Memorandum submitted by TEG Environmental
The focus of our evidence is on those areas
which will frustrate the achievement of the Government's objectives
and the requirements of EU Directives. These areas are education,
planning, financial stimuli and the Environment Agency.
We comment using as reference the Strategy Unit's
document "Waste Not, Want Not" (WNWN) produced in November
2002, but firstly we would refer to the previous recommendation
of your Committee following its review of "Waste Strategy
2000". It was recommended in March 2001 that Landfill Tax
be increased to £25 per tonne within five years ie by 2006,
coupled with the introduction of an incineration tax also at £25
per tonne. The proposals in the pre-budget statement in November
2002 by the Chancellor are inadequate and will not, in the time
required, achieve the objective to divert waste from landfill.
EDUCATION
Your Committee's March 2001 report highlighted
the need for education and commented on the lack of awareness
and responsibility for waste. This concern is also reflected in
the Strategy Unit's WNWN document but as your Committee has previously
pointed out education requires funding. Unfortunately ignorance
of waste, best practical environmental options, costs and responsibility
is virtually an endemic condition. It applies to a majority of
parish, district and county councillors as well as householders.
It is a quite natural reaction that people will
instinctively object to any proposal that a waste treatment facility
of any kind should be located in their neighbourhood. For the
most part householders do not distinguish between types of treatment
before objecting and will often not bother to discover whether
a proposed treatment facility will in fact reduce the level of
pollution to which they are currently exposed and therefore the
risk to human and animal health;—there is a knee jerk reaction
to any proposal to deal with waste. There is no real attempt to
educate.
We have proposed a simple letter to householders
Annex A [not printed]. Some initiative is required at the local
government level to encourage people to think about waste. However,
the majority will not take an interest unless there is the prospect
of them being adversely affected financially.
If local government is to have the whole responsibility
for educating its electorate it will require funding, this funding
should be raised through Council Tax on the polluter pays principle.
It is first necessary to inform those who are to provide the education.
Who are they and who is responsible?
The solution at the local government level can
only be through education backed by financial incentives and penalties.
Decisions on waste treatment should be driven by the discipline
of Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO) supported by the
taxing of the Most Offensive Environmental Options.
PLANNING
It is ignorance which stifles new initiatives
and prevents innovative technologies from being introduced to
tackle the waste problem since many proposals fall at the barrier
of the planning system. It is stated on page 36 of WNWN that "the
planning system has caused long delays in getting permission for
new waste facilities of all kinds." This is the major problem.
Planning Committees and officers often point
to public opposition to a proposal but this reflects the need
for education and a qualified objective review of the alternatives.
Householders need to be continually reminded that it is the safe
treatment of the waste they produce themselves that is the problem
which has to be resolved.
It is a flaw in local government democracy which
inhibits the delivery of waste targets. Council elections every
3 years invariably mean that councillors seeking re-election may
not support a proposal for a waste facility affecting his/her
electorate in the year before seeking re-election. This is also
true of many county councillors. This attitude compounds the problem
of ignorance of the subject of waste. This is short-term politics
and many elected members lack the courage and the will to take
the lead.
In some cases where the applicant for a new
waste treatment facility has succeeded in getting an application
before the committee, however laudable the proposal, it may then
suffer rejection either by the Officers or the Committee on spurious
grounds forcing the applicant to resort to the appeal process.
This is in order that the electorate will not blame "the
planners" for the decision even though they may recognise
it as being necessary. Such appeals sometimes succeed with expenses
against the council and therefore an additional cost to the electorate.
Such costs should be recoverable against the councillors and/or
officers, not from the County coffers. Progress will not be made
unless there is a financial incentive or penalty.
FINANCIAL STIMULI
Council tax should fund education on the waste
issues and awareness of responsibility, BPEO and cost.
Landfill tax should be increased at a faster
rate than proposed in the November pre-budget statement.
A tax on incineration should be introduced to
the same level as Landfill tax.
Both taxes should be recycled to local government
and private initiatives for waste recycling and composting. Introduce
financial responsibility for the costs of successful appeals against
poor or shirked planning decisions on planning officers and/or
planning committee members. It is too easy to avoid issues and
dodge responsibility.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
It is stated in WNWN (at the top of page 36)
that "the Environment Agency has a crucial role as expert
and as regulator."
It is our experience that the EA is not expert
in technology other than landfill and incineration and does not
have the resources to be an effective regulator. The Planning
Authority and the public have every reason to expect that the
EA should be expert and provide active policing but because this
is not the case any initiative in planning for innovative waste
treatment facilities is undermined. The lack of effective policing
also erodes public confidence as there is the perception of exploitation
of waste disposal due to inadequate supervision and the granting
of Waste Management Licence exemptions to unsatisfactory facilities
and processes.
We wholeheartedly agree with the comment of
David Borrow MP (in whose constituency we operate) in relation
to our technology and our difficulties with the EA: "One
would have hoped that there had been someone at middle management
level in the Environment Agency who had the initiative to point
out that this problem was not relevant to enclosed systems"
It is easy to be critical without offering a
solution but we feel strongly that it is important to focus on
the necessary improvement to the management of and communication
within the EA. This can only be tasked by government and it is
an urgent matter.
The evidence we offer is current and illustrates
the points above and is attached in Annex B. It is not unique,
we have examples in other counties.
ABOUT TEG ENVIRONMENTAL
PLC
We are a British company owned by 300 mostly
private shareholders who have invested over £7 million in
our research and development over the past eight years through
the Enterprise Investment Scheme in the development of prototypes,
pilot plants, extensive research and trials for treating organic
wastes until we successfully reached production model stage in
autumn 2000. The invention and the development is entirely British.
We have received no direct grants and we have had no borrowing
other than an initial DTI guarantee scheme bank loan now almost
repaid. Therefore we have been assisted by government incentives
for the development of new technology.
Our process is technically and environmentally
advanced and innovative. We have developed a large industrial
scale, continuous flow, thermophilic composting plant which sanitises
organic wastes virtually eliminating pathogens by treatment to
a higher standard than required anywhere in the world. The process
converts organic wastes through composting the waste streams into
a valuable natural organic fertiliser which carries none of the
characteristics or appearance of the feedstocks that have been
treated. It is a low energy process and we are told will qualify
as a producer of net Carbon Credits. It does not involve agitation
or turning of the waste streams and does not require forced aeration,
it does not therefore produce bio-aerosols. It has a low operating
cost and is very competitive with incineration or any other burning
process. It is appropriate treatment for most organic wastes including
those defined under the new Catering Wastes regulation and many
of the wastes in the EU Animal By-Products Directive for which
compliance is required on 1 May 2003. This is critical to the
food industry economy.
TEG Environmental
January 2003
Annex B
THE EVIDENCE
Case History: The Roger Matthews/Higher
Trevibban Farm Planning Application
BACKGROUND
TEG's experience in Cornwall began with a planning
application near St Austell at a site which the planning officers
had approved as a location and for which TEG had reached agreement
with the owner to purchase. On the day prior to the first public
meeting the site became unavailable and the planning application
was withdrawn. However as a result of this application Cornwall
County Council planning office invited TEG to visit them as they
were impressed with our technology and "did not wish TEG
to walk away from Cornwall" and the quest began for another
site in consultation with the planning office. Several sites were
visited and considered jointly until finally a site near Wadebridge
was identified as suitable owned by a farmer, Roger Matthews.
The applicant/land owner/farmer (our client)
is a successful young man who by hard work and initiative had
already diversified successfully from his farming base and developed
a major contracting and haulage business which operates from the
farm site which is remote (in planning terms) from other residences.
A professional local planning consultant was appointed. The development
would be low profile in the landscape.
It was the intention that the plant would treat
catering waste and wastes from the food industry which is important
to the Cornish economy and that it should be in place in time
to allow those industries to meet the compliance dates of the
forthcoming legislation.
Our company provides (to prospective purchasers
of our plant) site inspections, detailed drawings and technical
information to support the planning and waste management licence
applications. Originally it was anticipated that the planning
application would be lodged in June/July 2002 and determined in
September 2002. However, in August 2002 our client was advised
by the County Planning Office that the waste stream should be
changed from food wastes to sewage sludge because the legislation
which the planning application was to anticipate was not yet on
the statute book and for that reason the application might be
rejected by the County Planning Committee. This advice was followed
and the application changed accordingly. The TEG process also
provides Enhanced treatment (the highest standard) for sewage
sludge and turns it into a useful agricultural organic fertility
building fertiliser with balanced plant nutrients.
The amended planning application was submitted
in September and was put before the Planning Committee in October
2002. A site meeting on 13 November 2002 was attended by the Planning
Officers, Planning Committee members and Chairman, representatives
of the Environment Agency, English Nature, Highways Authority
and the public. TEG provided an exhibit which gave details of
the Silo-Cage plant and described the system and forthcoming legislation
and compliance dates were reviewed.
There were outstanding matters identified for
the planning consultant to deal with and a date was to be set
for a further public meeting with the view that the application
would be determined at the planning meeting scheduled for 22 January
2003.
A third public meeting took place in a village
hall on 7 January 2003 attended by committee members and officers
as before and 140 members of the public. The meeting lasted three
hours and we answered all points raised. The public were against
the proposal mostly because of the perception of the waste stream
to be treated even though it would result in a significant improvement
over current disposal. It was indicated to us and to our client
that the Senior Planning Officer concerned would recommend and
that most members of the committee were positive.
15 January 2003 the Chief Planning Officer's
report recommended refusal. The Senior Planning Officer who had
been concerned throughout had had his recommendation turned over
by the Chief Planning Officer on spurious grounds but linked to
a holding objection from the Environment Agency. The application
could have been accepted on "condition".
The EA officer concerned, who has now become
better informed on the technology, has since stated that she had
not expected nor intended that the holding objection should be
a reason for refusal.
The applicant then decided to seek a deferral
to avoid having the application refused and then leaving the recourse
to appeal. It had been noted that it was local experience that
Planning Officers and sometimes committees refuse applications
on spurious grounds to provoke appeals so that the blame (locally)
for decisions falls on the Minister's inspectors. This apparently
had been the case with two recent applications in Cornwall where
the appeals had been granted with costs against the county.
It had been indicated to the applicant that
the deferral application would be accepted but on Monday 20 January
our client received a letter from the Chief Planning Officer refusing
to accept the proposal for a deferral for two months principally
in order that the EA could be better informed.
A key problem area is the poor communication
within the Environment Agency. We have been in contact with the
Environment Agency from the outset and informing executives and
officers at all levels for 18 months and continue to do so. See
Annex C copy letters from Dr Alan Heyworth and Dr Bob Harris of
the independent consultants Airborne Environmental Consultants.
There is also apparently a desire within the
County Planning for a large incineration plant at St Austell.
On Tuesday 21 January our client and his General
Manager between them personally phoned all 22 members of the County
Council committee with apparently a sympathetic hearing.
On 22 January the request for a deferral was
refused.
We have now recommended that our client should
re-submit his application reverting in the proposal that the composting
facility would treat the catering and food waste streams originally
targeted. As the compliance dates for the new legislation will
be in force and the important local food industry is seeking effective
and economical treatment for their waste it is hoped that this
further revision to the application will succeed. The delay and
variations to the application has obviously cost our client a
considerable amount of money and will have caused unnecessary
cost to local industry and delayed the achievement of recycling/composting
objectives without real justification.
Annex C
Correspondence from Dr Alan Heyworth and
Dr Bob Harris of the independent consultants Airborne Environmental
Consultants to the Environment Agency
Ref : Bio-aerosol and dust monitoring
results—Teg Environmental composting facility, Sherdley
Farm, Preston
Further to your recent discussions with Alan
Heyworth of Teg Environmental, I am writing to attempt to clarify
the position with regard to the monitoring undertaken and to establish
your thoughts and requirements in order to move forward with the
composting project.
My company was retained by Teg to undertake
air monitoring for total inhalable dust and bio-aerosols at the
Sherdley Farm facility, the results of which were given in our
report Ref: A3977. I understand that a full copy of this report
was forwarded to you for your perusal.
The report basically states that the process,
which is an enclosed process which is, in turn, located within
a building, releases low levels of dust and aerosol within the
building and that any release from the building equates to background
levels almost immediately. This process differs radically from
the standard composting method which involves open-air production
of the compost and which can release higher concentrations of
dust and bio-aerosols into the air.
Teg have asked me to contact you in an attempt
to clarify what they need to do to satisfy yourselves that this
process will not present a significant impact on the environment
at other future sites as they have not been able to establish
this through discussions with the Agency to date.
Following early discussions with yourselves,
the need for a "site specific assessment" of dust/bio-aerosol
impact was raised by the Agency. This was addressed by the commission
of the AEC report in April 2002. Despite this, I understand that
you still require a "site specific assessment" for proposed
sites in the south west of England.
As you are aware, with composting operations
it is a pre-requisite that Environment Agency approval be sought
by the local planning authority. It is therefore crucial that
Teg and ourselves fully understand the Environment Agency's position
on this matter so that we can take whatever steps are necessary
to enable the project to continue. I would therefore be grateful
if you could clarify the following points.
Firstly, I would be interested to know exactly
what additional information you envisage a site specific survey
of the proposed process sites will reveal. This, in the absence
of any composting process at the sites, will only give the existing
levels of dust and bio-aerosol at the time of monitoring. This,
as I am sure you are aware, is a significant variable and dependant
not just on environmental factors, but on localised activities.
This will not give any additional information on the impact of
the process on the localised environment. Surely, the only way
to assess the impact of the process on a site, without building
and operating the process first, is to extrapolate the information
available from Sherdley Farm to any future proposed developments.
Secondly, if I have misunderstood your point
with regard to the site specific assessments, or if the information
from the Sherdley Farm project is insufficient for your needs,
please could you advise us in detail as to what you would require
in such an assessment and what you would expect to see to demonstrate
that the process is operating within acceptable limits.
I am sure you realise that the ongoing uncertainty
is having a severe impact on our client who has invested a significant
amount of time, effort and financial resource into this project.
The pressure on our client will increase until such time that
planning approval can be obtained and, at the moment, the granting
of permission has stalled at the point where it is dependant upon
satisfying the Environment Agency's criteria of acceptability.
While we are in a position where the Environment Agency has not
made absolutely clear what it expects as an acceptable standard
we cannot proceed further in this matter.
Please feel free to contact me if I can be of
any assistance in resolving this matter. In the interim I look
forward to receiving your reply as a matter of urgency.
TREVIBBAN FARM
DUST AND
BIO-AEROSOLS
Note: references to dust include bio-aerosols
There seems to be considerable confusion and
misapprehension within the Environment Agency, at least at local
level, as to the purpose and logic of a site-specific risk assessment,
particularly in regard to the proposed TEG compost production
plant at Trevibban Farm.
We have made no progress in our dealings with
the E.A. over this matter, despite several attempts to explain
the position, which appears to me to be quite clear. We have simply
had repeated requests for a site-specific risk assessment.
I will reiterate the most salient points.
1. Compost can be produced by various methods.
Some of these, eg open-air windrows, can produce large quantities
of dust and bio-aerosols: others, where the process is carried
out in enclosed chambers or silos, without agitation, and is housed
in a building, release extremely small quantities.
The A.E.A. Technology study, which gave rise
to the 250m separation figure, was based on measurements taken
from open-air windrows. The author of the report (Dr. Pat Wheeler)
has made it quite clear that enclosed systems should not be subject
to this limit.
2. The fact that an operation is described
as "composting" does not imply that it should be subject
to the one specified risk-assessment. An analogy is the generation
of electricity. It would clearly be absurd to insist on a risk-assessment
for flue gases at a hydro-electric plant.
3. We have supplied the results of dust
and bio-aerosol measurements at our Sherdley Farm site, which
shows that there are virtually no emissions. The operations at
Trevibban Farm will use exactly the same system, and there is
no reason whatsoever to imagine that the emissions will be appreciably
different.
4. TEG have carried out numerous measurements
of the emissions at Sherdley Farm. These all show that the concentrations
are undetectable at any distance greater than 15 to 20 m from
the building.
TEG commissioned the independent survey, by
Airborne Environmental Consultants, of levels inside and outside
the building. This again showed that levels at a distance of more
than 15m could not be distinguished from the background concentration.
AEC have considered the various points raised and will contact
you shortly with their response.
I have added the introduction to the A.E.C.
report, which further explains various points. I have, aside from
my work with TEG, had long experience of the monitoring of airborne
particulates, and therefore carried out these measurements prior
to the involvement of A.E.C. as independent consultants. This
work showed that, at distances of 25 to 100m downwind of the site,
at least 90% of the airborne dust did not originate from the composting
operation, consisting of pollen, spores not from composting organisms,
algae, fibres, mineral particles, etc. The remaining 10% included
no constituents which could be definitely identified as originating
from compost, and there was little difference between the upwind
and downwind samples. Very little of this 10% is likely to have
come from the TEG operations. All the evidence is that the TEG
process does not release significant amounts of dust. We cannot
understand why it is so difficult for the E.A.to accept this.
5. It is suggested that the Sherdley Farm
results are not sufficient, and that a site-specific risk-assessment
be carried out. Clearly, this could only be a theoretical study,
to consider the effects of local topography, building orientation,
wind direction and speed, etc. In the case of an open-air windrow
operation, producing large quantities of dust, this would give
useful information as to the pattern of airborne distribution.
In such studies the quantity of dust released from, eg, a flue
or a machine is an input to the model or equation used. In the
case of a TEG plant this figure would be zero (indistinguishable
from background) and the calculations are, therefore, pointless.
6. It is suggested that the greater size
of the plant at Trevibban Farm may result in greater concentrations
of dust, etc. However, the intensity of operation is no greater:
loading and unloading occupies a longer time, but this will not
increase airborne concentrations. The levels are likely to be
less at Trevibban Farm, since the compost produced at Sherdley
Farm is much drier, and therefore dustier than that envisaged
at the former site.
7. Indoor windrowing, does produce high
levels of dust, etc. in the building. This is not the case with
the TEG plant, as confirmed by the A.E.C. measurements. There
is no forced ventilation, air velocities in the building are low,
and the material is damp, and other features of the operation
are designed to prevent the release of dust. There is very little
to escape from the building, and the suggested design is perfectly
adequate. The roof vents are provided to allow the escape of water
vapour: very little dust escapes through them.
I do not believe that the E.A. fully appreciate
the vast difference in the dust levels between an agitated windrow
or similar system and the TEG plant, which was designed specifically
to avoid the problem. Further controls would produce no measurable
effect.
8. The prescribed emission level should
be specified as a condition of the planning permission, the sanction
being that the operation would be shut down if this level were
exceeded, and TEG would be quite content with this. However, the
E.A. are unable to provide such a figure, as they have no data
on what might constitute an acceptable dose for the various airborne
constituents. This also implies that they would be unable to say
whether a predicted value was or was not acceptable.
The only logical criterion would be to say that
the composting operation should not add significantly to the existing
levels of dust, etc., at the specified location. "Existing"
levels would necessarily be those at the time, ie upwind levels,
taken at the same time as downwind levels when the plant was operating,
as otherwise it would not be possible to assess the contribution
of the plant. Average figures for upwind and downwind values taken
at specified intervals, or in specified conditions, could be used.
TEG are confident that the releases are so low
that they would have no difficulty in complying with such a requirement,
imposed as a condition of planning consent.
9. It has been suggested that some purpose
would be served by taking a "snapshot" measurement of
the existing background levels. It is difficult to see what this
purpose would be, other than to be seen to be doing something.
Day-to-day and seasonal variations are so great that worthwhile
results could be obtained only by monitoring over a full year.
The level could range from very low to very high; but the E.A.
have given no indication as to which of these would be seen as
the greater obstacle to a composting operation.
10. A particularly relevant fact is that,
under E.U. and other regulations shortly to be introduced in response
to the problems of B.S.E., foot-and-mouth disease, etc., enclosed
composting systems, such as the TEG plant are approved for the
composting of animal by-products, etc., which can no longer be
disposed of by the traditional methods. Open-air windrowing will
not be allowed for these materials.
This is a clear confirmation that enclosed composting
is seen to pose no threat in regard to airborne release of micro-organisms.
I repeat that TEG will be content to abide by
whatever conditions are imposed as part of the planning consent.
The Environment Agency have registered their objection: I do not
believe that they have given much thought to the problem, and
little weight should be attached to their opinion.
| 
