of
the Agency, Tyneside House Newcastle upon Tyne NE4 7AR.
1.3 Our observations are based on this.
We initially expected the Agency to regulate the site which pollutes
the environment. When we realized that the Agency was failing,
on 17 July 2001 we wrote to 16 north east newspapers. We asked
for anyone with experiences of the Agency, good or bad, to contact
us. All answers were complaints.
1.4 This Submission relates to our observations
on: the Environment Agency's accountability; its success in its
role as enforcer of environmental regulation and controls; its
role in the planning system; its relationship with the general
public.
2. ACCOUNTABILITY.
2.1 After our first dealings, we became
concerned that the Agency was not fulfilling its statutory duties
as defined in the 1995 Environment Act. We phoned Tyneside House
to inquire to whom it was accountable and were told "Nobody
really".
2.2 We thought it should be accountable
to the Minister for the Environment. Several times over the last
10 years we reported our concerns to ministers with no success.
In many of our dealings, the Agency deceives us and others.
2.3 In July 2001, we made a complaint to
the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman backed by copies of
evidence. The Ombudsman asked the Agency if any of our allegations
were true. The Agency said they were not and the Ombudsman dismissed
our complaints. We made a further complaint about the granting
of a PPC Permit for this site on 28 September 2004. The Ombudsman
has yet to report back.
2.4 We have always presented substantial
evidence about the way the Agency has behaved to back our allegations.
It appears that no-one is interested. Evidence is available relating
to all statements in this Submission.
2.5 We made a complaint to the European
Commission on the grounds that the Agency was circumventing EU
legislation transposed into UK law, but not being applied. The
Agency sent information, presented by the UK and the Commission
dismissed our complaints. We asked to see the evidence but this
was refused on the grounds that the UK authorities had requested
it be kept confidential. We appealed to the European Ombudsman
and he obtained the release of the UK Opinion and evidence. We
could prove that some of this information was untrue. The Commission
has since re-opened our case.
2.6 To attempt recourse to the law to try
to get the Agency to fulfill its statutory duties is prohibitively
expensive for ordinary people.
2.7 The Agency appears unaccountable. It
is taken to be "the expert" in environmental matters.
It is consulted as such. Thus, when complaints are made against
it, they are dismissed because it is the Agency which is the "provider
of expertise".
3. HOW SUCCESSFUL
IT HAS
BEEN IN
ITS ROLE
AS ENFORCER
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATION AND
CONTROLS
3.1 The Agency did not enforce the Waste
Management Licence for the above site in force between 1993 and
2004, when it was replaced by the present PPC Permit. It fails
to enforce the PPC Permit.
Day-to-day running of the site and air-borne pollution.
3.2 Biffa has always failed to run the site
in accordance with its licence. Lack of daily site cover for putrescible
wastes means the site gets covered in scavenging birds, vermin
and flies. The Agency takes no effective action saying these come
from residents' own activities. Site traffic covers the main road
in greasy mud. The Agency says this is merely "staining".
Biffa dumps light loads in high winds. This blows out and coats
the surrounding environment and large sheets of plastic blow onto
the adjacent A690 road which has 17,500 vehicles a day. The Agency
promised to prosecute for severe littering in 2001 but did nothing
for two years, then said they were not going to pursue the matter.
By this time it was too late for residents to take action. The
Agency now claims that they had no evidence that litter comes
out of the site, despite the fact that Agency officers had witnessed
it and we took photographs of them doing so. For nearly 10 years
polluted dust has been allowed to blow out. Biffa has only had
to install monitoring equipment two months ago. Biffa digs into
emplaced waste and re-uses it for site engineering. The Agency
does nothing. The site gives rise to a sickening stench all hours.
The Agency claims it is "damp soil" or municipal waste
being tipped close to the fence. The Agency takes no action to
protect residents.
Pollution of the aquifers.
3.3 It is a statutory offence to pollute
aquifers. The Agency carried out no research before it allowed
the site to open to see if it was a safe place for the dumping
of rubbish. Despite the National Rivers Authority having published
"The Policy and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater"
in 1992, the Agency did not impose these guidelines on the tip.
The tip is in highly fractured and faulted unstable rock, heavily
undermined and suffering active subsidence. It is in the exposed
scarp, the main aquifer recharge area, only 2/3
mile south of the public supply extraction well, on the north-east
flow route directly from the quarry. None-the-less, the Agency
put it in Source Protection Zone 3—water would take 300
days travel time from site to well, so all tipping allowed with
a liner. Areas further away from the well, under a deep layer
of clay with little water recharge, were put in Zone 2—less
than 300 days, only inert tipping. The Agency also contributed
to and published a research paper "The Properties of the
Major Aquifers in England and Wales" (Allen et al 1996)
showing the transmissivity rates in the Magnesian Limestone would
give a maximum 110 days travel time from site to well. Despite
this, the Agency has always reassured the Drinking Water Inspectorate
that there is no hydraulic continuity between the site and the
supply well.
3.4 The Waste Management License contained
an aquifer protection clause, number 58 which stated there must
be a two metre clearance between the base of the waste and the
highest natural level of the groundwater. In 2000 the residents
suspected the site was within the groundwater. The Agency denied
it. We subsequently proved it and asked the Agency to impose clause
58 to protect the water resources. The Agency refused saying that
its legal advice was that this clause only related to the first
deposit of waste. This was nonsense. Evidence subsequently showed
that the two metre clearance had never been in existence from
1992 and that Biffa had only considered a one metre clearance
to have existed in 1995. However they gave false assurances to
"maintain the two metre clearance" when they applied
for a licence to tip Special Waste in 1997 (never obtained). It
is an offence to make false statements in support of a licence
application. The Agency did nothing. By the time Biffa applied
for a PPC Permit the Agency accepted that the site had a base
level of 68 metres Above Ordnance Datum and the highest groundwater
was 75m AOD. Research presented to the Agency in 2002 showed the
highest level could be 85m AOD.
3.5 The Agency admitted in internal documents
that it was not designed to be a sub-aquifer site. Part of the
site base has never been lined and much was improperly built leaving
it particularly vulnerable to high water levels.
3.6 The water monitoring boreholes show
repeated examples of pollution. The Magnesian Limestone is highly
fissured and faulted so water flows through it like interconnected
pipes. The Agency knows this and that the pollutants will flow
towards the supply well in flushes. Yet it argues that pollution
can only be measured as a build-up of chemicals. The Agency is
also aware of the high levels of pollution showing in boreholes,
such as pH levels up to 11, which is so alkaline that it would
cause severe burns. It denies that aquifer water in the quarry
floor has registered pH13, although it admitted this in internal
documents. The Agency head at Newcastle, spoke to the Press about
the Uranium presently showing up in the boreholes, claiming it
is coming out of the Limestone. There is no Uranium in the limestone
whatsoever. The Agency has also claimed that landfill gas which
is showing up in the gas monitoring boreholes is coming out of
the Magnesian Limestone. This is also untrue.
PPC Permit
3.7 Newcastle Agency officers and Sir John
Harman informed us repeatedly from 2000 onwards that "If
this was a new application it would not be allowed now".
When Biffa applied for a PPC Permit we asked if the legislation
now in place would apply to the Application, including the Groundwater
Regulations, and whether this was a new Application or just a
continuation of an existing site. We were assured it was new and
that all legislation would apply. However the Agency did not apply
any of the protective legislation, arguing later that only the
1974 Control of Pollution Act applies, being the only legislation
in force when the then owners, Greenways, first applied for a
licence in 1985.
3.8 Many statements made by Biffa in their
Permit Application were clearly false. For example, to minimize
the possible effects on the local population they claimed that
the site was 2/3mile north of Houghton.
In reality it is in the centre. They submitted maps showing the
site surrounded by green fields, when much is surrounded by an
urban environment. Much of the Application was a tissue of lies.
Biffa refused to list the materials they wanted to landfill, which
meant objectors could not comment on them.
3.9 However, the Agency granted the Permit
and an extensive list of toxic materials which Biffa could now
landfill. Previously in 1997 Biffa had to apply for a new planning
permission (application withdrawn 2001) because the current one
stipulates "non-toxic". A correct planning permission
must be in place for a Permit to be granted. However, the Agency
granted the Permit despite knowing that the types of waste granted
was contrary to the planning permission. They also granted a licence
for landfill gas engines without a planning permission being in
place.
3.10 At the same time the Agency refused
all other applications from smaller operators for landfill sites
on the Magnesian Limestone because of "risk to the aquifer".
3.11 We would observe that some Agency officers
used to work in the waste industry. Some leave the Agency for
the waste industry. Some carry out private contracts while still
employed at the Agency. This relationship is far too cosy to enable
independent regulation.
4. ITS ROLE
IN THE
PLANNING SYSTEM
4.1 The Agency frequently advises other
regulatory bodies and Sunderland Council planning department that
the site is safe claiming independent studies prove this.
4.2 However, Biffa's Risk Assessment for
the effects on the aquifers of the presently constructed site
was based on a computer model called LandSim. The Agency received
a letter in 1997 advising that the LandSim model was totally unsuitable
to be applied to the site, and yet they accepted Biffa's claim
that it proved that the site would have no effects on the water.
The Agency also claims independent studies prove that Biffa's
"independent experts" (commissioned and paid for by
Biffa) are correct. However, the Agency paid for the firm Golder
to give the OK to a Report by Golder working for Biffa and the
Agency paid for the firm ESI to give the OK to a Report by ESI
working for Biffa. It seems that the phrase "conflict of
interest" has never darkened the doors of the Environment
Agency.
4.3 When the Agency commissioned a Report
by a firm called Halcrow which was highly critical of Biffa, the
Agency refused to accept it and instead an Agency internal E-Mail
records the decision to "equip Biffa on how to answer the
points raised".
4.4 The Agency has issued Sunderland planners
with reports saying borehole pollution comes from a wide variety
of sources, not Biffa. These excuses include: landfill gas coming
from old coal mine workings or from the Limestone: totally untrue.
Water pollution comes from run-off of chemicals from the nearby
A690 road: untrue—the A690 steeply grades away from the
boreholes. Material the farmer spreads on his fields causes it:
untrue—pollution includes Manganese, Lead and Iron and the
fields are downstream from the tip. Deliberate vandalism: untrue—no
sign of borehole vandalism and none reported to the police. Water
pH 11 caused by mortar falling in the hole and pH 13 caused by
landfill of rubble from an old building: impossible.
5. ITS RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE
GENERAL PUBLIC
5.1 Despite repeated requests, the Agency
has refused to meet residents since January 2002. However, Baroness
Barbara Young told MP Fraser Kemp July 2002 "we are seeking
to build a more positive relationship with RATS and have attended
their meetings". In a letter to us dated 27 July 2005 she
stated "our attendance (at your meetings) has not been productive",
"the most effective way to continue communication with your
group is by written correspondence through the Parliamentary Ombudsman".
5.2 The Agency has told us heavily polluted
materials dumped at the site are "commercially confidential"
which keeps them secret.
5.3 The Agency has denied us access to the
public records held at Tyneside House since 2002 saying it is
"a paperless office and a girl would have to leave her computer
for you to use". We must write requests which have sometimes
been denied us on the grounds "in providing responses to
your previous requests for information we have cumulatively exceeded
that limit".
5.4 Overall the residents were unsurprised
to read an internal Agency E-Mail (07/03/02) that the EA should
not take actions in which could result in "a lengthy and
complex legal battle with Biffa" "political fall out
with Sunderland" and "close scrutiny of the Agency's
actions with regard to this site".
6. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
6.1 The Residents Against Toxic Site is
an environmental group in the town of Houghton le Spring near
Sunderland in the north east of England. We have had dealings
with the north east section of the Environment Agency based at
Tyneside House Newcastle upon Tyne NE4 7AR. Our dealings centre
on a large landfill site in the middle of our town. Our observations
are based on this. Our comments are restricted to four topics.
6.2 Accountability. We are concerned that
it is the Agency's lack of accountability which has lead to it
not fulfilling its statutory duties to protect the environment.
It is unelected and gives the appearance of being a law unto itself.
There appears to be no-one actually in charge who can force it
to carry out its role effectively.
6.3 How successful it has been in its role
as enforcer of environmental regulation and controls. The Agency
is failing in its duties which means that the public has limited
environmental protection. The Agency frequently gives us false
information, contradictory information, and refuses us information.
It fails to protect our environment, air and water resources.
It allowed the above site to open and remain open despite having
evidence of pollution and that it could not operate in a manner
safe for the environment. It subsequently granted Biffa a PPC
Permit when it said it would not. We are concerned about the movement
of Agency officers to and from employment in the waste industry.
6.4 Its role in the planning system. The
Agency is a hindrance to environmental protection. It is seen
as "the expert" to whom other regulatory bodies defer,
when it actually has little in-house expertise. The Agency gives
provably false information to elected representatives and bodies
such as local authorities and the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
Its seemingly authoritative reports lull these bodies into a false
sense of security that all is well. In the case of Sunderland
Council, the Agency tells it what it wants to hear.
6.5 Its relationship with the general public.
The Agency treats the public with contempt. We are "the enemy"
if we dare to question it or suggest that it is not doing its
job properly. It operates as a "closed shop" together
with the waste industry and the planning authority, effectively
excluding the public. We frequently prove the Agency being untruthful,
but it repeats and extends its web of mis-information.
6.6 Conclusion. We can only make observations
based on our own experiences, but we are aware that we are not
an isolated case. The Agency is weak, being frightened of the
legal clout of big business and afraid to take actions which would
be unpopular with local authorities. The Agency's lack of regulation
of landfill sites needs urgent independent investigation. There
appears to be little regulatory control over the Agency. Management
needs increased accountability to force the Agency to carry out
its statutory duties.
Committee of the Residents Against Toxic Site
December 2005
| 
