Wyre Council's FAQ page, answer by answer

Wyre Council publishes a page of Frequently Asked Questions about the Hillhouse investigation. This page goes through it in the council’s own order. For each question it gives an extract from the council’s answer, says where that answer matches the published record, and says what the record adds, with links to the sources. PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a family of synthetic chemicals; PFOA is the one used at the Hillhouse site until 2012, and EEA-NH4 is the chemical used there since. UKHSA is the UK Health Security Agency. Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is the law on contaminated land.

Where the council’s answer is accurate, this page says so. Where an answer is true but responds to something nobody has claimed, or leaves out what the question was about, this page says that too.

About the council’s page

  • The version used here. The council’s page says “Page last updated: 25 September 2026”. We read it on 13 October 2026. Its text was identical to the copy the Internet Archive saved on 26 September 2026, so that copy is a fixed record of the wording quoted below.
  • What was added between May and September. The Internet Archive’s copy of 15 May 2026 is headed “PAGE LAST UPDATED: 28 October 2025” and has 21 questions. The current page has 34. The 13 questions that are in the September copy and not in the May copy are the section on blood tests at the top. The copies do not show the exact day they were added. Blood test results were given to 49 residents on 23 September 2026 (blood test results).
  • What is the same. We compared the two copies line by line. The wording of the 21 older answers is identical in the May copy and the current page. Apart from the date line and the headings “Contents” and “Downloads”, the only line in the May copy that is not in the current page is a download link titled “January 2026 Community Update: Jameson Road Landfill site”. The two copies cannot show whether anything was changed and changed back in between.
  • Sources the council’s page gives. The page links to six outside documents: UKHSA’s general PFAS information, UKHSA’s rapid review, the Committee on Toxicity’s home page, CL:AIRE’s page on soil screening levels, a government factsheet on contaminated land in residential settings, and the Environment Agency’s Jameson Road Landfill page. Three of these links sit inside an answer, and the blood test section names the UKHSA review as the source of its statements about the evidence. Most other statements on the page carry no reference to a document. (The count leaves out the council’s mailing-list sign-up link.)
  • Words that do not appear on the council’s page. We searched the page text for each of these and found no match: “EEA-NH4” (the chemical used at the site since 2012), “egg”, “Sandringham”, “raised bed”, “IARC” and “carcinogen”. The council has published on eggs, Sandringham Avenue Allotments and raised beds elsewhere on its own website; the links are in the answers below.

Five things to keep in mind when reading the council’s page

1. Several answers respond to a claim nobody has made. The council’s page says nine times, in different words, that a blood result cannot show where PFAS came from, predict future health or show the cause of a condition. That is true of one result. Neither the people who arranged the testing nor this site has said otherwise. Testing a group has a different purpose, which Jersey’s Independent PFAS Scientific Advisory Panel sets out: “Public health bodies may implement serum measurement when there is credible evidence that a subset of individuals has higher-than-average PFAS exposure.” Such testing can “Characterise the Extent of Contamination: Aggregating test results can help authorities map which neighbourhoods or water supplies are most affected” (Report 3, executive summary; Government of Jersey). The council’s page does not say what the results for the group showed.

2. The page is about PFOA and almost nothing else. It does not mention EEA-NH4, the chemical used at the site since 2012: about 783 kg went to the River Wyre in 2019, and the site’s permit sets no limit for it (The Numbers). It does not mention that PFOS made up 51% of the four PFAS totalled in the local egg results, or that its source has not been identified (WSP Phase 3 report, section 4.6; timeline). It does not mention the Environment Agency’s compliance report of September 2025, which recorded dioxins and furans from the site at 3.7 times the permit limit in one test (The Numbers). A statement that PFOA is below a level says nothing about a substance that was not measured.

3. “Below a screening level” and “not sampled” are not findings that land is clear. Gardens were sampled at 46 homes in Phase 2 and 71 in Phase 3, chosen by the investigation; the council says it cannot sample at a resident’s request (FAQ). In the garden results WSP found no clear correlation between concentration and distance from the site, and the highest reading was about 630 m away (Common criticisms). Average concentrations rose with depth, and no published report records sampling below 0.6 m (Common criticisms). Where no sample was taken, there is no result.

4. The levels quoted are triggers, not safety limits. England has no statutory limit for PFAS in soil. The council’s own page says screening levels “are set using a precautionary approach due to limited evidence on safe exposure levels”. The Drinking Water Inspectorate says “there are no standards in the Regulations for PFAS in drinking water in England and Wales”; its tiers are guidance, and “below Tier 1” means below 10 nanograms per litre, where the enforceable US limit for PFOA is 4 (drinking water).

5. Agencies repeating each other is one position, not several. The council’s page opens with a statement from the Health Cell, whose members it lists as Lancashire County Council, the UK Health Security Agency and the NHS. Later answers cite UKHSA’s advice and UKHSA’s review. The same position on blood tests has also been stated by AGC (One position, three speakers). When an answer says its advice is UKHSA’s, that names the author. It is not a second opinion.

Contents

The blood test section (added by 25 September 2026)

The thirteenth added question, “Where can I find more information?”, is a list of three links and is covered under About the council’s page.

The older answers (identical wording on 15 May 2026 and 13 October 2026)

If you think anything here is wrong, tell us. Corrections are made openly and recorded on the changelog.

The blood test section

The Health Cell’s statement

The council’s page says: it opens with a statement from Lancashire’s Director of Public Health, as chair of the Health Cell: “We are concerned that some residents have been offered blood tests that cannot show where exposure occurred, whether PFAS has caused a health condition or what their future health risk may be”, and “PFAS biomonitoring is not currently recommended for individuals through the NHS or private blood tests.”

What the record shows: the statement answers a claim nobody has made. No one arranging or reporting the tests has said that a single result shows where exposure occurred or predicts one person’s health (point 1 above). The statement does not say what the results showed. Press reports say 69.4% of the 49 residents tested were above 20 nanograms per millilitre (ng/ml), the level above which the US guidance used to read the results describes an increased risk (blood test results). The reports describe the figure as PFOA. The US bands apply to a combined total of seven named PFAS, which does not include EEA-NH4, and the published information does not settle which was reported. These are reported figures for the people tested, not published data and not a measure of the whole area.

The statement also says people “may have been advised to consider intrusive therapies to reduce PFAS levels”, that evidence these improve health “remains uncertain”, and that they “should not be pursued without specialist clinical advice and oversight”. The council’s page gives the general NHS routes, a GP or NHS 111, for anyone with symptoms. It does not name a specialist service for advice on PFAS (Common criticisms: lowering PFAS).

Why might PFAS be found in people’s blood?

The council’s page says: “PFAS are widely present in the environment and in everyday products. Many people in the UK are therefore likely to have measurable levels of some PFAS in their blood.”

What the record shows: the answer is about whether PFAS is present, which nobody disputes. The question raised by the local results is how much.

The US National Academies guidance sorts the combined level of seven named PFAS into three bands: “Adverse health effects related to PFAS exposure are not expected at less than 2 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). There is a potential for adverse effects, especially in sensitive populations, between 2 and 20 ng/mL. There is an increased risk of adverse effects above 20 ng/mL” (NASEM, 2022, Recommendation 5-3). The same report says of its own cut-offs: “in many communities, a large percentage of the population may have exposures to PFAS that would be considered high using the cutoffs presented here. This does not mean that health effects will occur, but likely relates to increased risk” (chapter 5).

The report gives the comparison for the United States: in national survey data, 2 ng/ml was about the 2nd percentile and 20 ng/ml about the 91st, so about 9 in 100 people there were above 20. It adds that choosing cut-offs “risks overstating or understating the risk of PFAS exposure given the uncertainty of the available information”. The council’s page does not give a figure for what level is typical in the UK. More in Common criticisms: everyone has PFAS.

What does a PFAS blood test show?

The council’s page says: “A PFAS blood test may show that exposure has occurred, but it cannot usually identify where the exposure came from, when it happened or what effect it may have on a person’s health.”

What the record shows: this is true of one result, and one result is not what was reported. A set of results can show a pattern. Press reports of the results said average levels were higher among the residents tested who live within 1 km of the site, and that EEA-NH4, the chemical used at the site since 2012, was detected in the blood of 10 residents (blood test results; Common criticisms: where it came from).

Can a PFAS blood test predict future health problems?

The council’s page says: “No. Current tests cannot predict whether a person will develop a health problem in the future.”

What the record shows: nobody has said it can. The people who arranged the testing say the same as the council. Leigh Day’s fact sheet for those tested says “your blood results alone cannot determine whether PFAS exposure has caused, or will cause, any particular health condition” (blood test results). The US National Academies say their values “were derived from epidemiological studies evaluating associations at the population level, and the relevance of these values to interpret risk in individuals is uncertain” (NASEM, 2022, chapter 5).

The same report still recommends what a doctor should do at each level. That is in the answer on high results.

Should residents arrange a PFAS blood test?

The council’s page says: “PFAS blood tests are not currently recommended because a test is unlikely to provide clear or clinically useful information. The test is not currently available on the NHS.”

What the record shows: this is the position the health agencies have published (FAQ: blood testing). The US guidance the council’s page refers to recommends offering a test to people with likely elevated exposure, and Jersey’s panel, which the page also refers to, recorded the practice in other contaminated communities.

  • The US National Academies: “Clinicians should offer PFAS testing to patients likely to have a history of elevated exposure.” The patients it lists include those who have “lived in communities where environmental and public health authorities … or academic researchers have documented PFAS contamination” and those who have “lived in areas where PFAS contamination may have occurred, such as near facilities that use or have used fluorochemicals” (NASEM, 2022, Recommendation 5-2). The decision is to be shared between patient and clinician after discussing benefits, harms and limits.
  • Jersey’s Independent PFAS Scientific Advisory Panel, in the evidence it heard: “The consensus in many contaminated communities is that individuals should be offered an initial test if they live in (or have lived in) a confirmed contamination zone, to assess whether there is a clear elevation above the typical background” (Report 3, section 14.1.1.3; Government of Jersey). That passage records evidence, not a recommendation. The panel’s own recommendation kept Jersey’s defined exposed group and extended testing within it to people without symptoms; it “resolved not to recommend testing more widely on an individual basis” (section 14.1.4.3), which is the point the council makes about Jersey.

On 3 March 2026 the ENDS Report quoted the Leader of Wyre Council calling for blood tests for residents. On 6 March the council, relaying the health agencies’ advice in a Freedom of Information response, said biomonitoring was “not appropriate in the context of this investigation” (FAQ: blood testing).

Is my “high” result due to emissions from the nearby AGC site?

The council’s page says: “Because PFAS are widespread in the environment, test results may reflect exposure from many sources, including food, drinking water, air and everyday products. A test result cannot identify where the exposure came from.”

What the record shows: this repeats the answer above: true of one result, and not what the group results were for. Further down the same page, the council says AGC’s own information indicated “that PFOA - a key chemical which had formed part of its production process - had been released into the environment” (the trigger for the investigation). Soil sampling for the Environment Agency detected PFOA in 287 of 291 samples within 500 m of the site in Phase 2 (The Numbers). Neither fact shows where any one person’s PFAS came from. The answer mentions neither.

I have been told my PFAS blood results are high. Should I be worried about my health, and is there anything I should do?

The council’s page says: “Biomonitoring can show that PFAS are present, but it cannot predict whether someone will develop health problems in the future or determine the cause of an existing health condition.” And: “If you develop the following symptoms: bloody diarrhoea, blood in your wee or testicular lumps, please contact your GP or NHS 111 for assessment and care in the usual way.”

What the record shows: the council’s page does not say why it names those three symptoms. For comparison, this is what the US National Academies advise clinicians to do for a patient at 20 ng/ml or higher:

“Prioritize screening for dyslipidemia with a lipid panel (for patients over age 2) following American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines for high-risk children and American Heart Association (AHA) guidance for high-risk adults. At all well visits: conduct thyroid function testing (for patients over age 18) with serum thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), assess for signs and symptoms of kidney cancer (for patients over 45), including with urinalysis, and for patients over 15, assess for signs and symptoms of testicular cancer and ulcerative colitis.” (NASEM, 2022, Recommendation 6-3)

Dyslipidemia means abnormal levels of cholesterol or other fats in the blood. Urinalysis is a urine test. Ulcerative colitis is a bowel disease. The level in this recommendation is the combined total of the seven PFAS the guidance names. It is not a level of EEA-NH4 or of any other laboratory total.

The US guidance is addressed to the doctor, who is asked to check at routine visits. The council’s answer is addressed to the resident, who is asked to make contact if symptoms develop. It does not mention the cholesterol or thyroid tests.

Jersey’s panel recommends “That clinicians, when seeing people with proven elevated serum PFAS, should consider testing for serum cholesterol”, and that when such people have symptoms consistent with kidney or testicular cancer, “clinicians should have a higher level of suspicion of cancer than in unexposed populations” (Report 3, executive summary; Government of Jersey).

The council’s page directs residents to their GP three times. It does not say whether local GPs have been given any guidance on PFAS. The US report says that where exposure has been identified, government bodies “should support local clinicians with educational materials about PFAS exposure and testing” (chapter 6). None of this is medical advice from this site.

My cholesterol level is high. Is this linked to the site?

The council’s page says: “A PFAS blood result cannot determine the cause of raised cholesterol or establish whether it is linked to the site. Anyone concerned about their cholesterol should speak to their GP, who can assess established risk factors and advise on appropriate care.”

What the record shows: nobody has claimed that one result shows the cause of one person’s cholesterol. High cholesterol has many causes.

The published evidence on PFOA and cholesterol comes from testing a community, not an individual:

  • A study of “46,294 community residents aged 18 years or above, who drank water contaminated with PFOA from a chemical plant in West Virginia” measured PFOA and a related chemical, PFOS, in their blood. It found that “The predicted increase in cholesterol from lowest to highest decile for either compound was 11-12 mg/dL”, a decile being a tenth of the group ranked by blood level. Average PFOA in the group’s blood was 80 ng/ml and the middle value 27 ng/ml. The authors added: “Because these data are cross-sectional, causal inference is limited” (Steenland et al., American Journal of Epidemiology, 2009, abstract).
  • On 29 October 2012 the C8 Science Panel, set up under the settlement of a class action over that contamination, concluded “there is a probable link between exposure to C8 (PFOA) and diagnosed high cholesterol (hypercholesterolemia)”. It defined a probable link as meaning “it is more likely than not that among class members a connection exists”. The same report says “The evidence is inconsistent” and that “the risk of high cholesterol related to PFOA was small in magnitude” (C8 Science Panel, 29 October 2012).
  • The US National Academies advise clinicians to prioritise cholesterol screening, at set ages and intervals, for patients whose combined level of the seven named PFAS is 2 ng/ml or higher (NASEM, 2022, Recommendations 6-2 and 6-3).
  • UKHSA’s rapid review, which the council’s page cites, notes that “associations have been reported between PFAS exposure and lower birthweight, certain cancers (particularly testicular and kidney), and increased cholesterol levels”, and adds that “the evidence is not always consistent across published studies”. The review itself excluded studies of “biomarkers of effect” such as cholesterol, so it reaches no finding of its own on it (UKHSA rapid review, Summary and Methods).

Whether a similar association exists in Thornton-Cleveleys cannot be read from one person’s result either way. Finding out would take a properly designed study that measures PFAS, cholesterol and the other things that affect cholesterol across a group of residents. We have found no announcement of an NHS or council programme of that kind in the council’s Hillhouse pages or its news items to 13 October 2026 (FAQ: blood testing).

How should the US guidance and the term “high” be interpreted?

The council’s page says: the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine “is an independent, non-governmental organisation that was asked to provide advice to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) on PFAS testing and clinical care. Organisations commissioned independently by a law firm have used this guidance to interpret blood samples collected from residents living near the Thornton-Cleveleys site.” And: “as outlined by the Committee on Toxicity, there are significant uncertainties in the evidence about the potential health risks of PFAS, which should be considered when interpreting these values.”

What the record shows:

  • Who asked for the guidance. The report says “ATSDR and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to form an ad hoc committee to provide advice on clinical care for patients exposed to PFAS”, and that it was paid for with US federal funds (NASEM, 2022, chapter 1 and front matter). The council’s description of the National Academies as independent is accurate, and so is ATSDR’s part. The request came from two US government health agencies, not one.
  • Who uses it. It is accurate that the local testing was arranged by a law firm, Leigh Day, and carried out by Manchester Metropolitan University (Common criticisms: hand-picked). The law firm is not the only user of these bands. Jersey’s Independent PFAS Scientific Advisory Panel sets out the same three bands in its report on testing, alongside other reference values. It calls them “precautionary guidance” and says “it is impossible to predict health outcomes for individuals based on their PFAS serum levels” (Report 3, section 5; Government of Jersey).
  • What the Committee on Toxicity has said. The council’s sentence is a summary, not a quotation. We read two committee documents: the lay summary of its Statement 04/22 (November 2022) and its interim position paper (June 2023). Both discuss uncertainties in assessing the risk from PFAS, mainly in how limits on intake are worked out, and the interim paper has a section headed “Uncertainties in the evidence base”. That is the nearest we found to the council’s sentence. We did not find in either an assessment of the US blood-level bands. In the first, the committee “had significant reservations about the dose-response model used, including the modelling approach, and the TWI which had been established”. In the second, it advised that, in the meantime, “consideration should be made of the available HBGVs for the specific compounds identified, recognising the uncertainties”. HBGVs are health-based guidance values. The committee’s website has moved and we read archived copies (lay summary; interim position); we did not read the full 2022 statement.
  • No alternative is offered. The council’s answer says “A number of international health-based guidance values and human biomonitoring values are available” and names none. It gives residents no other value to read a blood result against.

What does the latest evidence say about health effects?

The council’s page says: “A UK Health Security Agency rapid evidence review considered 35 international cohort studies published between 2005 and 2025. It concluded that there is currently inadequate evidence to determine whether long-term PFAS exposure from local industrial or manufacturing sites causes adverse health effects in nearby communities.”

What the record shows: the phrase “inadequate evidence to determine” means the review could not settle the question either way. It is not a finding of no harm. The review describes its own limits in these words (UKHSA rapid review):

  • “During the process of the review, some amendments were made to the protocol to account for time constraints.”
  • “the scope of the evidence review was restricted to cohort studies, which reduced the number of papers eligible for inclusion.” The review adds that cohort studies “were chosen as the most reliable study type” for its purpose.
  • “this review was, on a weight-of-evidence basis, unable to draw an overall conclusion where other reviews may have done so.”
  • “A more comprehensive review using evidence from a wider range of study types would be beneficial due to the limitations of the approach used for this rapid review.”
  • “No eligible studies based in the United Kingdom (UK), were returned from our searches.”

The review counts 35 papers, not 35 separate studies; several papers report on the same communities. None of these limits is mentioned on the council’s page (Common criticisms: not enough evidence).

Did the review identify any possible associations?

The council’s page says: the review “found evidence suggesting an association between PFOS, and PFAS mixtures containing PFOS, and lower birthweight”, but “any measurable effect would be unlikely to be detectable in local communities in England because low and very low birthweight are uncommon.”

What the record shows: this is in the review’s summary. The review also records what has been reported elsewhere. It notes that “associations have been reported between PFAS exposure and lower birthweight, certain cancers (particularly testicular and kidney), and increased cholesterol levels”, adding that “the evidence is not always consistent across published studies”. On testicular cancer it says it found “evidence from one paper with statistically significant findings that suggested that there may be an association with increased risk of testicular cancer”, but not enough to draw an overall conclusion (UKHSA rapid review, Summary and Discussion). The council’s answer includes the review’s finding that the evidence on some cancers was not enough to decide. It does not include the review’s note that associations with testicular and kidney cancer have been reported elsewhere, or the single paper on testicular cancer.

What further research is UKHSA doing?

The council’s page says: “UKHSA-funded researchers and academic partners are carrying out experimental work to improve our understanding of likely exposures.”

What the record shows: the answer names no project, researcher or publication date. We have nothing to set beside it.

Why was biomonitoring undertaken in Jersey?

The council’s page says: “The Government of Jersey’s PFAS biomonitoring and intervention approach was recommended specifically for a defined group of people who had been exposed to PFAS by drinking water from known contaminated private supplies. Biomonitoring was not offered in Jersey as a screening method for the general public.”

What the record shows: this describes who Jersey tested in 2022, and stops there. Jersey’s testing in 2022 was “for people who had lived in the affected areas between 1991 and 2006, regularly consumed contaminated borehole water from the affected areas, and had symptoms consistent with conditions that have been associated with PFAS exposure”, and the panel “resolved not to recommend testing more widely on an individual basis” (Independent PFAS Scientific Advisory Panel, Report 3, May 2025, revised October 2025, sections 5 and 14.1.4.3; Government of Jersey).

Jersey’s 2022 programme was for a defined group with exposure from a known source. Three things in the panel’s report are not on the council’s page:

  • It recommended widening eligibility. The panel recommended “That PFAS testing be offered to those who met the 2022 PFAS testing criteria but did not choose to participate in the programme and also to those who did not have a relevant condition or symptoms” (Report 3, executive summary).
  • It described the international practice. “In communities with known PFAS contamination, testing is often provided to determine the extent of exposure. In international settings, residents in the affected area are offered testing irrespective of symptoms” (section 14.1.1.1).
  • It recommended measuring background levels. “That background levels of PFAS in the wider community, by parish, be estimated either by the analysis of altruistic blood donation samples, or excess serum collected to perform other tests, or by other means” (executive summary). The Government of Jersey’s response was that “background testing cannot be implemented at this time”.

Jersey’s panel sets out the same US bands that the council’s page questions above, alongside other reference values and with the reservations quoted there.

Near Hillhouse, the Environment Agency has concluded that two allotment sites meet the criteria to be determined as contaminated land, and the Food Standards Agency and Wyre Council advise against eating eggs from poultry kept within 1 km of the site (sources under the produce answer). Whether residents here are “a defined group” exposed from a known source is a question the council’s page does not address.

The older answers

The 19 answers below are in the council’s order. Two more questions on the council’s page, “How can we find out more about this?” and “Why is further sampling required? If PFOA is found to be above the guideline, is this unsafe?”, are covered under the answers next to them.

What are PFAS?

The council’s page says: PFAS are “durable, oil and water resistant, synthetic chemicals”, “persistent and some are bio-accumulative and mobile in the environment”. It adds: “Only a few hundred PFAS chemicals are or have been in commercial use. Only a small number of these show any evidence of health and environmental risks, but further research is being done globally to establish if other PFAS pose a risk.”

What the record shows: the council is right that PFAS are persistent and that some are bio-accumulative and mobile. The page gives no source for the statement that only a small number show any evidence of risk. The investigation here concerns one named chemical, PFOA, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified as carcinogenic to humans: see the next answer. More in What is PFAS?.

What is PFOA?

The council’s page says: “PFOA is a type of PFAS and is a Persistent Organic Pollutant that has been subject to restricted use under the Stockholm Convention since 2020.”

What the record shows: that is accurate. PFOA, its salts and related compounds have been subject to a general prohibition in UK law since 4 July 2020, with specified exemptions (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/784, retained in UK law).

The council’s answer does not mention that in November 2023 the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified PFOA as “carcinogenic to humans”, its Group 1 (IARC, Monographs Volume 135). The words “IARC” and “carcinogen” do not appear anywhere on the council’s page. IARC gave the basis as “sufficient evidence for cancer in experimental animals” and strong evidence from exposed humans on how PFOA acts in the body, with “limited evidence for cancer in humans”. More in What is PFAS?.

What was the trigger for the investigation?

The council’s page says: the Environment Agency asked AGC about current and historic use of PFAS, and “AGC provided information on emissions to air, land and water, indicating that PFOA - a key chemical which had formed part of its production process - had been released into the environment. AGC provided estimates of emissions dating back to the 1950s, when ICI was in control of the site, up until 2012 when PFOA was phased out.”

What the record shows: this matches the published account. The council’s page does not give the quantities. Figures released under Freedom of Information and reported by the Guardian and Watershed Investigations put AGC’s own estimates, in total from the 1950s to 2012 and including ICI’s years, at 49,100 kg of PFOA to air, 54,300 kg to water and 6,200 kg to landfill (Guardian, 24 September 2024). We have not seen the Environment Agency’s original document; the sourcing is set out in The Numbers.

The answer stops at 2012. It does not mention the chemical used at the site since then, EEA-NH4, and nor does any other part of the council’s page. About 783 kg of EEA-NH4 was discharged to the River Wyre in 2019, the latest published figure we have found, and the site’s permit lists the chemical at the river discharge with “No limit set” (permit EPR/BU5453IY, variation V004, 19 July 2017, Table S3.3; The Numbers).

How are sampling locations selected?

The council’s page says: sampling “would start with areas of land where the deposition of chemicals is considered most likely”, beginning with “public land closest to the site”, and “The investigation strategy has been jointly agreed between the Environment Agency and Wyre Council.”

What the record shows: this is how the phases ran. Phase 1 sampled council-owned land within about 5 km. Phase 2 sampled the gardens of 46 homes within 500 m. Phase 3 extended garden sampling to 1 km, with more properties to the south-east (WSP Phase 3 report, section 2.1; FAQ).

The council says it cannot pick sampling locations at a resident’s request. When asked, Wyre Council replied that “the law we are working under does not allow us to choose sampling locations in response to individual requests, so we are unable to do this. Instead, sampling locations are identified using a scientifically robust, grid-based approach” (FAQ: Can I ask the council to test my garden soil?). Living outside the area sampled does not mean a garden has been tested and found clear (FAQ: I live more than 1 km away).

Is this connected to the issues at Jameson Road Landfill Site?

The council’s page says: “No, this is a separate issue. This investigation has been launched to establish if historic contamination has occurred from the usage of PFOA at the former ICI site, now AGC Chemicals Ltd, at Hillhouse Technology Enterprise Zone.”

What the record shows: the landfill has its own operator and its own permit, so it is regulated separately. In every other respect the published record connects the two: the same chemical, the same companies, and the same river.

  • AGC’s PFOA waste went there. “The Guardian and Watershed Investigations found waste legally dumped at Jameson Road landfill by AGC Chemicals until 2014 contained the potentially carcinogenic ‘forever chemical’ perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which has since been banned. The site also borders a former ICI landfill, which is thought to have received PFOA waste for decades” (Guardian, 2 December 2025).
  • So did its filter cake, which also contained EEA-NH4. A researcher’s index of Environment Agency documents released under the Environmental Information Regulations records: “Filter cake form the Solids Removal Plant have been shown to contain low levels of EEA-NH4 and PFOA. This material is sent to hazardous waste landfill at the Whitemoss Landfill in Skelemeresdale since Feb 2014. Filter cake waste was previously disposed at Jameson Road landfill site, Fleetwood” (index on ToxicDocs; spelling as in the source). We have read the index, not the Agency documents behind it.
  • ICI used the area for effluent. The landfill’s operator, Transwaste, told the Guardian “the area had been used as settlement lagoons for the chemicals industry since the 1940s, before being used for landfill”. A person familiar with ICI’s Hillhouse site in the 1970s told the paper: “Effluent from different parts of Hillhouse was disposed of in the ICI landfill” and “There was no lining in the landfill” (same article).
  • Sampling beside the landfills found PFOA. The Guardian reported that “Sampling of water next to both landfills carried out by Watershed suggested the sites are leaching forever chemicals” into the Wyre. Dr David Megson of Manchester Metropolitan University said the results showed “concentrations of PFOA 5-10 times above environmental quality standards”. Transwaste’s response was that the older landfill is capped and its leachate “fully contained”, and that the sample came from a spot regularly covered by the River Wyre, “which is known to already have high levels of PFOA contamination as a legacy of the chemicals industry” (same article).
  • The landfill is outside the investigation. “Though a multi-agency probe into AGC Chemicals found PFOA in nearby soil and warned against eating local produce, the landfill itself remains excluded from investigation” (same article).

The Environment Agency’s public information page on Jameson Road, in the Internet Archive’s copy of 18 January 2026, does not contain the words PFAS, PFOA, ICI, AGC, Hillhouse or leachate. More on our timeline.

(Corrected 13 October 2026: when this page was first published earlier the same day, this answer said “we have nothing to add”. That was wrong. Our own timeline already recorded AGC’s PFOA-containing waste going to Jameson Road.)

Why do you need to carry out several phases of sampling?

The council’s page says: “While a handful of soil samples taken from a parcel of land will identify likely chemical deposition, a lot more samples are needed to confidently conclude on risk posed to the users of that land.”

What the record shows: under “How can we find out more about this?” the council lists drop-in sessions, a newsletter and a mailing list, and it has published news items on its website through 2026, several of them linked on this page. It also says “These information pages will also be updated regularly.” The page was updated by 25 September 2026, when the blood test section was added. The wording of the 21 older answers on this page is the same as in the copy of 15 May 2026 (see About the council’s page).

If PFOA is found in soil samples, does this mean land is contaminated?

The council’s page says: “No. Phase I was purely a snapshot exercise to better understand whether chemicals might have been released from the factory.”

What the record shows: the answer is about Phase 1. It says later phases would provide more evidence and does not say what they found. The Environment Agency has concluded that two sites meet the criteria to be determined as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990: Occupation Road Allotments (Wyre Council, 5 March 2026) and Sandringham Avenue Allotments (Wyre Council, 3 July 2026). Both announcements are on the council’s own website. Neither is mentioned on its FAQ page.

A formal determination is the council’s decision. The council’s updates report the Agency’s conclusions and the legal steps that follow; they do not record a formal determination of either site (Common criticisms: no formal determination).

A blue-grey coloured liquid can be seen leaving the site into the River Wyre - is this PFOA?

The council’s page says: “No. PFOA is not visible in this way. The discharge comes from several companies in the area and drains a large area of land with a long history of manufacturing. We believe it is caused by salts forming due to the mixing of effluents and is not PFOA or PFAS. We hope to be able to update members of the public on this once further analysis is complete.”

What the record shows: the council’s answer gives a belief (“We believe”) and cites no analysis. PFOA cannot be seen, as the council says. For the same reason, the colour of a discharge says nothing either way about whether PFAS is in it. The sentence promising an update “once further analysis is complete” is word for word the same in the Internet Archive’s copy of 15 May 2026, when the page was dated 28 October 2025, and no result has been added.

What is published about discharges from the site is this. About 783 kg of EEA-NH4 went to the River Wyre in 2019 under a permit that sets no limit for it (The Numbers). Independent sampling on 12 February 2023 found PFOA at up to 20,624 nanograms per litre at three points north of the plant, a discharge beside a lagoon, a land drain and a leaking pipe, none of them the main permitted discharge to the River Wyre (Dalmijn et al., 2025). Neither figure is about the blue-grey liquid, and we hold no analysis of it.

What do the sampling results from produce grown at allotments near to the Hillhouse site show?

The council’s page says: at Occupation Road Allotments “all soil samples contained concentrations of PFOA” and “PFOA was confirmed in most of the vegetables”. It says “Based on the limited results we have for produce from Occupation Road, there is the potential for some regular consumers of large proportions of vegetables from the allotments to exceed the EFSA Tolerable Weekly Intake (TWI) by up to 3-4 times, increasing to 7-8 times when taking into account background dietary levels.” It ends with the Food Standards Agency’s conclusion that “Modest or occasional consumption is unlikely to result in a significant increase above background exposure.”

What the record shows: these are the council’s own figures. The answer was not updated with what followed. The council announced the closure of Occupation Road Allotments, and the Environment Agency concluded that the site meets the criteria to be determined as contaminated land, based on PFOA found in soil and produce (Wyre Council, 5 March 2026).

The council’s answer says “a proportion of the UK population, as well as people in other countries, already exceed this TWI”, and that the Committee on Toxicity “has identified some reservations with this TWI”. Both sources say more:

  • The European Food Safety Authority set the limit at 4.4 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per week for four PFAS combined, and concluded “that parts of the European population exceed this TWI, which is of concern” (EFSA, 2020, abstract). The words “which is of concern” are not in the council’s answer.
  • The Committee on Toxicity’s wording was “significant reservations”. It also said the study the limit rests on “was the best available”, and that “The exceedances of the TWI at lower bound exposure estimates indicate a potential health concern”, and that “There is considerable uncertainty as to the appropriateness of the derivation of the TWI” (lay summary of Statement 04/22, November 2022, paragraphs 6, 7, 15 and 16; archived copy linked under the US guidance answer).

Why is this taking so long?

The council’s page says: “Currently, the third phase of soil sampling is underway.” And: “The onsite part of the investigation is being conducted by AGC Chemicals Europe Ltd. The first phase of sampling has begun.”

What the record shows: the first sentence is out of date. WSP’s Phase 3 report for the Environment Agency is dated March 2026 and is published on the council’s own website (WSP Phase 3 report). Wyre Council’s letter to residents of 12 August 2026 gave the Phase 3 position and said an interpretive report from the Environment Agency on residential gardens was still awaited (Information and Resources).

On the second sentence: AGC’s own account is more recent than the council’s. AGC says it has “commissioned a specialist third party to conduct the voluntary on-site investigation”, to “sample and test soil, groundwater and surface water” on land it owns. It says Stage 1 is complete, that Stage 2 began in June 2026, and that the details of each stage are agreed with Wyre Council and the Environment Agency (AGC Chemicals Europe, Site Investigation page, accessed 3 September 2026). That page gave no results and did not name the third party (The Numbers).

Will I be able to sell my house?

The council’s page says: “It is important to stress that the investigation exists to consider whether historic contamination has occurred. No contamination has yet been confirmed. There are therefore no restrictions on the sale or purchase of any property as a result of this issue, nor in relation to land searches requested as part of a property sale or purchase.”

What the record shows: the sentence “No contamination has yet been confirmed” is on a page dated 25 September 2026. By then the council had itself reported, on 5 March and 3 July 2026, the Environment Agency’s conclusions that two allotment sites meet the criteria to be determined as contaminated land (links under the answer above). The same sentence is in the Internet Archive’s copy of 15 May 2026.

If the council means that no land has been formally determined as contaminated under Part 2A, that is consistent with its published updates. The answer does not say that.

We have no source on whether sales or searches have been affected in practice, so this page says nothing about that.

Will land developed within the vicinity of the Hillhouse site have been investigated / remediated for PFOA?

The council’s page says: since 2000 “the council has ensured that where the history of a site suggests the potential for contamination, an investigation is undertaken, including remediation of the site where necessary”, but “until recently there has been no reason to consider that PFOA could potentially be present on any land. Therefore, any physical investigation undertaken in support of a planning application will not have included consideration to PFOA.”

What the record shows: on the council’s own account, contamination surveys done for planning applications near the site will not have looked for PFOA. That bears on the criticism that residents should have known from their survey (Common criticisms: your survey).

Is there an acceptable or safe level of PFOA for soil?

The council’s page says: “The results of the Phase I sampling programme simply confirm the presence of PFOA” and “While elevated concentrations are not necessarily a concern, these results do highlight the need for more detailed testing”.

The council’s page also asks “Why is further sampling required? If PFOA is found to be above the guideline, is this unsafe?”, and answers that levels above the screening value “only suggest a potential risk”.

What the record shows: the answers describe Phase 1. The later phases are published. Wyre Council’s letter of 12 August 2026 said that most results from the shallow soils of the 71 gardens sampled in autumn 2025 were below the precautionary screening level for PFOA, and that a small number of properties were placed in a higher risk category (Information and Resources). The screening value WSP applies to residential gardens where vegetables are grown is 7.6 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg), and to allotment soil 1.4 µg/kg. England has no statutory soil limit for PFAS, so these are screening values, not legal limits. At one garden whose results are summarised on this site, 24 of 25 samples were above the garden value. The highest reading in the Phase 3 garden survey was 181 µg/kg (The Numbers; Phase 3 soil results).

The council’s letter did not say how many properties were placed in the higher category, and the Environment Agency’s interpretive report on the gardens was still awaited on that date. “Most results were below” a screening level is a statement about PFOA, in shallow soil, at the gardens that were sampled. It is not a statement about other substances, about deeper soil, or about a garden that was not sampled (points 2 to 4 above; Common criticisms: most gardens).

If I eat or have eaten produce grown at the allotments or in gardens nearby, will this harm my health?

The council’s page says: “people who regularly eat large amounts of vegetables and fruits grown in the allotments or in gardens could be increasing their exposure to PFAS, while occasional or modest intakes are unlikely to greatly affect long-term background intakes.” It gives the Food Standards Agency’s advice to wash and peel.

What the record shows: the council’s page does not include advice the council has itself published since:

  • Eggs. As a precaution, people living “within 1km of the Hillhouse site” are advised not to eat eggs produced at home, and birds kept for egg laying there should not enter the food chain (Food Standards Agency and Wyre Council, 2 February 2026). The word “egg” does not appear on the FAQ page.
  • Raised beds. Consider raised beds with fresh soil for gardens within 1 km (Wyre Council, 5 March 2026).
  • Both allotment sites. The council announced the closure of Occupation Road Allotments, and on 5 March 2026 said Sandringham Avenue Allotments would close on a precautionary basis (same source).

The council’s answer gives washing and peeling as a way to remove soil and dust, which is accurate. The Environment Agency’s conclusion for Occupation Road was based on PFOA found in the produce as well as in the soil. More in the FAQ: food grown or kept nearby.

How do you assess the risk to health from the level of contamination in soil?

The council’s page says: the authorities use “CL:AIRE Interim Category 4 Screening Levels (C4SL)”, and “Exceeding a C4SL does not mean that there is always a health concern or that a site will be legally determined as contaminated land”.

What the record shows: a screening level is a trigger for more investigation, as the council says. It is not a safety limit (point 4 above). The council’s answer does not give the values; it links to the CL:AIRE document that does. The values WSP applied are in the answer above.

Is my drinking water safe?

The council’s page says: the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) “has set guidance levels for PFAS that provide a precautionary margin of safety”, and “Recent testing confirms that PFAS levels at these sites remain below Tier 1 - the lowest threshold set by the Drinking Water Inspectorate - indicating concentrations are under 0.01 micrograms per litre.”

What the record shows: the question is whether the water is safe. The answer is that it is below a guidance tier. Those are different things, for four reasons.

  • Tier 1 is not a safety limit. The DWI’s guidance says: “Currently, there are no standards in the Regulations for PFAS in drinking water in England and Wales.” Its tiers are guidance: Tier 1 is below 0.01 micrograms per litre (10 nanograms per litre), Tier 2 below 0.1 and Tier 3 at 0.1 or above. In Tier 1 a water company keeps monitoring, at least once a year. The DWI says of its 0.1 guideline that it “considers it reasonably practicable to achieve”. In the DWI documents we read we found no statement of how the 0.01 figure was chosen (DWI guidance, March 2025, paragraphs 2.6 and 2.9 and Table 1; DWI PFAS page).
  • Other limits are lower. In the United States the enforceable limit for PFOA, and for PFOS, is “4.0 parts per trillion”, which is 4 nanograms per litre (US EPA). “Below Tier 1” means below 10. The Royal Society of Chemistry has called for the UK’s cap of 100 nanograms per litre for each PFAS to be cut to 10 (RSC, October 2023).
  • The tiers do not cover EEA-NH4. The DWI’s tiers apply to 48 named PFAS and their sum. EEA-NH4, the chemical used at Hillhouse since 2012 (CAS number 908020-52-0), has a code in the DWI’s parameter list, F285, and is marked “No” in the column “PFAS guidance parameter”. It is not one of the 48 and is not counted in the sum (DWI Annex C parameter list, February 2025 spreadsheet, the only version on the DWI’s page on 13 October 2026). So “PFAS levels at these sites remain below Tier 1” does not tell a resident anything about EEA-NH4. We have found no published tap-water result for it in the Sandringham Avenue report, the three soil reports or the surface-water summary.
  • No results are given. The council’s answer cites no dates, sampling points or figures for the testing it refers to. The one published figure we have found is in a report for the Environment Agency, which says United Utilities’ data for the Thornton area for 2023 to 2025 “reported a lower bound PFOA concentration of 0.002 μg/l”, which is 2 nanograms per litre (WSP, Sandringham Avenue interpretative report, June 2026, section 5.3.2.1). That is a summary figure for PFOA used in an exposure estimate. The report does not give the individual results.

The phrase “provide a precautionary margin of safety” in the council’s answer is the DWI’s own wording, from its website. More in the FAQ: tap water.

What is human biomonitoring?

The council’s page says: “PFAS biomonitoring is not currently recommended through the NHS or private blood tests. At this time, such tests are unlikely to provide clear information for individuals and can sometimes create unnecessary worry.”

What the record shows: this repeats the position in the blood test section. See Should residents arrange a PFAS blood test?.

Is there any public health risk?

The council’s page says: “At present it is not clear what, if any, public health risk there may be around the site.” Residents should “continue to enjoy using your garden space as you normally would”, wash hands, and wash and peel produce.

What the record shows: “continue to enjoy using your garden space as you normally would” is the wording of the council’s letter to residents of July 2024, and the council’s letter of 12 August 2026 relayed the same general advice from UKHSA: gardens can be used as normal, with hands washed after contact with soil (Information and Resources). The council’s page files this answer under “Advice from the UK Health Security Agency”. UKHSA is a member of the Health Cell whose statement opens the page, so this is the same body’s position repeated, not a separate confirmation (point 5 above). What the answer does not include is the advice added since: not to eat eggs from poultry within 1 km, to consider raised beds with fresh soil within 1 km, and the announced closure of two allotment sites (sources under the produce answer).

Will samples be taken outside of the Hillhouse site?

The council’s page says: “Sampling locations outside of the Hillhouse site have been determined by the Environment Agency. The intention is for this sampling to take place in a phased manner”.

What the record shows: the answer is written in the future tense, under a heading “Phase 1”. Three phases of sampling outside the site have since been carried out and reported (The Numbers).

Sources

  • Wyre Council, “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)”, Hillhouse Technology Enterprise Zone pages, “Page last updated: 25 September 2026”. Read 13 October 2026. Internet Archive copies of 15 May 2026 and 26 September 2026, linked under About the council’s page.
  • Wyre Council news items of 2 February 2026 (eggs), 5 March 2026 (Occupation Road and Sandringham Avenue allotments, raised beds) and 3 July 2026 (Sandringham Avenue), linked in the answers above.
  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Guidance on PFAS Exposure, Testing, and Clinical Follow-Up, 2022, Recommendations 5-2, 5-3, 6-2 and 6-3 and chapters 1, 5 and 6. Read in the publisher’s online reader.
  • Steenland K, Tinker S, Frisbee S, Ducatman A, Vaccarino V, “Association of perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate with serum lipids among adults living near a chemical plant”, American Journal of Epidemiology 2009; 170(10): 1268-1278. Abstract only; we did not read the full paper.
  • C8 Science Panel, “Probable Link Evaluation for heart disease (including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, coronary artery disease)”, 29 October 2012. Read from the Internet Archive’s copy.
  • UK Health Security Agency, “The health impacts from industrial sources of PFAS: a rapid review”, published 22 September 2026.
  • Government of Jersey, Independent PFAS Scientific Advisory Panel, Report 3, “Testing, biomonitoring and management of PFAS in the human body”, May 2025 (revised October 2025).
  • Committee on Toxicity, lay summary of Statement 04/22 (November 2022) and interim position paper on PFAS (June 2023). Read from Internet Archive copies; the full 2022 statement was not read.
  • European Food Safety Authority, “Risk to human health related to the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances in food”, EFSA Journal 2020; 18(9): 6223.
  • International Agency for Research on Cancer, Monographs Volume 135 (evaluation of November 2023; volume published 2025).
  • WSP, Phase 3 Residential Soils Investigation, March 2026, and Sandringham Avenue interpretative report, June 2026, both for the Environment Agency and published by Wyre Council.
  • Dalmijn et al., Environmental Science & Technology, 2025.
  • AGC Chemicals Europe, Site Investigation page, accessed 3 September 2026.
  • Guardian and Watershed Investigations, 24 September 2024.

Published 13 October 2026; corrected and revised the same day (see the changelog). The council’s page will be re-read when it changes, and this page updated with the date.