Memorandum submitted by David Levy (X5)
1. A nationwide problem has emerged since
the closure of the landfill sites and with no government provision
for the disposal of hazardous waste via alternative technologies,
it has allowed existing co-incinerating companies to step in with
the so called answer.
2. The British Cement Association has pressured
the Government to apply a lighter hand in regulation so that they
can swallow the mountains of waste in their cement kilns. This
has materialized in hazardous wastes being reclassified as recovered
fuel and therefore the strict standards applied to the hazardous
waste incinerator are by-passed in the cement kilns.
3. This has meant three laws are being ignored
by the delivering policy agency (Environment Agency).
(a) The Health and Safety Act requires that
the company provide a hazard analysis and risk assessment of the
hazardous waste, recycled liquid fuel (RLF).This has not happened.
(b) There has been no cement company that
I know of, that has provided in their applications to burn these
hazardous wastes, a full and detailed BAT assessment. This is
a failure to provide the minimization that is part of the EPA
1990. To put it in easy language if the company are paid £millions
for waste disposal even if it is reclassified as fuel, they have
the finance to deliver filters and abatement equipment now.
(c) The Precautionary Principle enshrined
in European Law has been avoided by our protecting agencies. It
is only a matter of time before the Agency is challenged in law
for failing to provide any of these aspects of protection.
4. Alongside of these failures are the Health
and Environmental Impact Assessments which were also protective
measures set for this industry, these are also ignored and will
be challenged in law by our community groups. We have no choice
when the Agency fail to act in our interest, and if fact see their
role primarily, as facilitating industry.
5. I would remind the Committee that in
the Select Committee Report on The Impact of Cement Manufacture
on the Environment (1996), health studies were recommended prior
to any trials of novel fuels. To date not one has been done.
6. The issue of BPEO for the disposal of
RLF has not been tested in law. The Agency would wish for this
not to be an issue but the disposal route to Hazardous Waste Incinerators
is a proven environmental benefit, therefore this should be challenged.
7. The financial implications of the company
being paid to dispose of the RLF, tyres and other hazardous wastes,
brings into legal focus the point of whether this is disposal
or these are fuels. If the latter, why do we gain no revenue from
the sale of the fuel? If the former, why are the emission standards
for hazardous wastes not applied? Also this would stop the trans
frontier shipments as hazardous wastes are banned, whereas recovered
fuels are not.
8. This appears as if the company is having
its cake and eating it too.
9. I represent a community group of 524
residents who have requested the fitting of filters to the Lafarge
Cement Company of Westbury, when the company were first given
permission to burn 4,000,000 tyres a year. We got excuses and
timetables, but not one extra filter. Now the company are to burn
every hazardous waste and are to trial RLF. Again not one extra
filter is being proposed. Would you allow a chemical company trial
on peoples health without ample evidence based on science and
testing? Yet here in Westbury we are to be the guinea pigs to
this chemical cocktailing of tyres and RLF in the air that we
breathe. We are particularly concerned about ultra fine particulates
piggy backing heavy metals and dioxin like materials into our
environment.
10. Contrary to the statement made by the
Agency that the burning of tyres was an environmental benefit,
the increases in the substances such as lead , mercury, 1.3 butadiene,
styrene and phosgene appear to us as being a net detriment to
the environment. Can your committee review the data off the Agency
website if you can find it, as it proves increases, not decreases
and that needs explaining?
11. Why has the Agency arbitrarily increased
reportable thresholds for lead, 1.3 butadiene, benzo-styrene to
name a few. This goes against minimization and when the trial
of RLF is being reviewed and assessed then increases in these
substances will not be part of the overall results. Another example
of a rigged trial and the obfuscation of the facts, where the
public have been shafted with a policy that will impact on our
future health when nobody will be accountable.
David R Levy
Chair—The Air That We Breathe Group
NGO—Wiltshire Waste Forum
Advisor—The Centre for Environmental Protection
5 October 2004
| 
