Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
10 NOVEMBER 2004
MR STEVE
LEE, MR
CHRIS MURPHY
AND MR
ROGER HEWITT
Q20 Mr Mitchell: It would
be nice to hear from somebody apart from the Treasurer, who seems
to do all the talking for the organisation.
Mr Lee: Fly-tipping
is one of my favourite topics. I think the Environment Agency
will tell you, and you will no doubt ask them when they are here
in a few weeks time, hazardous waste fly-tipping does not seem
to have risen dramatically after July 2004. It has always been
there. It is a low, but still important, level with no real change
across the banning co-disposal. Tons of hazardous waste is missing,
and there are some good reasons why hazardous waste might not
be out there in the market at the minute. Some of the stuff that
was consigned as special waste was, frankly, never special in
the first place. It was done on a precautionary basis. It was
cheap. It was a good way of tracking where your waste went to;
it was never special. Some of it has been designed out of people's
processes already. They do not want the added administration costs
of having to manage hazardous waste in the future, so they have
changed from solvent-based paint to water paint. Great stuff!
Some were subject to a clear out. There is no doubt about that.
The regulators report to us a dramatic increase in the amount
of special waste that was consigned before the end of co-disposal
and, not surprisingly, there was a quiet period immediately afterwards.
Some people are holding their breath. Some people are stock-piling
special waste, hoping that some solution will come out of the
woodwork. There are all sorts of reasons why the downturn in the
market could be anticipated and explained away. Our concern is
does that explain away all of the difference that we are seeing
in the hazardous waste market? There is a concern that people
are misdescribing waste, or illegally treating it, or illegally
mixing it with non-hazardous waste, and that is where we need
confirmation back from the regulator. We need them to tell us
whether the missing tons are there for good reasons or illegal
reasons, and you will want to explore that with them.
Q21 Joan Ruddock: I was
going to ask a number of questions which Steve Lee has just about
answered already, I think, in what he has been saying. Just on
the issue of the Environment Agency, clearly Mr Hewitt said that
they should have more resources and thought that they could do
more, and all the rest of it, but what are they currently doing?
You say that they were late in the game, but what are they currently
doing? Have there been prosecutions? Are you aware of real actions
by the Environment Agency in respect of that which has disappeared
going, presumably, into landfill hazardous waste?
Mr Lee: I think
I can confirm that if they had found something that was of great
concern to them and they were considering prosecution or other
enforcement actions, they would not tell me. In a classic way
they would have to keep that to themselves. What I am satisfied
that they are doing is they are trying—
Q22 Joan Ruddock: Through
your membership I imagine you hear of inspections happening?
Mr Lee: Yes, there
is an increased level of activity by the Agency. We know they
are prioritising where they put their effort. They are trying
to think what are the most important waste types they should try
and track; what are the most important sites or types of operator
that they should be concentrating on? I know that they have done
a lot of targeted inspections of those sorts of people. The big
question is, out of that targeted activity, are they finding things
that they are deeply unhappy about? Are they considering prosecution
action? Again, that is something that you will have to ask of
the Agency. I do warn you that if they are finding something that
they want to consider for prosecution, they may well be not inclined
to tell you either, and they have to do that for good reasons.
Q23 Joan Ruddock: You
are suggesting that there is not yet evidence of them taking action.
This is quite mysterious, is it not? You are saying to us you
think that there is a lot of inappropriate material definitely
going into landfill which is either untreated, and therefore not
safe for landfill, or remaining hazardous and should not be put
in landfill, but you are seeing no action being taken from the
industry?
Mr Hewitt: No,
I think we are seeing activity by them in increased site audits,
stopping of vehicles, inquiries of producers as to what material
they are producing and what their pre-treatment is before it has
left their site and the classification they are giving it before
it leaves their site. In treatment plants such as mine they inspect
us to find out what we do, what our pre-analysis and post-analysis
is, how we justify saying that the material is non-hazardous or
hazardous when we have treated it. No, I think there is a very
high level of activity now by the Agency.
Q24 Joan Ruddock: But
at the moment none of us know whether they are finding anything?
Mr Lee: I think
that is a good summary. We can see activity. What I cannot tell
you is whether that has been turned into legal actions.
Q25 Joan Ruddock: Do you
think that activity short of legal actions would change behaviour?
Mr Lee: Yes.
Mr Hewitt: Steve
touched upon two points which I think are important, and that
is what philosophy is being used by the transfer stations and
other operators in how they are handling this material? What level
of treatment are they putting upon it? They are not, generally
speaking, themselves rated to carry out treatment; so if they
are sorting waste what do they mean by "sorting"? Sorting
is a recognised means of reducing the hazard of a particular load,
but you can appreciate that, if I am not applying any physical
change or chemical change and I just separate those two things,
I have got some material here that is still hazardous and some
that is non-hazardous. What happens to this piece that is still
hazardous? How is that then dealt with? The mere separation of
it does not change its hazardous nature. It is also the way that
it then gets described. Are they illegally mixing materials at
those sites? All of those things need to be ascertained by the
Agency and the message of them doing that by audit, by inspection,
going back to those operators and being very clear that this is
not acceptable practice—whether they are going to be prosecuted
or not it is not acceptable practice—starts to filter through
to the industry that this has got to be handled differently.
Q26 Joan Ruddock: One
of the things you say is that, apart from going into landfills
illegally, there may be stock-piling by manufacturers. How widespread
do you think that is and how safe do you think it is?
Mr Hewitt: The
days of large quantities of hazardous waste being produced by
big operators have gone. I can identify that by saying that six
years ago probably every day one of my plants would take eight
or nine loads of 80 drums each from single manufacturers. Most
of those loads are now made up by what we call "milk rounds"—they
pick up 10 here, 10 somewhere else, 10 somewhere else—and
it is the SMEs that now produce a large amount of this waste.
Their resources for stock piling are few. Although stock-piling
will have gone on, I do not believe it has been a huge activity.
We will not find a million tons has been stock-piled somewhere.
Q27 Joan Ruddock: So designing
out and stock-piling probably do not account for much of this
three-quarters of a million tons. Is that correct?
Mr Hewitt: No.
Minimisation and avoidance probably was a 10, maybe 20% exercise.
Reclassification may be another 10 to 20%, but when you add up
the numbers you still come back to three-quarters of a million
to a million tons is going somewhere, and it is not going where
it should be going to.
Q28 Mr Lepper: Can I clarify
one thing about the Waste Acceptance Criteria? Mr Hewitt, you
talk about 2007, not 2005?
Mr Hewitt: No,
that is for hazardous sites. It is a bizarre situation that hazardous
sites from next year (2005) must follow the Hazardous Waste Acceptance
criteria. For non-hazardous sites it does not come into effect
until 2007 at the earliest.
Q29 Mr Lepper: Your view,
from what you said earlier, was that more coherence would have
been achieved by running those things together?
Mr Hewitt: If I
was asked what my practical view would be: firstly, they should
both have happened on the same day to make any logical sense of
waste management, and, secondly, the regulations behind them should
have come into effect on the same day as well. This business of
these things being separated by time just creates bigger problems.
It does not take them away.
Q30 Mr Lepper: Let us
have a look at what comes into force in July next year. It is
16 July next year, is it not, for the Waste Acceptance Criteria
and the Hazardous Waste Directive?
Mr Hewitt: Yes.
Q31 Mr Lepper: How are
we doing on planning to meet that date from what you have told
us so far?
Mr Hewitt: We are
still waiting for clarifications related to WAC and we are still
waiting for the regulations.
Q32 Mr Lepper: "Clarifications"—can
you expand on that a little more?
Mr Lee: There is
a lot more work that needs to be done. We need regulations. The
fact we are waiting for amendment regulations from Defra that
will amend their 2002 Regulations and their 2004 Regulations gives
you some idea of how complex the law, even just around the Landfill
Directive is becoming. We need technical guidance from the regulators
to tell us how the analytical process is to be done to sample
and analyse wastes. We need guidance from the Environment Agency
as to what treatment is and what is adequate treatment for waste
to be able to go into landfill. All of that needs to be in place
in time for the waste producing and waste management industries
to react to it in time for July 2005. Taking the kindest view
of it, if Defra are to consult on their amendment regulations,
let us say, in November, that means we can anticipate the regulations
being ready for issue in March or April 2005. Coupled with that,
we need a lot more technical guidance from the regulator. That
still leaves waste producers and waste managers with surprisingly
little time to make sure that they have looked at their wastes;
they have looked at their analyses; they have looked at their
protocols in time to make sure that they are ready to ensure that
the right wastes go to the right sites in July 2005. As ever,
time is tight.
Q33 Mr Lepper: That was
a charitable timescale you were putting forward there, I think.
Is there any sign at the moment of that kind of timescale that
you have just outlined, tight though it is, being met?
Mr Lee: I have
given up being optimistic about the appearance date of consultations
and regulations, but my understanding is that Defra intend to
start the consultation pre Christmas, maybe late November, but
it is not in my gift to tell you when that will happen.
Q34 Mr Lepper: But without
the technical guidance that you have also referred to, presumably
it is very difficult for those involved in the industry to know---
Am I being naive in saying it is too difficult for them to know
what investment they need to be putting into various processes
of treatments?
Mr Lee: Yes, and,
of course, the technical guidance really ought to be guided by
the regulations; things ought to fall in place sequentially.
Q35 Mr Lepper: You said
you are not being optimistic, but let us look forward. What situation
are we going to be faced with on 16 July next year, do you think?
Are we going to have more hazardous waste trundling around the
countryside being stock-piled in the way in which you have suggested?
Mr Lee: I can guarantee
you that there will be more hazardous waste simply because
of the implementation of the Hazardous Waste Directive at the
same time, which will bring some more materials into the definition,
a lot more oily wastes, florescent light tubes, more materials
like that. They will not increase the tonnage dramatically, but
they will dramatically increase the number of businesses which
produce hazardous wastes; so that will be an important element.
The question you are asking me is whether in response to the introduction
of the Waste Acceptance Criteria there will be a lot more homeless
hazardous waste?
Q36 Mr Lepper: That is
it.
Mr Lee: Of course,
that is the $64,000 question. I cannot answer it for you. I dearly
hope that there will not be, but that is one thing that I would
want to press on the Environment Agency and Defra. They have to
make that their number one priority. If there are to be homeless
hazardous wastes they have to be clearly identified and we have
to make sure that they are not misdescribed, illegally mixed or
otherwise sneaked through the system.
Q37 Mr Lepper: From what
you have been telling us this afternoon, would it be true to say
that you, as representatives of part of the industry, and other
industry representatives have been pressing governments strongly
on these issues for a considerable time?
Mr Hewitt: Very
strongly, yes. I have no idea what the technical guidance related
to the Waste Acceptance Criteria that affects my plants will be
next July. I can only assume that the practice that I now see
going on will continue post next July.
Q38 Mr Lepper: Is the
example of what is happening in other European countries any guidance
to you in the absence of anything coming from Defra?
Mr Hewitt: You
mean in other European countries?
Q39 Mr Lepper: European
countries, yes?
Mr Hewitt: They,
of course, took a different path some 20 years ago. If you look
at France, the value of the waste management industry in France
is three times what it is here. They have many more incinerators,
many more treatment plants. They took the decision many years
ago that they would treat waste before it was disposed of, and,
of course, have far fewer landfills and they are differently orientated.
It is a very different structure there to here. We are 20 years
behind that.
| 
