Monday 25 July 2016

To be a fly on the wall

It was only when posing some questions to the Environment Agency - the government body responsible for ensuring waste sites conform to permit conditions that it became clear what a total car crash the situation was at the Shows Waste Management site on Slack Lane, Mackworth, Derby.

 It would be hard to have missed the media coverage of what has happened this year at the Slack Lane site which became a hub for a fly infestation that impacted on a whole area of the city which was only acted on strongly when local residents exposed to the media the situation they found themselves in.
 
Purchased in 2015 for £850,000 by Sam and Wayne Turton - who had run a waste management company in Nottinghamshire for a number of years called Go 4 Greener you would expect from their experience they would understand the requirements of the waste permit which carried the name of their other company - Shows Waste Management. If they failed to meet the requirements of their permit they could face action by the Environment Agency.
 
The permit and some of its many requirements were set out in my previous blog post which can be found here http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/permit-to-fly.html 
What became clear from the Environment Agency response to my questions - which related to the tonnages of material able to be stored on site was the sites operation was riddled with serious issues spanning acceptable practices on site through to serious site management issues. In response to my request for clarification on aspects of the permit - namely the tonnages on site and if they were inert or non inert the Environment Agency sent me a copy of their site visit report from 2nd March 2016 when two members of staff from the Environment Agency visited the site for almost two hours.

Note the 2nd March was BEFORE Shows Waste Management claim to have taken on other companies to operate the site and who they appear to be looking to blame for the situation that developed.
The document itself notes SIX breaches of the waste permit at the time of the site visit - remember the sites owners have run waste companies before - but managed to breach the site permit SIX times on one Environment Agency visit.
What follows is my extraction of information from the site visit report. Text in RED are my observations.

The document start by stating that on arrival it was noted there was a large amount of waste being stored in white bales all around the site. The sites managers name is redacted ( BLACKED OUT) but the manager stated they were refuse derived fuel RDF bales and that they would usually be sent to Andusia Recovered Fuel in Holland
In 2014 Go 4 Greener went to AEG AMSTERDAM to agree disposal contracts for 2015 - it isn't clear if those contracts ran their course but it shows the sites owners have previously engaged with waste to energy plants in Europe.
 but due to transportation issues they were having to find somewhere else to take them, possibly Poland. Someone (redacted but presume it was the site manager) was unable to tell the Environment Agency how many bales were on site but the Environment Agency staff felt there were 300 bales on site.
It was noted that there was a BREACH of permit condition 4.6.1 which requires combustible waste to be stored in bays on impermeable pavement with sealed drainage with access to fire fighting equipment. The bales were not stored in bays and were not on sealed drainage. Someone (name redacted but presume as above) could not locate the site fire plan and their description of the fire fighting equipment did not sound adequate for the amount of combustible waste on the site.
Clearly a site fire plan and suitable fire fighting equipment should have been at hand noting the volumes of waste involved. 
It was noted that the RDF bales needed to be removed from site and this would be formalised in a notice.
Someone (name redacted but presume as above) was not fully conversant with the waste conditions of the permit relevant to his duties. The was noted as BREACH of permit condition 1.3.3. He was also not aware of the site having an environmental management system.
You would hope all staff would be aware and conversant with the above
Someone (name redacted but presume as above) took the Environment Agency staff on a tour of the site and explained that the incoming general mixed waste had already been processed elsewhere metal, paper and card had already been taken out and shredded for transport reasons. Shows Waste Management then shred the waste further and pass it through a trommel to remove fine material. This process results in RDF and fines. The fines are stored within the building before removal off site. The RDF is baled and currently stored all around the site mostly free standing in the open.
This waste operation involving the shredding and screening of waste to produce RDF is not authorised by this permit and is therefore a BREACH of permit condition 1.1.1. This operation should stop immediately.
So they were doing something they were not permitted to do
The incoming mixed general waste has already been mechanically treated elsewhere prior to arrival on site. This means it should be coded as a 19 waste code. The acceptance of this waste type is a BREACH of permit condition 1.2.1. The permit does not allow the acceptance of any waste from waste management facilities. The acceptance of this waste type should stop immediately.
The permit limits the quantity of non inert waste on site to 350 tonnes. The weighbridge operator (name redacted) provided us with a spreadsheet with the incoming and outgoing wastes for February 2016. This showed that the total amount of non inert waste stored under the permit was at least 783 tonnes. This is a BREACH of permit condition 4.6.1 which limits non inert waste to 350 tonnes.
So they knowingly accepted levels of waste above the permit limit
In addition to the bales there was a large amount of unprocessed waste stored in the main building. Some of this waste was visibly steaming indicating that it is decomposing and was likely the cause of the odour reports. Permit condition 4.6.1 table 4.6 b addresses odorous waste including wastes which are likely to be odour producing during storage. It states that odorous waste should not be stored for longer than 48 hours unless agreed to by the Environment Agency. It was clear from the weighbridge spreadsheet that a large amount of potentially odorous waste had been stored on site longer than 48 hours. This is a BREACH of permit condition 4.6.1.
So they were storing stinking waste for longer than they should have
In order to monitor and control odorous emissions permit condition 5.2.1 requires the site operator undertakes monitoring activities at least twice per day and records these in the site diary. This monitoring was not being carried out or recorded in the site diary. This is therefore a BREACH of permit condition 6.3.1. The site now needs to implement monitoring as per their permit condition.
So they were not monitoring the situation successfully
Condition 6.3.1 requires that a site diary should be kept detailing specific events that should be recorded. Someone (name redacted) stated that the site did not have a site diary. This is a BREACH of permit condition 6.3.1. The site should implement a site diary with immediate effect.
Appears they had no site diary to log things in
Permit condition 1.3.4 is being BREACHED as it requires that the technically competent manager records their arrival and departure in the site diary. In addition Warren Steele does not have the required WAMITAB qualification for this permit. Provide details to this office of an appropriately qualified technically competent manager for the site by 23rd March 2016.
The storage of RDF on site without the correct infrastructure or authorisation in place is a serious matter and needs to be dealt with as quickly as possible. Shows Waste Management Limited now need to produce an action plan detailing how they will bring the site back into compliance with timescales. While the RDF is still on site the site should produce a risk assessment detailing what measures and procedures they will put in place in order to deal with any such risks such as fires and odour. The action plan should be submitted to this office by 23rd March 2016.
The fire service have been alerted to concerns we have regarding the site.
We will now be considering what enforcement action we will be taking with regards to these permit breaches.

ALL THIS WAS HAPPENING IN EARLY MARCH BEFORE ANY OTHER COMPANIES THE TURTON'S ARE TRYING TO BLAME WERE INVOLVED ON THE SITE.
IT APPEARS WHAT COULD GO WRONG DID GO WRONG AND THE SITES OWNERS COMPLETELY FAILED TO OPERATE A WASTE DISPOSAL SITE IN THE MANNER EXPECTED OF THOSE NAMED ON THE PERMIT.


©SIMON BACON 2016

   

Monday 4 July 2016

Permit to fly ?

 
"IN REACHING THE DECISION WE HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND THAT THE PERMIT WILL ENSURE THAT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IS PROVIDED"

So stated the decision notice issued by the Environment Agency when transferring the waste permit for 201 Slack lane from Transcycle to Shows Waste Management.
 
Part of the transfer document is shown below
 
 
 
If EVER we needed an example of a statement not worth the paper it was written on it would have to be this statement when judged against the horrific fly infestation from the site which months later would overwhelm the community of Mackworth and New Zealand in Derby UK.
 
Reports suggest that the site was home to up to 5,000 tonnes of waste at the time news of the fly infestation hit the media and similar tonnages were confirmed at the public meeting held on 6th June which the sites owner attended.
 
BUT HOW MUCH WAS THE SITE PERMITTED TO HOUSE VIA THE SITES WASTE PERMIT - WHICH WAS TRANSFERED TO SHOWS WASTE MANAGEMENT?

The waste permit makes reference to two forms of waste - INERT and NON INERT
The waste permit defines INERT waste as follows

“inert waste”

means wastes which will not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations. Inert waste will not dissolve, burn or otherwise physically or chemically react, biodegrade or adversely affect other matter with which it comes into contact in a way likely to give rise to environmental pollution or harm to human health. The total leachability and pollutant content of the waste and the ecotoxicity of the leachate must be insignificant and in particular not endanger the quality of surface water and/or groundwater;
 
NON INERT waste is not defined in the permit but should be taken to be the opposite definition to that shown for inert waste.
The company - Shows Waste Management as licence holder appears in the permit to but permitted to hold on site the following
 
INERT WASTE - 2,400 TONNES
NON INERT WASTE- 350 TONNES
 
This is shown in the following picture from the permit
 
 
 
Now even before considering if the material that has caused the smell and fly infestation is inert or not with a combined total tonnage of 2,750 tonnes of waste acceptable to be housed on site Shows Waste Management has completely failed to meet its permit targets and requirements - noting previous suggestions that the site held up to 5,000 tonnes.
 
Now if we are to consider that the material COULD be non inert waste then it is clear that the company in question as license holder has completely failed to meet its duties as a responsible waste management facility. Even if considered inert Shows Waste Management has failed the community it is housed in and must face robust action by the authorities.
 
Talking of robust action the permit comes across as being a robust instrument for controlling the waste site. 
 
Here are some examples
 
"Treatment for disposal of no more than 50 tonnes per day"
 
"Quantities of waste stored on site shall not exceed the maximum permitted storage capacities"
 
 
 
 

1.3.1     Whenever the site is open to receive or dispatch wastes, or is carrying out any of the specified waste management operations, it shall be supervised by at least two members of staff who is suitably trained and fully conversant with the requirements of the licence regarding:

a    waste acceptance and control procedures;

b    operational controls;

c    maintenance;

d    record-keeping;

e    emergency action plans;

f     notifications to the Agency."

 

"b)       Odorous wastes, including wastes which are likely to be odour producing during storage

 

 

 

i)        These wastes only permitted if:
·        received in sealed containers and stored in sealed containers and in areas provided with impermeable pavement and sealed drainage; or
·        stored in covered buildings providing containment of aerial emissions; or
·        stored in bays provided with an impermeable pavement and sealed drainage.
ii)       These wastes shall be subject to monitoring in accordance with condition 5.2 and shall in any case not be stored for longer than 48 hours, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Agency."
 
 

 

"5.2                   Monitoring and control of odorous emissions

5.2.1                Measures shall be implemented and maintained throughout the operational life of the site to control and monitor emissions of odours from the site, in accordance with the standards specified in Table 5.2.

5.2.2                All emissions to air from the specified waste management operations on the site shall be free from odours at levels as are likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health or serious detriment to the amenity of the locality outside the site boundary, as perceived by an authorised officer of the Agency."

"5.3                   Monitoring and control of pest infestations

5.3..1                Measures shall be implemented and maintained throughout the operational life of the site to control and monitor the presence of pests on the site, in accordance with the standards specified in Table 5.3. The objective of these measures shall be to prevent pest infestations that are likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health or serious detriment to the amenity of the locality."

 

                      Important sections of the environmental protection act 1990

 Section 33

Prohibits under penalty the deposit, treatment, keeping or disposal of controlled waste in or on any land otherwise than in accordance with the terms of a Waste Management Licence.

Non compliance with any licence condition may lead to prosecution under this Section.  A person who contravenes Section 33 subsection (1) shall, subject to subsection (7), be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 (six) months or a fine not exceeding £20,000 (at the date of issue of this licence) or both, or on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 (two) years or a fine or both, or in relation to special waste for a term not exceeding 5 (five) years or a fine or both.

 

Section 34

Places a duty on any person who imports, produces, carries, keeps, treats or disposes of controlled waste to take all such measures applicable to him or her as are reasonable in the circumstances to prevent any other person contravening Section 33, and to prevent the escape of waste from his control or that of any other person and, on the transfer of the waste, to ensure that it is only to an authorised person, or to a person for authorised transport purposes, and that a written description is transferred with it.
A person who contravenes Section 34 subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5,000 (at the date of issue of this licence) or on conviction on indictment to a fine.

Section 40

If the licence holder wishes to transfer the licence to another person ("the transferee,") the licence holder and the transferee shall jointly make an application to the Environment Agency (enclosing the prescribed fee). The Agency will not effect the transfer unless it is satisfied that the transferee is a Fit and Proper Person.

 

Section 59

The Environment Agency is empowered to require the removal of any controlled waste deposited in breach of Section 33(1), or to require the undertaking of such works as are required to reduce or eliminate the consequences of such deposits.

 

SO WITH ALL THIS IN MIND HOW HAS THE WASTE SITE IN MACKWORTH DERBY BEEN ABLE TO DEVELOP INTO A SITUATION WHERE WASTE WAS ABLE TO BUILD UP AND BECOME A BREEDING GROUND FOR PLAGUES OF FLIES THAT WENT ON TO BLIGHT A WHOLE COMMUNITY?

 

OH TO BE A FLY ON THE WALL OF THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY OFFICES