Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2003
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MS
SUE ELLIS
AND MR
BRIAN WADSWORTH
Q140 Chairman: All would be incinerated?
Mr Morley: That is my understanding.
Is that right? If I am wrong on that, I will inform the Committee.
Q141 Chairman: Do you want to listen
to the helpful advice stage right?
Mr Morley: (After taking instructions)
It may be the case some may go to landfill. There is a licensed
landfill on the site to deal with that kind of material.
Q142 Chairman: Friends of the Earth
say that no estimate has been carried out into how much of the
700 tonnes of PCBs will be released from the landfill and over
what period. This is a central part of the expression of concern
they put in their evidence to the Committee. Can you satisfy them
that this material, and any others they would deem hazardous in
the ships, are going to be properly and safely dealt with so they
are not released to atmosphere or potential harm to human beings
in Hartlepool?
Mr Morley: I can certainly assure
you and the Committee it will be dealt with properly and safely
because that is part of the waste licence conditions which Able
operate under and have been operating for over 30 years in relation
to the dismantling of offshore rigs, and I would be very surprised
to know if they did not have cabling of this type. They do have
a licensed landfill for hazardous material, it is covered by regulation
which they will have to abide by and is regulated by the Environment
Agency. I cannot give you an exact split of what would be incinerated
and what would not, but I am sure I can try and find that information
out for you, Chairman.
Q143 Chairman: Just to conclude on
this section on PCBs, I note from the Friends of the Earth that
one of the four vessels which was going to be in the initial batch
of four, one called Canopus, a smaller vessel than the other three
in the initial batch, has it is stated by Friends of the Earth
286 tonnes of this material on it which, compared with the other
ships which range from 34.1 to 47.3, does suggest there is something
different about this ship. It may well be it has more wires in
it.
Mr Morley: That is precisely right,
Chairman. This ship was used in various forms of electronic surveillance
and contains a great deal of wiring. That is the simple explanation,
Chairman.
Q144 Chairman: That is the simple
explanation and, again, all of that is going to be incinerated.
Mr Morley: My understanding is
that the bulk of it will be incinerated but we can give you an
idea of the split on that.
Q145 Chairman: So, given the concern
on this, would you say that the stance that they have taken on
this particular issue about the disposal of the so-called dangerous
substances in the ship has been exaggerated, is realistic, or
what?
Mr Morley: My belief is certainly
the way it has been reported, and of course I cannot comment as
to who is responsible for that, has been grossly exaggerated in
terms of the potential risk certainly to the people of Hartlepool.
It is perfectly legitimate to raise questions about the disposal
of waste, how it is done, the potential risk. Those are legitimate
questions for any organisation to raise, but if you present it
in a way which does not stand up to examination by experts, and
there are many environmental experts in this country, environmental
journalists, environmental organisations who would question some
of the claims that have been made, then of course there is a danger
to the credibility of any organisation that makes them.
Q146 Diana Organ: Lastly from me,
because I had asked both the Environment Agency and Peter Mandelson
about this question about the additional costs and cost of having
the ships here. What would you expect to be the costs that might
accrue to you, the Environment Agency and to Able UK, in storing
the vessels in the Tees over the winter? Have you had any discussions
or representations with the US administration about who is going
to pick up the bill?
Mr Morley: The matter in relation
to storage of the ships is between MARAD, who I understand currently
retain ownership of the ships, and Able. There will be no costs
that will fall on Defra, the Environment Agency or, indeed, anyone
else as far as I am aware. Of course there are costs to Defra
in relation to the time that we spend in dealing with some of
these issues but that is a marginal cost. I think there are some
costs to the Environment Agency but they can recover them, can
they not?
Ms Ellis: Yes. The Environment
Agency explained earlier that any costs in relation to inspection
would be covered by the normal subsistence charges.
Q147 Alan Simpson: Minister, I thought
I was with you getting to a point of clarity until you then went
on to add that some of the waste may be consigned to landfill.
The reason I thought I was with you was because distinctions have
been made during this session between waste that is being shipped
to the north-east for recovery and the recovery of waste as opposed
to waste disposal.
Mr Morley: Yes.
Q148 Alan Simpson: It took me into
complete confusion when you talked about the use of landfill in
the same context as recovery because I then ceased to understand
how it differs from disposal. If you are trying to make that case
to the Committee, I think it is incumbent on Defra to set out
the scientific evidence that places incineration, first of all,
as recovery and landfill as recovery, because intellectually I
am out of my depth on this.
Mr Morley: I will bring Sue in
on this. The ships are coming to this country and are going to
this yard for recovery. 98% of these ships will be reusable metal,
98%. It is inevitable as part of the recovery process in any ship,
not just these but in any ship, that there will be some hazardous
materials that will have to be safely handled and safely disposed
of as part of the recovery process.
Ms Ellis: As the Minister has
just explained, although this is a recovery process, and deemed
as such because 98% of the materials will be recovered and recycled,
there are inevitably residues that have to be disposed of. There
is a hazardous waste landfill site already owned by Able UK on
part of the site and that is the destination of the asbestos.
I have just been advised that on the PCBs, PCBs are permitted
to be landfilled if they are below a certain threshold level,
so materials containing PCBs may have very light contamination
by PCBs. That is below 50 PPM, if that means anything to any scientists.
Q149 Chairman: Parts per million.
Ms Ellis: They are permitted to
go to landfill and, indeed, that is what will happen to the low
level PCB waste. PCB waste that is above that level, which is
the minority of the PCBs that will be coming out of the ships,
will have to be incinerated as hazardous waste.
Q150 Joan Ruddock: I am just trying
to get some clarity, as Alan Simpson was doing. Are we now agreed
that the quantity is 700 tonnes and that that is in the whole
fleet and, therefore, it is consistent with what Friends of the
Earth have been saying? We would all agree, I am sure the Minister
would agree, that PCBs are hazardous and the difference of opinion
is about the extent to which those hazards would impact or not
on the people of Hartlepool. I think it is important that we understand
where criticisms are made about press treatment and where there
is fact. The facts seem to concur that these are hazardous materials
and we need to acknowledge that.
Mr Morley: The fact is it is actually
698 but I do not want to quibble about 700. Indeed, these materials
are classed as hazardous waste but I come back to the point that
these are cables and wiring found in all ships up to the 1970s.
Like a lot of waste, including asbestos, if it is not disturbed
then the risks from it are very low. I do not know whether the
Committee has seen a map of the actual site but it is worth looking
at because it is very well placed and it is unusual in having
a licensed landfill site on site, so there is no need to move
waste around the area, which is an advantage, and also an advantage
to the people of Hartlepool of course, that it is all contained
on the actual site. In the dismantling of any ship or recovery
from cars or electrical materials there is always some hazardous
waste, whatever it is. It is a question of making sure that the
dismantling is done in proper conditions, with proper standards
to minimise risk. Certainly I believe that is the case on this
particular site.
Q151 Mr Mitchell: We have had a letter
from Caroline Lucas, who is a Green Euro MP, and the letter is
here. She says she warned your department on 9 October in a letter
marked "Urgent. Complaint against the UK for breach of EC
environment legislation". That is a very dire problem. She
warns that you are in defiance of Article 19.3 of Council Regulation
EC 259/93, which of course you will be familiar with. Why did
you not act immediately?
Mr Morley: First of all, you will
note from the date that that letter arrived after the ships had
set sail. That is point one. Point two, there were a number of
aspects in that letter that I think the Agency would have disputed
at that time. Point three, we do take correspondence seriously
in relation to points that have been raised. It raises some technical
issues on some quite complex European Directives and we would
naturally want to examine those and look at them. We will of course
ensure that there is a full and proper response to the points
that were raised by Caroline Lucas.
Q152 Mr Mitchell: I am sure she will
be glad to hear that. What dialogue have you had, has your department
had, with the American authorities, either governmental or institutional?
Mr Morley: My department has talked
to MARAD and we have also talked to American Secretaries of State
who have responsibility in this area.
Q153 Mr Mitchell: Have you asked
why they did not take the Environment Agency's warnings seriously
at that time?
Mr Morley: Yes, we did. If I can
just remind the Committee of the exact wording, it says in the
letter that was sent by the Environment Agency to MARAD on 3 October,
"You will be aware of your contractual obligation to take
the waste back if the shipment is not completed as planned. In
the light of these developments", these were some of the
doubts that were arising, "and the absence of an appraisal
of alternative approaches you may wish to consider the timing
of the departure of the vessels to the UK". I think part
of the problem is that is very polite, politely worded, to me
there is a real problem here and I think you should just hold
up sending in ships until we can look at it. Now that is not the
way it was interpreted by MARAD, and I think part of that is two
countries divided by a common language.
Q154 Mr Mitchell: Or rather they
do not know how our Civil Service operates or the language it
speaks.
Mr Morley: All I can say to you
is that there was a difference of interpretation between MARAD
and how I would have interpreted that if it had landed on my desk.
Q155 Mr Mitchell: Have you been in
touch with the American authorities in any way to ask about whether
they will take them back?
Mr Morley: Yes, we have and there
is no argument about this, the obligation under international
law rests on MARAD to take them back unless there is a legal and
environmentally sound alternative.
Q156 Mr Mitchell: Do they accept
that? If I was them, I would be laughing saying, "You're
stuck with them."
Mr Morley: No, no. They comply
with the OECD regulations and there is no argument about that
and they do accept it.
Q157 Mr Mitchell: It would be a great
step forward for British business if you did send them back, would
it not? It is a great incentive to send other vessels back.
Mr Morley: I would want to see
the best environmental solution to this situation and I think
that part of that rests on the outcome of the court case.
Q158 Mr Mitchell: Have you thought
of the German solution—take them to Scapa Flow and scuttle
them?
Mr Morley: I do not think I can
comment on that, Chairman. I think that would break all sorts
of EU regulations and a few of our own!
Q159 Mr Lepper: Will the Minister
ensure a copy of the response from the Department to Dr Lucas
is circulated to members of this Committee?
Mr Morley: In principle, I do
not see why not.
| 
