Open Questions
Every investigation on this site ends the same way: with a question put to the body that holds the answer. This page gathers those questions in one place, names who each one is for, and records where it stands. We are submitting them formally, and we will publish whatever comes back, in full, beside the question it answers.
What the status means
- Preparing — the question is set out in our reporting and we are preparing to put it formally to the body named.
- Asked (date) — the question has been put to the body; where we set a reply-by date, we show it.
- Answered — a reply has been received; we link it and, where needed, respond to it.
- No response — the reply-by date passed with no substantive answer.
Most of the questions below are being prepared for formal submission. The first is already out: on 15 July 2026 we put our fire and closure-accounts findings to AGC Chemicals Europe for comment and correction, with a reply requested by 28 July 2026.
Nothing here is an accusation. These are requests for information and for comment, of the ordinary kind any public body should expect. The record simply shows which have been asked, which answered, and which not.
Environment Agency
| Question | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Publish the AQMAU-C2478-RP02 air-dispersion model in full, with the wind data, stack height and emission figures behind it, and the basis for the 1km advisory zone and for where Phase 3 soil testing was concentrated. | FOI | Preparing |
| Release the underlying Phase 2/3 residential soil dataset and the map coordinates of every soil sample. | FOI / Data | Preparing |
| A second PFOA soil peak sits to the west-north-west, in a sector pre-classed “low deposition” and sampled at a quarter the density of the south-east. Reconcile that classification with the measured peak, and confirm whether that sector will now be sampled and residential-tested as thoroughly. | Comment | Preparing |
| For the non-PFOA PFAS compounds found in Phase 3 residential soils, has the source been investigated, and can that analysis be shared? | Data | Preparing |
| What is the source of the PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS found in eggs near the site, none of which has a documented link to AGC’s permitted operations? | Data | Preparing |
| Is there a route for a resident to have their own garden soil tested, and what criteria selected the 71 properties already tested? | Data | Preparing |
| How do AGC’s IED permit and Thornton Facilities Management’s discharge consents interact, was the split of permit-holders deliberate, and does it leave any gap in PFAS accountability at the point of discharge? | FOI | Preparing |
| Why has discharge consent 017290384 (Royles Brook) remained unchanged since 21 January 1999, with no PFAS monitoring requirement added? | FOI | Preparing |
| For Hillhouse, give the dates of PFAS detection, council notification and public disclosure, and the reason for any gap between them. | FOI | Preparing |
| Why has no public warning sign been placed at the River Wyre discharge points, given the measured PFOA and EEA-NH4 levels, when allotments were closed precautionarily on far less? | Comment | Preparing |
Wyre Council
| Question | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|
| From which boundary, and from what point on it, is the 1km advisory zone measured, and will a map of it now be published with the methodology and scientific basis? | Data / FOI | Preparing |
| Which authority owns responsibility for defining the 1km advisory zone, the Council or the Environment Agency? | Comment | Preparing |
| Which body decided to decline blood testing for residents, was a clinical risk assessment carried out first, and was the Council Leader consulted on the FOI response that set this out? | FOI | Preparing |
| What specifically makes biomonitoring “not appropriate” at a site where land has already met Part 2A contaminated-land criteria for PFOA in produce? | Comment | Preparing |
| On what basis were 7 of the 71 tested properties designated “high risk,” and how many properties exceeded the Dutch PFOA benchmark or the Occupation Road allotments threshold? | Data | Preparing |
| What criteria would a residential property near Hillhouse need to meet for a formal Part 2A designation? | Comment | Preparing |
| Will the Council use its Town and Country Planning Act powers for new applications near the site, and has it taken legal advice on PFAS planning conditions? | Comment | Preparing |
| Why has the investigation scope been limited to historic atmospheric deposition from a single point, when the permit lists 15 air-emission points and the site also discharges to the River Wyre? | Comment | Preparing |
Lancashire County Council / Multi-Agency Health Cell
| Question | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Release the full figures behind the kidney-cancer assessment, case counts, expected counts, SIRs and confidence intervals by small area, so the “no further investigation” conclusion can be independently reviewed. | Data / FOI | Preparing |
| Your public statement omits the report’s own observed and expected counts, its SIRs (218 and 181), its confidence intervals and its “statistically significant” designation of two areas. Why were these left out, and do you accept that characterisation? | Comment | Preparing |
| Your statement says the environmental data was used “for contextual comparison only and not to assess causation,” yet also states “no indication of a link.” Will you acknowledge no causation assessment was done, and now commission one? | Comment | Preparing |
| Was the distance test cross-checked against the Environment Agency’s directional soil findings, given the contamination runs by direction rather than radius and one peak aligns with the significant excess? | Comment | Preparing |
| Given cancer latency, and that registration records the address at diagnosis rather than at exposure, what confidence attaches to a “no gradient” finding? | Comment | Preparing |
| Was the local rate compared only against neighbouring areas that may share the same exposure, rather than against the England rate, and could that mask a real excess? | Comment | Preparing |
| Has any assessment been made of PFOA’s non-cancer harms against local health data, and if so where is it published? | Data | Preparing |
| Will blood testing be commissioned for residents, applying the reference values already used at Bentham and by the Jersey panel? | Data | Preparing |
UK Health Security Agency
| Question | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|
| What guidance did UKHSA provide that informed the Council’s position declining blood testing? | Data | Preparing |
| Did UKHSA, the Food Standards Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate receive the Environment Agency’s 2022 PFAS data for these sites, and what did each do with it? | FOI | Preparing |
AGC Chemicals Europe
| Question | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|
| What burned in the October 2024 fire, what was released, and was the surrounding air monitored during the fire and its three-month aftermath? | Data | Asked 15 Jul, due 28 Jul |
| Why was the public not informed of a three-month fire at a major-hazard chemical plant on a residential boundary? | Right of reply | Asked 15 Jul, due 28 Jul |
| Does AGC dispute any figure, quote or characterisation in our analysis of its closure, given every figure is drawn from AGC’s own audited accounts? | Right of reply | Asked 15 Jul, due 28 Jul |
WSP (the Environment Agency’s contractor)
| Question | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|
| The “About the Authors” page is fully redacted, yet the PDF metadata names an author. Confirm the lead author and explain why the page was redacted. | Comment | Preparing |
| Was one panel of the report’s key soil chart generated by an AI tool, and if so what checks were run against the source data before publication? | Data | Preparing |
| What were the actual PFAS concentrations in the 13 field-blank samples that exceeded the lab detection limit, and how were they judged “not significant”? | Data | Preparing |
| The report says the wider inspection covers “other linkages of concern,” including risk to the water environment, but never elaborates. Specify what they are and where and by whom they are being assessed. | Data | Preparing |
Other bodies
| Question | Type | For |
|---|---|---|
| Was the October 2024 fire reported to the HSE and the Environment Agency as major-hazard rules require? | FOI | Health and Safety Executive |
| Was the Food Standards Agency notified of the egg-testing findings, and what action did it take? | FOI | Food Standards Agency |
This page is updated as questions are submitted and as answers arrive. If you are one of the bodies named here and believe a question is inaccurate or already answered, tell us and we will correct the record.