|
Landraise & Remediation Questions 21 February 2008
Bill Wilson MSP is concerned about the proposed landraise at the Bishopton ROF. He has asked a series of questions in parliament regarding contamination, landfills and remediation. He has now received responses to all of the questions. We have analysed the responses and are deeply concerned by what they reveal. A summary of our concerns is given below. The full text of questions and responses can be found here at the end of our summary:
-
|
Assessment of risks associated with waste transfer to landfill
It appears that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) has not carried out any risk assessments regarding transfer of contaminated waste at ROF site, but they state that any transference of wastes can carry a certain degree of risk. They also state that provided the transfer is carried out strictly in accordance with best practice and the relevant health and safety requirements, the level of risk to the general public is likely to be low. Mr. Lochhead of the Scottish Government advised Mr. Wilson to contact the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to check if they had carried out any risk assessments.
Our Concerns: Given that there is not a full audit of all the contaminants on the site and the quantities are unknown how can it be ensured that transfer is carried out strictly in accordance with best practice and the relevant health requirements? Is Renfrewshire Council willing to fund the manpower to ensure that the transfer of every single bit of waste within the ROF site is carried out "strictly in accordance with best practice and the relevant health requirements"? Do Renfrewshire officials have the expertise to define the levels and type of monitoring required?
We checked the Renfrewshire Council website for the HSE responses to the Environmental Statements which accompanied four of the planning applications for the proposed ROF development. These included the applications for landfill and remediation. The HSE comments are as follows:
"Environmental Impact Assessments are concerned with projects, which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. HSE’s principal concerns are the health and safety of people affected by work activities. HSE has no comments on this environmental statement (Hazardous Installations Directorate)"
It does not seem as if HSE has made any risk assessments and does not have any comments.
Therefore SEPA has not carried out any risk assessments and it seems neither has the HSE. Which impartial organisation will?
If the ROF site were left undisturbed, this risk from waste transference would be completely eliminated. A simple but effective solution.
|
|
2.
|
Responsibility for assessing impact on health and monitoring health
The responsibility for assessing impact on health and monitoring health falls to Renfrewshire Council and the Greater Glasgow Health Board.
The Scottish Government Health Directorates have no plans to commission further studies into higher incidence of congenital abnormality in populations living close to landfill sites.
Our concerns: We were shocked to discover that there is no specialist organisation charged with the overall responsibility. Renfrewshire Council is under no legal obligation to consult any specialist bodies. They can choose which specialist organisations to consult if any. There does not appear to be any guidance on this matter. Furthermore if any health problems arise as a result of the construction or the operation of the landfill site at Bishopton, Renfrewshire Council will not be held legally responsible. Only the employers who constructed and operated the landfill will be held responsible. Basically if Renfrewshire Council make a mess of things, they don’t have to worry.
|
|
3.
|
Studies into congenital defects in populations living close to Landfills
The Scottish Government Health Directorates have no plans to commission further studies into higher incidence of congenital abnormality in populations living close to landfill sites.
Our Concerns: We are very disappointed that the Scottish Government Health Directorates have no plans to commission further studies. There have been three studies into congenital defects in populations living close to landfill sites. Each of these has recorded a higher incidence of congenital defects in populations living close to landfill sites. The exception to this seems to be Scotland. One of these reports indicated that the overall reported rate of congenital abnormalities was 6 per cent lower near landfills in Scotland. A fourth study, which looked at Scotland only, concluded no adverse outcomes in populations living near special waste sites in Scotland. How confident are the authorities in the data used in the studies which included Scotland? We understand that there is very little data on congenital abnormalities and neonatal deaths in Scotland.
|
|
4.
|
Responsibility for monitoring work
Monitoring of the development work is the responsibility of the planning authority. Therefore Renfrewshire Council officials will determine the level of monitoring they deem appropriate for the development.
Our Concerns: There does not appear to be any strict guidance as to what level of monitoring or what type of monitoring is required, how long monitoring should continue or how long records should be held. This is very troubling. The ROF site has very complex problems. Any development there will be highly complicated and will involve dealing with contamination issues, flooding issues, geological constraints and not forgetting the environmental constraints relating to wildlife. If we look at Renfrewshire Council officials' track record, we need to look no further than the development at Linwood to find evidence of inadequate monitoring. In the sheltered housing complex development at Linwood the houses have already been built, but they cannot be occupied because of contamination problems. If the development had been properly dealt with and monitored, this situation should never have arisen. The site at Linwood is very small in comparison to the site at Bishopton. Therefore we are extremely concerned at the potential for errors to occur in this vast complicated ROF site and that only Renfrewshire Council officials are charged with the responsibility to ensure that the work is carried out to the best practice standards.
There is a fundamental problem with monitoring: If the planning conditions attached to planning permission are inadequate, then monitoring will also be inadequate. We already have an example of how Renfrewshire Council will approach setting the conditions for planning applications for the ROF site. In August 2007, contrary to the Joint Committee agreement, the Planning Director granted planning permission for a new security fence within the ROF grounds. The main purpose of the fence, which is approx 3.4km long, is to separate the Environmental Test Facility (ETF) from regeneration activities. The planning application specified a 2.5m high fence straddled by a 5 metre clearing on one side and a 3m track (for patrol vehicles) on the other side. The planning application contained absolutely no information on contamination. SEPA indicated some conditions which should be attached to planning permission. However, the planning officials separated the planning application into two elements; "permitted development" and "subject to planning control". They deemed that the tracks (3m wide) and ancillary works (5m clearing) were permitted development and did not come under planning control. The only part which came under planning control was the fence. Therefore waste generated from constructing the fence is subject to planning control conditions, but waste generated from constructing the track or creating the clearing is not. For waste generated during the construction of the fence, the conditions specify that the developer will have to record what waste/spoil was generated, how it was tested and where it was disposed. However no such conditions apply to the waste generated from creating the track or the clearing and this waste may be equally contaminated. This seems completely illogical. It is astonishing that Renfrewshire Council officials should take this approach after having attended the Examination in Public where an independent world renowned toxicologist emphasised that disturbance of the site will cause the potential for harmful exposures. As a result of the manner in which officials dealt with this application it also does not ensure that transfer of contaminated material “is carried out strictly in accordance with best practice and the relevant health requirements.” It appears that planners do not understand the safety issues surrounding contamination and therefore it is extremely concerning that they are responsible for our safety.
We have stated over and over again that this project is far too complex for Renfrewshire Council and it is a recipe for disaster. We base our statement on Renfrewshire Council officials' past track record.
|
|
5.
|
Does the technology exist to make contaminated material safe
According to Mr Lochhead of the Scottish Government it is a matter for the planning authority to satisfy itself that applications to develop contaminated land include suitable and appropriate remediation measures.
Our Concerns: We remind our readers that Renfrewshire Council officials do not have the necessary expertise in this area and had to hire outside consultants to assess the contamination issues relating to the planning applications for the ROF. We also remind our readers that Renfrewshire Council officials recommended that Bishopton be designated as a community growth area based at the ROF site although they did not have the expertise to assess nor did they fully assess the contamination issues before making their decision. It is extremely concerning that officials, who do not have the relevant expertise, have the authority to determine if remediation measures are "suitable and appropriate".
Mr Lochhead also states "There are a number of different technologies and treatment methods currently available and with continuing advancement in technology, innovative methods of managing contaminated soils are continuously under development or trial" i.e. they are still refining the process with regard to decontaminating material.
If the technology existed to make all of the contaminated material safe, there would be no need for the landfill/landraise at Bishopton ROF to contain the hazardous waste. Local and national governments are making efforts to reduce the need for landfills, but here in Renfrewshire the local government officials have been actively working towards a development which requires its very own hazardous landfill…Not very environmentally friendly.
|
|
6.
|
Safety of landfill/landraise The proposed landraise at Bishopton will contain both hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste which will be disposed of within separate cells within the landraise. SEPA advised that theoretically there is an element of risk that certain hazardous wastes disposed of in a landraise designated for non-hazardous waste could compromise the proposed lining system. However they believe that this is highly unlikely, particularly in the absence of other serious factors relating to the landfill engineering or to the site itself.
Our Concerns:
Logic tells us that there must be a risk from disposing of hazardous waste in designated non-hazardous cells otherwise the current legislation would not specify that hazardous waste must be stabilised before being disposed of in separate hazardous waste cells. If there were no risk, hazardous and non-hazardous waste could all be dumped in the same cell without the hazardous waste being first stabilised.
We are very concerned that there is the potential for hazardous waste to be dumped untreated in cells designated for non-hazardous waste either because inadequate testing has failed to identify the hazardous substances or through error and that as a result the safety of the landfill will be compromised. Part of the landfill area is at risk of flooding and the whole landfill is supposed to be contained within a recreational area. These are factors which should be taken into consideration and may affect the site.
The current legislation and guidance on development of contaminated land seems very inadequate. It appears that there is no single specialist organisation charged with the responsibility to assess the potential risks to the local population, determine the methodologies and strategies to be used and oversee the work. When officials propose developing contaminated land, public health should be the number one priority and not relegated to an afterthought. Legislation and guidance should ensure that this does not happen. Sadly it does not.
There appears to be no great need to build houses at Bishopton as stated by the Structure Plan manager to Dawn Homes "Deletion of Bishopton as a CGA would not undermine the long term strategy for housing land”. From the Scottish Executive’s response we can deduce that Renfrewshire Council will not suffer any penalties if they do not register the ROF as contaminated land. So what is the imperative for remediating the ROF site and hence the requirement for a landfill?
Why put the health of local residents at risk merely to increase the dividends of BAE Systems shareholders?
|
Full text of the questions and responses from parliament is given below.
Questions From Parliament 15 - 21 November 2007
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN ANSWER
21 November 2007
Index Heading: Rural Affairs and the Environment
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether hazardous waste dumped into the cells designated for non-hazardous waste in the proposed Bishopton landraise, either because inadequate testing has failed to identify hazardous substances or through other error, would compromise the safety of the landraise.
(S3W-06183)
Mr Richard Lochhead:
I am advised by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) that theoretically there is an element of risk that certain hazardous wastes disposed of in the proposed landfill or landraise sites designated for non-hazardous wastes could compromise the proposed lining system.
However this is highly unlikely, particularly in the absence of other serious factors relating either to the landfill engineering or to the site itself.
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN ANSWER
15 November 2007
Index Heading: Health and Wellbeing
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive , if the proposed development of Bishopton Royal Ordnance Factory proceeds, when procedures will be put in place to monitor the health of the population of Bishopton potentially affected by such development.
(S3W-06171)
Shona Robison:
The Public Health Department of Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board is aware of the local concerns regarding the redevelopment of this site and, in consultation with the Environmental Health Department of Renfrewshire Council, has reviewed available statistics on the current health status of the local population. The statistics gave no indication of an increased health risk for those living closer to the Royal Ordnance Site. The Health Board, in consultation with Health Protection Scotland, will look carefully at any agreed new development for this site, and will consider the need for further public health surveillance provisions.
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN ANSWER
15 November 2007
Index Heading: Health and Wellbeing
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive , if the proposed development of Bishopton Royal Ordnance Factory proceeds and the health of the Bishopton population is to be monitored during the consequent transfer of toxic materials, what baseline data will be gathered to enable such monitoring and when these data will be collected.
(S3W-06172)
Shona Robison:
The Public Health Department of Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board has already reviewed data on the current health status of the local population, including mortality statistics and cancer registrations. The statistics gave no indication of an increased health risk for those living closer to the Royal Ordnance Site. The Health Board is confident that these data provide a robust baseline for any future public health surveillance that might be initiated in response to developments at this site.
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN ANSWER
15 November 2007
Index Heading: Health and Wellbeing
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive , if the proposed development of Bishopton Royal Ordnance Factory proceeds, what guarantees it can give that there will be regular health checks of the incidence of illness in the population of Bishopton to ensure that no specific problems go undetected.
(S3W-06173)
Shona Robison:
Responsibility for public health in this area lies jointly with Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board and Renfrewshire Council. The Public Health Department of Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board has already reviewed data on the current health status of those living close to the Royal Ordnance Site, and will assess the need for further local health surveillance when development plans for this site have been finalised.
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN ANSWER
15 November 2007
Index Heading: Health and Wellbeing
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive , if the proposed development of Bishopton Royal Ordnance Factory proceeds, what extra measures will be put in place on site to ensure that the health of the population of Bishopton will be completely protected, given that the proposed landraise facility will be open to the elements for the 15 to 20-year duration of the development.
(S3W-06174)
Shona Robison:
The Public Health Department of Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board is aware of the concerns of those living near the Royal Ordnance Site, and will assess the need for specific local health protection measures if and when the proposed landfill facility is granted planning permission.
The Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 provide that waste may be accepted at landfill only if it meets the criteria in Schedule 2. These include the requirements that waste be accepted only if its acceptance would not compromise the protection of the surrounding environment and human health.
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN ANSWER
15 November 2007
Index Heading: Health and Wellbeing
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive who will be held legally responsible for any health problems arising as a result of the construction or the operation of the landfill site at Bishopton if any link is established in future between the construction or operation of landfill sites and health problems in those living in proximity to such sites.
(S3W-06175)
Shona Robison:
Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 places a legal duty on every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons who may be affected by it are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety. This duty will therefore fall to those employers that are involved in any future construction or operations at this site.
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN ANSWER
15 November 2007
Index Heading: Health and Wellbeing
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that further research into an association between the incidence of congenital defects and proximity to landfill sites should be undertaken and, if so, what steps it will take to promote such research, in light of a significant association found by the Nant-Y-Gwyddon study (Fielder et al 1997) and the Eurohazcon Study (Dolk et al 1998).
(S3W-06176)
Shona Robison:
Since the publication of these studies, the UK Government has commissioned the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU) at Imperial College to carry out a national study of congenital anomalies in populations living near to landfill sites (Elliott et al, BMJ 2001; 323: 363–8).
This study found a small increase in congenital anomalies in populations living close to landfill sites but no causal link between landfill sites and birth defects was established. In fact, for babies born to mothers living within 2km of a landfill site in Scotland, the overall reported rate of congenital anomalies was 6 per cent lower near landfills. The independent expert Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) reviewed the findings and advised that, given the various inconsistencies, it is inappropriate to draw firm conclusions from the results. SAHSU subsequently specifically analysed the data on birth outcomes in populations living near "special waste" landfill sites in Scotland, and published their findings under the title No excess risk of adverse birth outcomes in populations living near special waste landfill sites in Scotland (Morris et al, Scottish Medical Journal 2003; 48: 105–107).
The Scottish Government Health Directorates have no plans to commission further studies in this area.
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN ANSWER
21 November 2007
Index Heading: Rural Affairs and the Environment
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive when the Bishopton Royal Ordnance Factory is expected to appear in the Public Register of Contaminated Land and what the legal penalty is for failure to register.
(S3W-06177)
Mr Richard Lochhead:
Decisions about entering contaminated sites on a public register of contaminated land are a matter for the relevant local authority, in this case Renfrewshire Council. Only sites formally identified by a local authority as contaminated land under the provisions of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are placed by them on a public register and there is no legal penalty prescribed in the legislation linked to failure to register.
Statutory guidance issued in connection with the Act advises that identification and registration should be made only when other options for remediating the land are not available. As development proposals for the site of the former Royal Ordnance Factory at Bishopton are currently the subject of an outline planning application any contamination issues will be dealt with through the planning process and not through identification under Part IIA.
Details of the matters to be placed on the public registers maintained by local authorities are prescribed in the Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulations 2000.
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN ANSWER
21 November 2007
Index Heading: Rural Affairs and the Environment
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the technology exists to make safe, from a public health perspective, the contaminated material present on the Bishopton Royal Ordnance Factory site.
(S3W-06178)
Mr Richard Lochhead:
It is a matter for the planning authority to satisfy itself that applications to develop contaminated land include suitable and appropriate remediation measures. There are a number of different technologies and treatment methods currently available and with continuing advancement in technology, innovative methods of managing contaminated soils are continuously under development or trial. Where planning applications are approved, conditions should be put in place to ensure that remediation action prevents or removes the risk of significant harm to human health or the wider environment. Planning authorities may consult with health authorities, local authority environmental health departments, Health Protection Scotland and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in determining the appropriate level of remediation in individual cases.
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN ANSWER
21 November 2007
Index Heading: Rural Affairs and the Environment
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what level of risk to the general public would be incurred by transferring waste from the Bishopton Royal Ordnance Factory site to landfill or landraise, compared with the risk associated with leaving the site undisturbed.
(S3W-06179)
Mr Richard Lochhead:
I am advised by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) that any transference of wastes can carry a certain degree of risk however providing that the transfer is carried out strictly in accordance with best practice and the relevant health and safety requirements, then the level of risk to the general public is likely to be low. It is the function of the environmental legislation for whose enforcement SEPA is responsible, and the health and safety legislation, to ensure that any risk is minimised or eliminated.
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN ANSWER
21 November 2007
Index Heading: Rural Affairs and the Environment
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether risk assessments of the waste transfer process at the Bishopton Royal Ordnance Factory site have been carried out, taking full account of the total length of time involved in such transfer.
(S3W-06180)
Mr Richard Lochhead:
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 places a legal duty on every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons who may be affected by this undertaking are not exposed to risks to their health or safety. This duty will therefore fall to those employers that are involved in any future construction or operations at this site.
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) enforces regulations relating to the transfer of work off-site. There are particular procedures for special, or hazardous, waste.
SEPA have advised that they are not aware of any risk assessments at the Bishopton Royal Ordnance site relating to their own responsibilities. Risk assessments to comply with the 1974 Act would be the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive whom you should approach for further information.
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN ANSWER
19 November 2007
Index Heading: Finance and Sustainable Growth
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive , if approval is given for the proposed development of Bishopton Royal Ordnance Factory to proceed, how the work will be monitored to ensure that approved standards and agreed requirements will be met and what actions will be taken, and by whom, if any deviations are found.
(S3W-06181)
Mr Stewart Stevenson:
Monitoring of development for which planning permission has been granted is the responsibility of the relevant planning authority. It is for the planning authority to determine the level of monitoring they deem appropriate for any individual development.
Planning authorities have a range of powers available which they can use to enforce planning control. Where a breach of planning control is detected, it is for the planning authority to decide the appropriate action to be taken to correct the breach.
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
WRITTEN ANSWER
19 November 2007
Index Heading: Finance and Sustainable Growth
Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, when a planning application for the development of contaminated land is being considered, which specialist organisation assesses the potential impact on the health of the local population, analogous to the way that Scottish Natural Heritage assesses the impact on wildlife and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency assesses the impact on water quality.
(S3W-06182)
Mr Stewart Stevenson:
Developers should take professional and expert advice in support of planning applications to consider the health impacts on the local population of developing contaminated land. Additionally, it is for the planning authority to decide which organisations to consult on such applications. They may consult health authorities, local authority environmental health departments and Health Protection Scotland.
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
Back
|
