Memorandum by Georgia Gill (EA 10)
1. I submit this memorandum in light of
the Environment Agency's Chief Executive's promised openness,
transparency and accountability, and in light of the following
questions:
(a) What is the purpose of the EA?
(d) Is it value for money?
2. I have had personal experience of the
EA, and its predecessor, HMIP, for almost six years now. In that
time there have been two Environment Committee inquiries and reports—
"The Burning of Secondary Liquid Fuel in Cement Kilns"
and "The Environmental Impact of Cement Manufacture"—which
were highly critical of HMIP/EA, particularly regarding dealings
with Castle Cement, Clitheroe.
3. The situation here has not improved since
then. Kilns 5 and 6 together continue to burn about 4,000 tonnes
of hazardous and toxic wastes each month, with proposals to burn
up to 50,000 tonnes of hazardous and toxic wastes per annum in
Kiln 7, in spite of known, historic and on-going problems with
plume grounding and poor dispersion from, and instability of,
all three kilns. There is extensive video evidence showing this,
which has been brought to the attention of the EA (and duly ignored).
4. The EA takes little or no action against
the many known contraventions of authorisations. For example (i)
when 47 out of 64 deliveries of wastes were outside the authorised
specification (see Environmental Data Services (ENDS) issue No.
271 August 1997), the EA's only action was to vary the authorisation,
and (ii) the report "Routine Monitoring of kiln emissions
at Castle Cement Clitheroe during September and October 1998 for
the Environment Agency" shows exceedances of emission limits
and gaps in monitoring and data, yet no action has been taken
by the EA.
5. Air Quality monitoring in the Clitheroe
area October to December 1996 cost the taxpayer £500,000.
The majority of people read only one part—the summary—of
the eight parts published. The summary was totally misleading,
resulting in the production of a report by Dr M Warhurst of Friends
of the Earth, in July 1997, for the Minister, Michael Meacher,
entitled "Misleading the Minister? The Environment Agency,
the Cement Industry and £500,000".
6. I understand that the EA, in its response
to the Environment Committee's report "The Environmental
Impact of Cement Manufacture", assured the Committee that
the revised "Substitute Fuels" protocol would be in
place by the end of 1997, and that no further trials of incineration
of wastes in cement kilns would be considered until the revised
protocol was in place. The revised protocol was not issued until
August 1999 (EA Press Notice of 11 August 1999 refers). In December
1998, the EA accepted Castle Cement's application to trial burn
hazardous and toxic wastes in kiln 7, issued a draft variation
for the application on 30 June 1999 and issued a final variation
for the application on 31 August 1999.
7. Exclusion of public from meetings: The
following are examples of the EA's (and others) openness, transparency
and accountability:
a) Castle Cement Liaison Committee. Meetings
have been held twice yearly since 1986. Representatives from HMIP/EA,CC,
Lancashire County Council (LCC), Ribble Valley Borough Council
(RVBC), and one or two Parish Councils are members of the Committee.
I have asked several times in the last five or six years that
meetings be open to the public to attend (ie, not as members of
the Committee). This has, and continues to be, refused by the
Committee.
b) EA/RVBC/East Lancashire Health Authority
(ELHA) Liaison Group. Established to discuss CC. Meetings are
held approximately four times per year, starting from early/mid
1997. Representatives from EA, RVBC, ELHA are Committee members.
The public is not allowed to attend.
c) Castle Cement Advisory Group. A sub-committee
of the EA's Central Area Environment Group (AEG) and reporting
to it. Representatives from the AEG, EA, RVBC and LCC were Committee
members. Seven meetings were held, beginning 28 July 1997 and
ending 9 December 1998. Meetings were not open to the public to
attend until the final meeting when the group's completed report
was presented.
8. Complaints. Most people complaining about
CC's operations use the EA's freephone number(0800 80 70 60).
On 16 September 1999 I asked the EA for copies of a memo, dated
26 October 1998, and an e-mail, dated 2 November 1998, which were
sent to the EA's Regional Communications Centre, Warrington (responsible
for the freephone number) from EA Preston. I have not yet received
these copies. The memo and e-mail gave instructions that operators
manning the freephone number were to ask complainants whether
they were willing to have their names given to CC. Before the
memo and e-mail, complainants names were never given to CC., nor
were they ever asked this question; these instructions are specific
to CC; they do not apply to any other company/subject of complaint
in the whole NW Region (nor, presumably, in the UK). I find this
quite unbelievable. Why is this done? To intimidate? To reduce
the number of complaints because people feel intimidated? Complainants
have a legal right to anonymity.
9. The EA needs to be seen as a completely
independent protector of the environment and human health. Those
who have dealings with the Agency see it as biased towards industry,
to be in industry's pocket, to be very close to industry. Its
regulatory role is also compromised by its regard to political
and economic factors.It needs to be made clear that the EA should
be divorced from politics and economics; that there should be
a clear separation of regulatory function from government policy.
The EA is seen to be determined to implement government policy
eg the UK's Waste Management Strategy, in spite of any contradictory
evidence.
10. The following articles have appeared
in ENDS monthly publication. They give a very damning picture
of the EA, which should give rise to grave concern:
a) ENDS Report No. 280 May 1998 page 25-28
"Agency makes a mess of Waste".
b) ENDS Report No. 281 June 1998 page 5-6
"Agency slips behind on review of IPC authorisations"
and "IPC Inspectors in fresh row over restructuring".
c) ENDS Report No. 282 July 1998 page 14-15
"Regulators back criticisms of Environment Agency".
d) ENDS Report No. 284 September 1998 page
22-28 "The Environment Agency's yawning accountability gap".
e) ENDS Report No. 291 April 1999 page 5-6
"Environment Agency management comes under fire from staff".
f) ENDS Report No. 292 May 1999 page 39+
"Industry concern over inadequate waste licensing expertise
in Agency".
11. The EA's use of public money also gives
cause for concern. Perhaps the Audit Commission could investigate
whether the EA is providing an effective service, whether it provides
value for money, and whether it is using public monies properly.
Georgia Gill
October 1999
|
