St Dennis Parish Council, Environment Agency Public Meeting Regarding the Granting of an Environmental Permit for the Proposed Sita Incinerator in St Dennis

St Dennis Working Men’s Club Thursday 22 nd January 2009 7pm

CHAIR Fred Greenslade – Environment Portfolio Holder

PANEL Environment Agency Officers Judy Proctor – Environment Manager David Mudge – Technical Officer Kevin Baker – Public Relations Chris James – Team Leader

Dick Cole – Planning Policy Ken Rickard – Stig Chair

1 Welcome from the Chair and introduction of the panel

Aims of the meeting – STIG group done tremendous work and produced fabulous documents. Credit to the community.

Also have strategy group, facing issues and pre-empting what might happen. Made up of prospective parliamentary candidates, Stig and the surrounding area. Feel have a strong force to put forward views of the village.

Stig and Strategy group responding to all issues coming before us.

Restormel meeting February 11 th , 5pm, Restormel BC 12. March, County Hall, planning application (tentatively) due to be considered.

2 Dick Cole

Restormel been a consistent opponent for incinerator. Since 2006 backed motion against counties waste plan. This year rejected the plan on numerous grounds, better ways to deal with waste, unacceptable impact, against local, regional and national policies.

Have also demanded a ‘plan b’ and raised concerns about impact on humans and environment

1 Meet in Feb to look at new information that’s come up

Neighbouring parish councils all objected. Over 1000 individual objections with less than 10 letters of support.

Focus of tonight on environmental issues, and strategy group tomorrow will be looking at lobbying strategy to get key messages across

3 Ken Rickard

Hope everyone will take the opportunity to ask the questions that they want to

4 Judy Proctor

Has five teams covering pro-active pollution prevention as well. Keep all complex industries in particular team, pollution prevention and control. David is technical officer, who would be responsible for compliance for any Cornwall incinerator. Kevin Baker working to try and make sure information in public domain in timely and efficient manner.

Will explain how we do compliance and are looking at a national project looking at information communities need when faced with an application for an incinerator.

Have allot of challenging and useful letters and emails from St Dennis. Have passed on some as discussion topics for policy. Have also been used by permitting officer. She has used these in her assessment of the application and other consultee responses. We have made sure that we are replying in detail back to the people that have written in. it is our job to do the liaison. We have to permit incinerators properly and in a consistent manner.

For this application, received in may. Are still working through that permit determination. Are not close to making decision, and have asked Sita for further information in December. This is the bit that forms habitat assessment etc. Incinerators generally take around 12 months for this whole process of points raised and assessed by EA.

Statutory requirement is that the application determined in 4 months. But we will take as long as it takes to get the right result.

Try to improve the way we work with others. We do detailed responses. Try to provide better information and supplied copies of permit to people that have asked, have created web pages, have sent out prompts to get responses back from food producers, written to Stig to let you know went the consultation was. Did write to Stig, but was really noted what an amazing effort you have done. Have never had something as coordinated and well presented as Stig's response.

2

Have put an article in newsletter. Are planning surgeries (claytawc). Was hoping to do them with draft permit, which now seems long way away, so are planning an interim one.

Are open to suggestions for this. Also want to get partners together – i.e. pct, food standards agency etc, to also pass on pertinent points that you give us if its more relevant for another agency

5 Chris James

Before I was a team leader, was a permitting officer, so do have a good background. Know you’re a very informed group, but will go over basics.

When someone applies for a permit, goes through checking process – fee, right documents etc. Then consult on it. Have some bodies and people we legally have to consult, but also other people. Do assessment of accompanying documentation – very scientific and in depth. Critical appraisal of it is NOT a rubber stamp. Might ask applicant for more information. Decision can go one of two ways. Issuing or refusing permit. Grounds for refusal clearly stated in our policies. Applicant can appeal on points of this.

If a permit is granted to Sita, is there to authorize a particular process in accordance with strict conditions – to make sure that the environment and human health are protected. Will look at how companies conduct themselves, what is allowed to be permitted, and limits would be put on emissions. Require company to submit to rigorous and reported monitoring.

6 David Mudge

Inspector for installations in Devon and Cornwall, i.e. dockyard and other complex sites. Main thing is compliance. The application you will have seen as part of consultation process, we use the two documents, so will refer to what the operator has said they will do against the conditions that we put down in the permit.

Originally we looked at just air land and water. We also now look at potentially ground water, land, energy efficiency, and management systems. Also against limits – are specific directives regulating incinerators and emissions to air and ash listed in incineration directive. Main focus is auditing sites. Have service level agreements but for an incinerator 12 visits a year, 6 planned and 6 unplanned. Usually far more in new site. Need to know is running properly from day 1. Could also have in-depth audits, or maybe general inspection on i.e. waste storage. They are required to report to us on a periodic basis. Additionally, EA contracts independent stack samplers to carry out independent monitoring. Have influence on what this is looking for. Also look for noise and odour, although rely on nearby residents to keep us informed if this becomes

3 a problem at all and we haven’t noticed.

Stressed that we are only in permit determination stage. IF this is agreed, this is the EA process

7 Kevin Baker

Work in community relation’s team. E.g. Watched dvd about building of melden reserviour, where builders were telling people what they were going to do, and the impacts. We do it differently now, we don’t tell people, we engage and have conversations. We go much further than the statutory requirements. The requirement is that once the application is made, 14 days advertise, 28 days response to consultation, and next thing you’ll hear is the draft justification.

We are going a lot further than that and are going to a lot of effort to make sure that you know that you know the application is out there and give you the opportunity to discuss it more closely with us. Are also talking to food producers etc.

Stig response – best seen around the UK.

8 Chair – thank you, very informative. Although we do know that other incinerators are very problematic which makes us very cautious. On other side of things, have considered a lot of documentation from Sita, there are huge and numerous errors – e.g. over the siting of the building in one of the composite photographs is not even in the right field. Feel that a large company and project on this scale should do more.

Will take questions, and please wait for microphone. If you feel you should have asked question and didn’t, let me know, and I will pass it on if you want and are not on internet.

Please make questions concise

9 Questions from the floor

Q Rod Toms in responses CCC got from Sita, are not publishing all of the data as ERM are the consultants, who are also consultants to the ea. Also, Enviros are consultants of health protection agency and CCC. How can we be certain you’re not biased.

A Have national modeling team, but will get a better answer when found out more about the contractual relationships

Q is a question of the Rate Tool. When CCC asked for the data on this, they were told no problem with it because same consultant

4 A is also being independently verified with our own in house checker.

Q Diana Padwick parent eco business, child has health difficulties, which has benefited from organic produce. Also aware that big businesses can take losses. As toxins in milk and crops will only be tested 2 times a year, is it true that if stock needs to get retested and the toxin is found in food chain, they will lose organic status

A permitting officer is in contact with soil association to find out their exact requirements. But with the control of dioxins we control at the point of emission. Limits are set that are very protective of the environment and of human health. Err on side of most sensitive receptor – i.e., someone who uses all produce from village. But make sure that there is no impact. But if you look at this over the entire lifetime, the amount that you would get from an incinerator is minimal. Most dioxins come from the dairy produce that we eat.

Q worried about home grown food in line of wind

A Sita will not be allowed to produce too much dioxin

Q Lynn Simms. Would like to make a statement. If on 12 th county grant planning app, Sita could build the plant

A yes, but not run it

Q I too grow my own veg. Can you do some soil testing as a baseline so if is built you can get a really good idea of if the dioxin level has increased

A yes and we are talking with food standards agency for best monitoring for now and in future. If nec will have to do baseline assessments.

Q other thing, also about permit, under EU directive, which changes frequently and majorly. If permit is granted, and directive changes, how long can the plant operate out of the regulation. Could they be shut down till they update

A tends to be notification of what the changes will be. So i.e., would have a years notice. If get to that date and they are not complying, would have to be enforced. Have a policy, dependent on the breaches. Would expect to be compliant from day one. One aspect is attitude of operator. If operator is rude, can prosecute

Q Simon Margarets. You describe air dispersion models. Models are all wrong, just degrees of wrongness. Are specifics of St Dennis that may really change what actually happens. Can only test stuff by doing things on the ground. You seem to be not enough focused on what is going into local environment

A we have to control at point source. Once emissions get out wider, gets very difficult. Take your point with uncertainty of modeling. What can happen is, if there is a large

5 enough uncertainty with a model, can put into place permits later. Initially rely on limits of the waste incineration directive. If these are deemed to be insufficient, then we could look again later

Q if we could keep records and show you a cause for concern, could we give them to you and would you respond

A yes, what you describe would be sufficient information to get us to investigate further.

Q Katie Eggleton, can’t accept that incinerator to be put in such a deprived area. Incinerator will make it more undesirable. Air in area is v bad. Car windscreens, washing, everything covered in dust. Fear that this will bring even more, and what is being done about monitoring of this.

A to reply in two parts, why here – is an issue for planning. We have to determine what is to determine. Do say planning at waste strategy, and commenting on planning. But not on permit. Are discussing dust with health protection agency and permit officer, discussing specifics of area. Will particles combine with things, make effect greater etc.

Q and when balloon up, can we do a further survey on residents further away, of how belittled people will feel having a massive chimney in their garden. It would be nice to know that people’s feelings have been considered. And if some officers could visit and see.

About physical and psychological emotional harm which is real to people. Also is a number of collective plants around

Chair – would ask public that if you see the balloon, please take a photograph and email it in, as more information we get the better

Stack will possibly be same height of school on the hill

Q Tim Trevennas. How many a percentage of incinerators are refused throughout UK

A are 60 plus applications in around UK, in various stages of determination. Haven’t made decisions about any of those. Are 25 incinerators in operation around UK, but some have certainly been refused in the past.

Just to give you an idea, Plymouth, landfill, had to reapply for permit due to changing directives, couldn’t convince us that they could comply with new directive so refused them

A Molly Fox. According to Sita, nearly all collected rainwater will be used on site. Can natural environment including Goss moor bogs be deprived of this without harm

6 Q had a look at water quality models, asked for more information, seems there is little connection between surface water and deeper levels of water. Impact on removing proposed volume will not have an impact on the aquifer and wetland

Q Anne Franklin. clay dust. A lot of this we can’t see. Can see it on the beams of my loft. Are my children and granddaughters going to breathe in any combination. We may be poor but we are not stupid and we know the extent of the damage to our village and surrounding

A we are taking this seriously, it is specific to this location, but we have asked for more information.

A Caroline Righton. Sounds as if checks and controls are made up as you go along if work we have done has given you so much food for thought. Is there a point when you come to the conclusion that the application can will not satisfy you,. So you stop the installation from being built

A can give advice that there is no way the installation will be able to fulfill the compliance

Q if they start building before the application granted, they may take a gamble that the building would add to pressure to grant permit.

We would not grant permit if was wrong, and can advise strongly, but not on planning matter.

Q will meeting last week with Sita affect the planning committee decision on 12 March.

A invited Chris Daly and Adrian Lee to our meeting about dioxin monitoring, and thrashing out those issues. That will not delay or speed up planning. Will make a reply to county council on time to let planning know our findings – i.e., the groundwater finding of ours will remove the objection of natural England.

Q Jenny Curtis. Worried about conflict of interest and clay particles exacerbating problem. Was part of a group fighting Imerys over clay tip in gover valley. Found out that Imerys are a client of the health protection agency. This is a conflict of interest. We tried to extract information, but they shut the doors on us. Are you going to be able to get answers when you’ve got a conflict of interest

A yes. We deal with the specialist in their chemicals division in Gloucester, and are working with the primary care trust, working to balance the national position with the chemicals and poisons unit, and people who work for regional health protection unit. Working with good number of people, specialists in their field, in a distant location, you remove this conflict of interest

7 Q has first hand evidence that this is not so. Have had experience of obstruction at high level

Q Andrew Waters. Bearing in mind 12 March, will you be in position to give any information to CCC regarding whether Sita will be able to comply? Have also been advised that due to second round of consultations, highways agencies have no objections to applications. Stack. Thought you said stack only monitored once in 12 months. Can you confirm? Hope for assurance from you as if this is approved you will be responsible, and ea monitoring in mid Cornwall not always been good

A can assure you on that, is our job. Stack split in 2 parts, continual monitoring to ensure compliance, extractive sampling – contractors come in to monitor equipment etc. in first year extractive sampling monitored quarterly, 6 monthly after that, unless there is cause for concern. Is day to day

Q Linda Bowman. Incinerator site in basin. Lorry emissions as well as stack may get trapped. Can cause cardiovascular problems, also pylons and electricity substation. This can have an enormous multiplier effect on the emissions. (negatively charged particles). No one has mentioned this at all. Have some press cuttings over pylon problem

A have you got source of that

Q professor Dennis Henshaw of Bristol university.

A will talk to you about that later

Q water and Goss more – concreting over big area, and extra roads, and lots more rain. Problems with runoff. Our field is growing reeds. And nearby housing suffering from damp.

A done a lot of work on flood risk assessment, which we asked for extra information on. At the moment, that is being assessed and am expecting their reply to say, given the extra information requested, are going to be saying concerns are satisfied

Q David James. If you approach Sita, they say will be no noise, odour or omissions, they always say is no problem. But their record of accuracy is not good. Sita's initial application had a 70 m stack and is no 120. If stack is safe, then why increase it so much. If its to save Goss moor, then there are things coming out of stack dangerous to humans

A was involved with pre-application work with Sita. Said, if we had a 70 m stack and operated at the limits, this would produce an acid deposition on Goss more that would above 1% level for vegetation. So then look at background level. For Sita to ensure they have no impact on Goss moor, had to voluntarily reduce their operating limits and increase the size of the stack. But it’s the particular features on Goss moor that have

8 necessitated this.

Q Dick Cole. I understand the answer, but if the aim is not to damage the area of special conservation, then it must be in the wrong place full stop, and can I still have an answer to my first question about the cumulative effect of emissions in this area

A siting of the plant was a planning issue, we get involved in operation. If a significant impact on environment or human health, we would not be giving a permit. Additional sources, look at process contribution, background, and consultation with natural England about additional sources of emissions, but usually don’t get that far taking background into account

Q Brian Williams, Collingwood incinerator, failed tests? Same type of incinerator as proposed.

A plant isn’t running yet, what has happened is pressure tests on boiler, and some failing with tubes and things

Q Diana is it true that every time an incinerator is shut down because of a problem, the shut down causes massive increases of hazardous substances

A there are two specific abnormal emissions, breakdown of controlling equipment or operator has 4 hours to sort out or must shut down. Is higher emissions if shut down and restarted which is why 4 hours grace. Is a cumulative 60 hours shut down time per year, but if this is broken have to shut down to find source of problem

In practice this doesn’t tend to happen.

Q if recording equipment breaks down, how can you know they’re breaking the law

A are a number of backup systems, also surrogate monitoring systems to ensure compliance. Are also ceiling limits to emissions in the permit. Usually problems get sorted out within that 4 hours.

Q Fred Greenslade. Went to Yorkshire went to Sita Kirklees, which had imploded, burst water jacket, operator rekindled fire, caused lots of damage, putrid waste stacked to gunwales going to landfill

A spoke to person dealing, and we had to take enforcement action. Boiler tubes had been thinning, hadn’t been doing thickness testing on the tubes, so shut down till made right. This is a situation we are aware of an a part of our auditing regime is to make sure this wont happen again

To add to that, spoke to HSE, 4035352 case number, have to ask for FOI, Health and Safety Executive, Marshals Mill, Marshals Street, Leeds

9 Q Lynne Sims, whenever I have met with Sita, their answer to why not 5 smaller incinerators, their answer is that if you have 5 the pollution would be even greater, which implies to me that one big one must be bad.

Height of stack, re Goss moor, have you done same tests for moor which has same protected status

A no as we only look at radius of 5-10 km away

We don’t believe everything that is put in an application, and we do check what is claimed

Q Elizabeth Hawkin. Have employed hundreds of people, and you cannot completely trust your staff in industry. Are their valves on these incinerators? Valves can be opened. With this 120 m chimney, will go out of the way of St Dennis, , St Breok downs are all within reach of it.

In the isle of man, before they started, they had the whole of the island tested for the baseline. 7 years later, their dioxin levels are going high and the government are worried. Other things. None of the ash has been recycled, have not produced any electricity at all, and have not used any heat for it at all. So is against every EU law going. This is supposed to be one of the most top quality incinerators in UK. China, also had horrendous problems. Not using any heat. I’m in contact with these people. Sita deny everything. From the government ministers and councilors, I know they have huge problems. If the whole of the duchy should be tested to see what is in the farmland before they start. I.e. on Lord Falmouths land. Whatever comes out of the chimney will cover the length and breadth of Cornwall. Will you test all of the farmland in Cornwall now.

A we had a discussion last week with food standards agency and a number of other orgs and discussed this. If we think there is a risk over and above the national position on incineration we can ask Sita to do more. We can only ask for it if we can justify that there is no need. At the moment we cant justify this as the emissions proposed will be minimal. CCC will be asking Sita to do some background dioxin monitoring. The difficulty is that the results are highly variable so you need a lot of samples. Have to be very rigorous and take lots of samples if you want to use it properly and this is very costly. Other reason to use it is if someone has got dioxins and want to go to a court of law about it. So have to ask what is a reasonable thing to ask based on what you might need the information for.

Have someone in dioxin land in Ireland, and will be using his information and advice.

One of the reasons IOM may be so bad could be because it isn’t regulated by us. Have to put my trust and integrity in my colleagues, and I believe they regulate effectively. Don’t believe in staff trusting staff so monitor unannounced.

10 Also, wont be in position by 12 march to give steer on our decision

Q I understand from latest modeling, the 1% on nitrous oxides is very problematic, and that the proposed site is not within this within variability of + or minus .30. if you allow the 30% probability, will not comply and why do you not consider other chemicals which have an equal issue

A those will be considered, and some of those were missing from the original modeling and we are waiting for them. You are right about the probabilities and we are going back and asking for some of the justifications. And when we go back to the assessment unit, they do a very rigourous job. This is one of the reasons we wont be ready by march 12 th . Is quite a lot hanging on it. Is a critical piece of work and will be done right.

Q Jackie Salmon. We are certain that there will be periods of shut down. Do they have to report the 4 hour intervals, and do you come and investigate each one

A yes, that would be a part of my role.

Q IOM incinerator, on the website, was 19 instances when exceeded emissions, and on every one said that ea was investigating

A that was the IOM environment agency, not us as is separate principality. We as an agency do not regulate incinerator in IOM

Q maybe that’s why Bordeaux is so wonderful as you not monitoring

A IOM, our permitting officer is talking to people on the IOM and find out exactly what regulation happens on IOM and the gaps

Q Joe Hoskin, back to the choosing of the site, if it is necessary for St Dennis, have clay dust and substation. Is this confirmed as the best location in Cornwall?

A this is a planning matter. I cannot say that this is the best site in Cornwall

Q what about if the people don’t accept the incinerator? Because people don’t want it here. How do we get heard?

A in terms of our ears, we’re listening to you already. There is also the democratic process, councilors, mps etc. that is the best way to go about this process. Although that said, we do occasionally challenge government effectively

Q Des Curnow utterly ashamed of CCC. Is no democracy whatever. CCC worked hand in glove with Sita. They brought Sita here and they will decide planning. Hope ea will be totally be independent, because Sita seems to have great power over all large corporations. Bordeaux trip case in point. All coverage totally one sided. CCC

11 actions over removal of a few trees locally for more information, took hundreds of trees out. Are going to put 100ft fence around a mans house because of noise etc. and when that is put to them publicly they ridicule and say they’re wrong

More concern with flora and fauna of Goss moor than about the health of the people.

A have to reassure you that we are independent with no kind of client relationship with Sita, so will be as independent as possible. The haul road will not be a part of the permit application. The noise and the cut down trees are planning matters, and we have no powers over them. We have to look at the impact on the stack.

Q Amanda Routledge Given Sita’s appalling H and S record, and number of breaches of EA, can we really trust Sita to do what they say?

A this is one of the things that we do take into account, and we do make sure that we learn lessons from elsewhere, and we have been trying to improve the compliance from the very big companies. One of the things I have been doing is feeding Sita problems to the regional director who we meet with regularly

Q Len Trendell. Have a shop up in Bodmin to sell respirators and face masks. Models, if you look at the financial environment of models, these are highly fallible. What I am concerned about is the EA’s autonomy as a body that is being rushed by a council trying to go to a unitary. And why doesn’t the ea or government agency say you can set down a rule that you cant build a plant a mile and a half from houses.

Parkandillick means ‘field of heap of dung’ in Cornish.

A if people cant ask a question, we will take them in writing later

Q Dave Curtis. Attenuation ponds. Model produced concerning a proposed tip of 184 football pitches in size. Their models were frequently amended by ea. Your rules say nothing to be built within 7 m of a water course. The gover stream was continually whited out, the gover valley action group made continuous calls to ea, who phoned Imerys, who claimed run off. Were taken to court for very few occasions compared to hundreds of instances

A have been working lots with Imerys and have had number of actions. We respond to pollutions with money we have from govt. have budget cuts, don’t have resources to attend all calls, but will follow up when we can but those most serious, we do take enforcement action on what we can.

Q but some of these things you cant see if you don’t visit at the time of the breach. This is always happening. Only way to stop it happening is to not build the incinerator.

A we regulate in two ways. We collect evidence and if in public interest we prosecute. We also regulate, serve enforcement notices, and go in and look at the management

12 systems. What is in place to make sure that there are not burst pipes to try to reduce these accidents. Also, when we prosecute it has huge ramifications on their business.

Q can’t recall the date. But on one occasion you fined Imerys 10,000 that is small change to company like Imerys. Have photographic evidence of a pump directly into the Gover valley.

Q Gordon Lewis, is there quality control over wildlife surveys, do you do an indepth study

A there are certain standards to these surveys on British or industry, and they are checked against this standard. Also we go through and audit reports that are sent to us. We are good at spotting circumstances that aren’t right, accidentally or blatant misdirection. But we can prosecute a company for deliberately misleading

Q Hilary Hughes. Will you afford the same consideration to people as to the wildlife of Goss Moor

A yes,

10 Ken Rickard

I am alarmed at controls after the incinerator is built. All of us who have had dealings with Sita say the same, that you cannot trust Sita. Prevention is better than cure.

Co2 emissions from lorry movements, power station and clay plants have never been scientifically researched. I do not know how ea are going to tackle this

A if Sita cant convince us that they can do this without harm to environment and health they wont get a permit Pat Blanchard

We do not doubt your integrity. But we are also aware that there are some parameters that you have to work with. I.e. the pcb size etc.

The ash from the incinerator will temporarily have to go to Gloucester, but may well, under proximity principle, have to go in St Dennis, so will have double whammy.

Also, the 60 incinerators around the country will have a cumulative effect throughout the country. A ton of carbon dioxide is produced for every ton of waste burned. Climate change is a major issue, and will be a major problem for Cornwall, people are going to become more and more reliant on locally produced food. How can we give up agricultural land for something such as this.

When the EA supports not throwing away anything that could be sensibly recycled,

13 there are perfectly good and proven technologies that can deal with this far better.

Sita have other technologies that they use already, but they will not do them for Cornwall why not, and why is the ea not more proactive in ensuring that govt policy does not deal with waste in a clean way in a way that keeps it within the cycle.

A we don’t have a remit to force CCC to develop alternative technologies but we do try to influence about a complete range of technologies, but they do have targets, and we work with them to make sure they are aware of them. Are trying to make sure only residual waste would be incinerated.

Q I spoke to Louis Penchant about how we are doing, and he said that we are not meeting our biodegradeable targets going to landfill

A you are right, it is all of our problems, we all live in Cornwall and produce waste, and I am very keen to work with you as a community and take those ideas forward. I’m working to try and make sure that we are working within thise initiatives.

Defra are doing trials on the various different technologies.

Fred Greenslade – have seen a draft document on budgetry pressure, and one of the things in that is take away Restormel’s weekly recycling collection. We have a service we are proud of. The rest of the county should be pulled up to our level not us pulled down to theirs. Unitary will cut down to the worst service. We want the rest to come to us.

Thank you for coming tonight, you’ve been very frank and given best information available. Audience behaved impeccably too. None of us are going to stop fighting this.

Meeting closed 21.48 Approx attendance 150

14