At the public meetings on the planning application for the landfill at the United Mines site, questions on health were answered with the statement that these would be dealt with by the Environmental Agency at the licensing stage. However, our investigation into government guidelines has revealed that the Local Planning Authority is responsible. We present the detailed arguments in appendix 1.

Following the much-publicised "Dolk report", we have become very concerned about the health hazards of landfills. A little private research revealed that there is a wealth of epidemiological evidence of the increased danger of contracting leukemia, bladder cancer, birth defects and other diseases for those living within 2km of a landfill site. We summarise the evidence in appendix 2.

Whilst epidemiology does not explain the causes of specific diseases, it does present an overwhelming body of statistical evidence. PPG23 outlines the ‘Precautionary Principle’ which embodies the "need to prevent or limit harm, even where scientific knowledge is not conclusive". The same principle is enshrined in article 130(r) of the Single European Act (setting up the European Union) to which Great Britain is a signatory.

It may be argued that the data of the health studies pertains to older landfills. This is inevitable as many of the diseases in question have incubation periods in excess of 25 years. Whilst it could be said that ‘modern’ landfills are better controlled, it must also be pointed out that the type of domestic waste in this age of plastic packaging has also become more toxic. One study, at least, has shown that the leachate from landfills in which only domestic waste has been dumped becomes, after time, just as toxic as the waste dumped in toxic dumps.

There is no disagreement that lining landfills only postpones the problem. All landfills leak and poison the groundwater. Apart from leakage through puncturing, High Density Polyeythelene (HDPE) – the preferred liner – actually lets through several types of chemicals. Phillips, the major supplier of HDPE landfill liners, themselves state that many household chemicals can degrade their liners. Leakage can occur sooner if the type of waste dumped corrodes the plastic. Some have speculated that lightening strikes can puncture landfill linings.

The recent report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution states (9.46) "Risk assessments should identify the uncertainties which have the largest implications and the actions that would need to be taken to reduce or resolve them" and (9.4) "Whatever action is taken in the name of precaution (from use of worse-case scenarios .. to application of the precautionary principle…) should be transparent and subject to review…".

In May 1998 the British Medial Association (BMA) called for planners to put human health at the heart of the planning process. That report highlights several examples of planning decisions which would not have been taken if a proper Health Impact Assessment had been carried out. The BMA calls for more government research and for the Town and Country Planning regulations to be modified to require Health Impact Assessments in line with EU directive 97/11/EC.

A draft European directive on landfills has proposed that "the distance from the boundary of a site to residential and recreational areas and water bodies … should ensure a minimum separation of 0.5km in the case of municipal landfills and 2.0km in the case of hazardous waste landfills". Whilst this draft directive is not yet law, it has passed its first and second readings in the European Parliament and all countries -- including Britain – have agreed in a "common position paper" that some such limit will be applied. PPG10 sets out the role of EU directives. Paragraph 7 states "[Planning Authorities] should take note of the European Waste Strategy (97/C76/01) … and of future directives which might influence the siting and operation of landfills".

 

I

We quote from directives and guidelines which we believe show that the Local Planning Authority has the responsibility for matters of public health in planning applications.

The duty to take care of human health arises initially from the EC Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EC as amended by 91/156/EC). Article 4 states that member states shall "take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health …".

In the UK, this provision is transposed verbatim into the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 [the "WMLRs"].

The interpretation of the EC Directive in UK law is supported by policy guidance. DETR Circular 11/94 says "The key objective which underlies the whole of the Directive is Article 4, and this has been transposed into the Regulations as paragraph 4(1)(a) of Schedule 4. This makes it a relevant objective to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health …"

Some planners claim – perhaps because the directive is incorporated into "Licensing" Regulations – that health issues have no relevance to planning, only licensing. This is not the case as we will now show:

Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 4 states: "the competent authority shall discharge their specified functions, insofar as they relate to the recovery or disposal of waste, with the relevant objectives". In Table 5 the first entry indicates that the "competent authority" is any planning authority and "specified function" means the taking of any specific action. The meaning of "specified action" is listed in paragraph 1 (a)-(e) and includes determining an application for planning permission. "Planning Authority" has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Schedule 4 Para. (1). "Objectives" include human health.

In an effort to avoid unnecessary duplication, paragraph 2(2) provides that a planning authority is not required "to deal with any matter which the relevant pollution control authority has power to deal with". We have called the Environment Agency and they state that while they do indeed deal with matters of pollution, they do not address matters of Public Health; so there is no question of duplication.

Planning authorities must assess "damage to interests of acknowledged importance" [PPG23/1.35]. Surely, public health is an interest of acknowledged importance?

There is a large body of epidemiological evidence (see appendix 2) that address the health hazards of landfills. The much-publicised Dolk report is just one of these. Whilst the science of epidemiology offers no scientific explanation of the link between landfills and the specific diseases, they present an overwhelming body of evidence that there is a hazard, based on well-accepted medical principles.

PPG23 outlines the ‘Precautionary Principle’ which embodies the "need to prevent or limit harm, even where scientific knowledge is not conclusive".

The same principle is enshrined in article 130(r) of the Single European Act

The 21^st Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (October 1998) "Setting Environmental Standards" states (9.46) "Risk assessments should identify the uncertainties which have the largest implications and the actions that would need to be taken to reduce or resolve them" and (9.4) "Whatever action is taken in the name of precaution (from use of worse-case scenarios .. to application of the precautionary principle…) should be transparent and subject to review…".

 

 

 

 

A study of 50 landfills across the USA – carried out in 1977 for the US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) – was recently unearthed. The study found contamination at all 50 sites, and could be proven to be from the landfill in 43 cases. Some of the landfills had liners, some did not. The EPA concluded that all landfills leak and also that the liners can be attacked by the dumping of combinations of wastes not foreseen.

A 1984 study reported that men (but not women) living near the Drake Superfund site in Pennsylvania, had an excessive incidence of bladder cancers, though occupational exposures could not be ruled out as the source of those cancers.

The first careful study of this subject took place at Love Canal near Niagara Falls, New York. In a blinded study published in 1989, researchers found that children who had lived at least 75% of their lives near Love Canal – the notorious toxic chemical dump – had significantly shorter stature than children who lived farther away from the dump site. These results held up even after controlling for birth weight, socio-economic status, and parental height

A previous (1984) study had shown that children who lived near Love Canal had abnormally low weight at birth. The following year, another study confirmed low birth weight in children born to parents living near Love Canal. There does not seem to be any remaining doubt that the children of Love Canal were put in harm's way by exposure to the 20,000 tons of chemical wastes buried in their back yards. Those wastes remain buried there, and the families that have recently moved into homes at Love Canal are likely in danger too.

A 1986 study of children with leukemia in Woburn, Massachusetts statistically linked the disease to drinking water supplies that had been contaminated by a waste site.

A study – published in February 1989 – of families living near the Lipari landfill in New Jersey reported low birth weight among babies born during 1971-1975, when the landfill was thought to have leaked the greatest quantity of toxic materials into the local environment.

There was evidence of leukaemia, but insufficient to prove beyond doubt that the landfill was the cause.

The new Jersey State government investigates a nearby marsh and found 2-chloroethyl, ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, acetone, phenol, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, pesticides and heavy metals.

A 1989 study by the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] examined 593 waste sites in 339 U.S. counties, revealing elevated cancers of the bladder, lung, stomach and rectum in counties with the highest concentration of waste sites.

The New York State Health Department tested for VOCs escaping from 25 landfills in the period 1980-1989 and reported finding dry cleaning fluid (tetrachloroethylene, or PERC), trichloroethylene (TCE), toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, benzene, vinyl chloride, xylene, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, 1,2-dichloroethene, and chloroform in the escaping gases.

The study reports that women living near solid waste landfills where gas is escaping have a four-fold increased chance of bladder cancer or leukaemia (cancer of the blood-forming cells).

This study examined the occurrence of seven kinds of cancer among men and women living near 38 landfills where naturally-occurring landfill gas is thought to be escaping into the surrounding air. Of the 14 kinds of cancer studied (7 each in men and women), 10 (or 71%) were found to be elevated but only two (bladder and leukaemia in women) achieved statistical significance at the 5% level. The seven cancers studied were leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, liver, lung, kidney, bladder, and brain cancer. In women living near landfills, the incidence of all seven kinds of cancer was elevated. In men, the study found elevated (though not statistically significant) incidence of lung cancer, bladder cancer, and leukaemia.

A 1990 study of 590 hazardous waste sites in New York state found a 12% increase in birth defects in families living within a mile of a site.

A 1990 study of 356 California landfills found 240 of them (or 67%) emitting one or more toxic solvents. The 10 toxic gases monitored in this study are all carcinogenic: vinyl chlorobenzene, ethylene dibromide, ethylene dichloride, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethane (methyl chloroform), trichloroethylene, chloroform. Off-site migration of the gases was detected at 83% of the sites studied.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that solid waste landfills emit toxic gases.

A 1990 study found an increased incidence of bladder cancers in north-western Illinois where a landfill had contaminated a municipal water supply with trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PERC), and other chlorinated solvents.

A 1990 study in the San Francisco region found a 1.5-fold greater chance of birth defects of the heart and circulatory system among newborns whose parents lived near a solid or hazardous waste site.

Increased incidence of leukaemia has been reported in a community near a toxic waste dump in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.

A 1993 study by Hertzman and others presents evidence that vapours, fumes and particulate matter emanating from the site may have led to serious health problems. Health problems found included respiratory, skin narcotic and mood disorders found both in workers at the site and residents living nearby. The statistical analysis took great pains to eliminate bias, and concluded that the incidence of disease was related to the amount of exposure to the site.

A 1995 study of families living near a large municipal solid waste landfill (the Miron Quarry) in Montreal, Quebec reported an elevated incidence of cancers of the stomach, liver, prostate, and lung among men, and stomach and cervix/uterus among women. This study found a 20% increased likelihood of low birth weight among those most heavily exposed to gases from the landfill.

Croen and others used data from two population-based case-control studies and found a two to four fold increased risk for neural tube defects and heart defects for mothers residing within ¼ mile (400 metres) of waste sites, based on 105 sites on the national priority list.

A study of people living near the BKK landfill in Los Angeles County, California in 1997 reported significantly reduced birth weight among children born during the period of heaviest dumping at the site.

In Wales, the chances of birth defects were doubled among families living near the Nant-y-Gwyddon landfill.

Much publicised in the UK was a preliminary report in 1997 by Dr Helen Dolk and others of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. They found a statistically significant 33% increased chance of a birth defect occurring in babies born to families living within 3 kilometres (1.9 miles) of any of 21 landfills in 10 European countries, .

The researchers reviewed 46 studies of the human health effects of landfills for the Environment Agency. They concluded, "Landfill sites may represent real risks in certain circumstances." They also pointed out that exact mechanism of the hazard remains unknown. Is the biggest hazard air or water pollution? No one knows. But the evidence seems overwhelming: living near a landfill can be dangerous. So long as we remain a society addicted to chlorine chemistry and other toxic technologies, our discards will be toxic, and the

places where we bury them will be hazardous to health for a long time to come.

Millington, Parsons and Smalley presented a paper at the 1998 Urban Ecology and Biogeography conference, September 1998 in which they investigated soil pollution from several sources including a large landfill site near the river Soar. They concluded that these sites are unsuitable for development as nature reserves due to the ionic build up in soils and vegetation.

Doctors at the South Staffordshire Health Authority are investigating complaints from local residents regarding landfill sites in South Staffordshire and have called – in correspondence with Lancet – for improved notification procedures for Downs-syndrome live births to the Office for National Statistics.

There is anecdotal evidence from the Carharrack Residents Action Group of a high incidence of asthma, cancers, infant mortalities and deformities occurring near to the United Mines landfill site at Redruth, Cornwall. The incidence is higher than the Cornish or national averages. Further investigation is pending.