Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


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.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 22 May 2003