Volume 14: Responsibilities for Human and Animal Health
8. Pollution control and waste disposal
Waste and pollution legislation in Great Britain post-1986
Air pollution controls
The 1991 Regulations
Process Guidance Notes and Guidance to Local Authorities
Exempt incinerators

Air pollution controls

The 1989 Regulations

8.136 Although Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP) had been formed in 1987 from earlier separate regulatory national Inspectorates, the types of air pollution with which it dealt until 1989 were limited to specialised industrial processes not relevant to this Report. ¹ The Health and Safety (Emissions into the Atmosphere) (Amendment) Regulations 1989 extended central (HMIP) control to cover all incinerators capable of dealing with 1 tonne or more of waste an hour. The form of pollution control extended by these Regulations from the 'scheduled processes' to all incinerators, was the use of guidance standards developed by the Inspectorate, establishing a benchmark for the incinerators and their operation. Equipment or processes were required to use 'best practicable means' to achieve the standards; if they could not do so, a licence to operate was refused. Conditions could be applied to such licences and there was a right of appeal against both conditions and refusal of a licence.

8.137 But, as noted earlier, the 1991 Report 'Disposal Options for Abattoir Waste' had found that, even at that date there were only 11 incinerators in Great Britain licensed to deal with animal waste in any form, almost all of which were licensed only for waste carcasses. The Report commented:

It is evident from this table that the present potential for abattoir waste disposal at large scale incinerators is very low and may be due to a number of factors. As a result of public hostility there are relatively few incinerators in the UK and those that are operational remain so burning wastes other than animal wastes. There is therefore no need for incinerator operators to accept animal wastes and they are unlikely to do so when alternatives are more easily manageable and less malodorous. We were unable to obtain figures on annual throughput of animal carcasses/wastes from incinerator operators that are licensed to accept such wastes but believe that the majority of those that are licensed only accept such wastes on an irregular basis.

As a result of public pressure, recent planning applications for the construction of two new incinerators in [redacted] were rejected. Furthermore, as a result of the high public profile of waste incinerators, as the waste disposal industry investigates alternatives to landfill, existing incinerators have also experienced numerous complaints and criticism. A call for incinerators to be shut down has been made by the [redacted] in response to official studies showing that the levels of dioxins and furans in human foodstuffs are frequently above recommended limits. ²

8.138 Nevertheless, some bovine waste material from industrial processes that followed rendering may have been handled by incinerators of this capacity. In a report produced in 1989, MAFF had considered a scheme for bovine incineration plant based on the highest standards then in force; these included:

(a) afterburning in the range 800 to 1,000°C to eliminate smell;

(b) gas scrubbing to eliminate smoke - though steam may be emitted;

(c) stacks to be fitted with grit arresters.

8.139 The report noted that:

The incinerators considered are generally used for burning pathological wastes and are typically widely used by hospitals and veterinary establishments. The Industrial Air Pollution Inspector for the South-West area, in his reports for 1985/6, states that complaints from the public relating to the nuisance from hospital incineration stack emissions appear to cause more problems than for most other industrial incineration processes, hence the need for the highest requirements to limit any emission to the absolute minimum, for despite the best controls emissions will occur and complaints could emanate from these emissions. The smell of uncontrolled burning carcasses is generally nauseous to most people, and bears no relation to that of the 'Sunday roast'.

8.140 An operational footnote added:

NB - It should be noted that any carcass incinerator installation will suffer where it is a single stream plant. In the event of a breakdown in any part of the facility it may be essential to retain carcasses on site for the period of repair. ³

The 1991 Regulations

8.141 This 'prior approval' regime for the largest incinerators marked an interim stage until the provisions of Part I of EPA came into effect in 1991. The Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991 listed the descriptions of processes to which both IPC and LAAPC ⁴ applied, and came into force in England and Wales in April 1991 and in Scotland a year later. Schedule 1 to the Regulations described the processes and identified whether they were subject to central or local control, by reference to Part A or Part B respectively.

8.142 Those relevant to this Report were:

1. Chapter 1 of the schedule, which dealt with fuel production processes and production processes. Section 1.3 prescribed for central control the burning of any fuel in large combustion appliances (over 50 MW) and in appliances with a rating of 3 MW or more, the burning of fuel made from any waste. Local control was prescribed for any fuel burning in combustion appliances between 20 MW and 50 MW, as was the burning of fuel made from waste in appliances of between 0.4 MW and 3 MW. These provisions covered the use of cattle waste and remains in power stations and similar large plant, some of which may have occurred before 20 March 1996, but which mostly occurred using cattle slaughtered and rendered into MBM and tallow under the Over Thirty Months Scheme after that date.
2. Chapter 5 of the schedule, which covered waste disposal and recycling. Section 5.1 prescribed for central control the destruction by burning of waste, including animal remains, in plant designed to incinerate at the rate of 1 tonne an hour or more. Local control was prescribed for waste incineration, again including animal remains, in plant with a design capacity of between 50 kg an hour and 1 tonne an hour.
3. Chapter 6, which was concerned with 'Other Industries', and in particular section 6.9 dealing with the treatment and processing of animal or vegetable matter. This prescribed for central control 'the processing in any way whatsoever, storing or drying by the application of heat, of any dead animal or part thereof', if the process might result in the release into water of any of several specified toxic substances. But the definition went on to exclude 'any process for the treatment of effluent so as to permit its discharge into controlled waters or into a sewer, unless the treatment process involves the drying of any material with a view to its use as an animal feedstuff'. Processes prescribed by this section for local control were those with the characteristics of a centrally controlled process but where they could not release the specified toxic substances to water or a sewer but might release certain other harmful substances to the air or cause an offensive smell noticeable outside the premises concerned. Maggot breeding, where more than 5 kg a week of animal or vegetable matter was introduced, was also subject to local control.

8.143 Both central and local control under section 6.9 were subject to 14 categories of exempt processes, of which the most significant were:

1. any process carried out on a farm or agricultural holding other than the manufacture of goods for sale;
2. the manufacture or preparation of food or drink for human consumption, but excluding -
   
   
   1. the extraction, distillation or purification of animal or vegetable oil or fat other than as a process incidental to cooking food for human consumption;
   2. any process involving the use of green offal or the boiling of blood except the cooking of food (other than tripe) for human consumption;
   3. the cooking of tripe for human consumption elsewhere than on premises where it is to be consumed;

   . . .

3. any process carried on in connection with the operation of a knacker's yard, as defined in article 3(1) of the animal By-Products Order 1992;
4. any process for the manufacture of soap not falling within a description in Part A of section 4.2 of this Schedule;

   . . .

5. the processing of animal or vegetable matter at premises for feeding a recognised pack of hounds under article 10 of the Animal By-Products Order 1992;
6. the salting of hides or skins, unless related to any other prescribed process; and
7. any process for composting animal or vegetable matter or a combination of both, except where that process is carried on for the purposes of cultivating mushrooms.

8.144 The effect of these exemptions meant that no process carried out on a farm was subject to either central control (which regulated releases to air, water and land) or local control (regulating releases to air). For categories (iv), (v) and (ix), any regulation depended on the control exercised by MAFF under the provisions of the Animal By-Products Order, although rendering was subject to local control by virtue of the exclusion of category (ii) (a), as were blood-boiling, the use of green offal and most commercial tripe cooking by reason of the exclusions in category (ii) (b) and (c).

8.145 For both Part A and Part B controls, owners of existing incinerators were required to apply for authorisation between April 1991 and January 1996 according to the type of process involved. The main provisions of the animal and vegetable matter processing and treatment category became subject to local control between April and September 1992, but those subject to central control were not subject until the period November 1995 to January 1996. New incinerators were required to meet the prescribed standards by April 1991 (Part A central control processes), and by January 1996 (Part B (local control) processes).

Process Guidance Notes and Guidance to Local Authorities

8.146 The staging of the dates for the introduction of controls reflected in part the complexity of the new system, but also its extent and the consequent need for HMIP in its new regulatory role to be able to issue guidance in respect of the host of processes subject to control. Two types of advice were issued. Process Guidance Notes issued by the Chief Inspector to his Inspectors applied to the IPC processes and included Process Guidance Note IPR 5/4 of 1992, 'Waste Disposal and Recycling Animal Carcass Incineration'. This covered processes for the incineration of animal carcasses on premises with plant designed to incinerate such waste at the rate of 1 tonne or more an hour; it came within the category of Incineration in section 5.1 of Schedule 1 to the 1991 Regulations, The introduction explained that 'It is a guide to HMIP Inspectors in their assessment of an application for, or variation of, an authorisation under the Act'. It could also be used by applicants and interested parties as guidance on the criteria against which Inspectors would judge:

1. the acceptability of an application or variation; and
2. the conditions to be included in an authorisation or variation notice.

8.147 The second type of advice, prepared in consultation with local government, was issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment as a guide to local authorities on the techniques or conditions appropriate for the control of air pollution in relation to the various processes for which they were the responsible authority. These advice notes were intended to achieve the objective of section 7(2)(a) of EPA 1990; that is, 'ensuring that, in carrying on a prescribed process, the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC) will be used' for preventing the release of substances to the air or, where that was not practicable, by reducing the release to a minimum and rendering harmless any harmful substances that might be released. These wastes were also intended to be of interest to the operators of prescribed processes and to contain information about any directions, limits, requirements, quality standards or objectives in force at the date of issue, which had to be observed or complied with. All local authorities were required to have regard to this guidance when determining applications, and also to the objectives of Section 7(2)(a) of the Act. On appeal, the Secretary of State would treat the guidance as a material consideration in reaching his decision.

8.148 Guidance issued by the Secretary of State that is of relevance to the Report included PG 5/3 (91) of February 1991: 'Animal carcass incineration processes under 1 tonne an hour'. The introduction said that these processes included 'animal carcass incinerators for disposal of animal carcasses and associated materials arising from veterinary practices'. Guidance note PG 6/1 (91) of July 1991, 'Animal by-product rendering' dealt with

processes which take the residues arising from the slaughter of animals principally from slaughterhouses and meat packers. This material is then sterilised and stabilised, using a method of rendering, to produce products generally associated with the animal feed industry and the soap or fatty acid trade, although many highly specialised outlets also exist.

This guidance note therefore covered the processes prescribed by section 6.9 of Schedule 1 to the 1991 Regulations. It was explicitly limited to air pollution control by local authorities.

8.149 Paragraph 4 of PG 6/1(91) clarified that the use of the term 'process' in the note comprised the whole process including the treating, handling and storage of any materials used in, and products and wastes produced by, the process. The note applied to all new processes, to replacement processes, to substantial changes to existing processes, and to the upgrading of existing processes to meet the standards of the note. Advice given covered topics including materials handling, processing and storage of greaves and tallow, odour arrestment plant, chimneys, vents and process exhausts, and general operations.

8.150 Guidance Note PG 5/3(91) was updated and replaced in August 1995 by PG 5/3(95), 'Animal Remains Incineration: Processes under 1 tonne an hour'. The scope remained the same, but contained more detailed advice; it also applied where excreta and material (non-synthetic) bedding were co-incinerated with animal remains, and to the incineration of the packaging in which the remains were contained. However, it did not apply to clinical waste incineration where - if animal remains and more than incidental amounts of clinical waste were being co-incinerated - the guidance was PG 5/1 (95): 'Clinical Waste Incineration, Processes under 1 tonne an hour'. Advice given in PG 5/3 (95) included: emission limits and controls (particulates, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and organic compounds); monitoring, sampling and measurement of emissions; materials handling and storage; operational controls; combustion conditions (850°C with a residence time of two seconds, or for mobile incinerators an alternative of 1,000°C with a one-second resistance time); chimneys, vents and process exhausts; and general operations.

Government advice to local authorities

8.151 These changes to air pollution and related controls had given rise to some concern among local authorities which were faced with the issues of the disposal of BSE-infected animals in 1990. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities raised the question of the role of HMIP in a letter to DoE's Waste Management Division:

You may recall that during discussion on 23 May, Alan Pearce intimated that HMIP's current role was devoted to policing and policy rather than advisory functions. It was not clear to me whether this was a result of the current staffing and resources problems or whether a decision had been made to concentrate on these aspects of the work for other reasons. I should be most grateful if you could clarify how things currently stand because, as I intimated at the meeting, this would seem to represent a shift away from the range of functions with which HMIP have traditionally been involved.

The lack of advisory assistance from HMIP is causing some concern in authorities with regard to the safe disposal of cattle suspected to be suffering from Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. I, too, have been unsuccessful in elucidating a definitive response from HMIP on the advised method of disposal of such cattle. ⁵

8.152 DoE's Waste Management Division 3 forwarded this to Mr John Maslin with a copy of the draft guidance they had prepared on the subject and which included the following:

Given the limited knowledge available about the survival and virulence of the BSE vector, it is not possible to give definitive advice on suitable combustion conditions. A precautionary approach would suggest a minimum operating temperature of 800ºC for long enough to ensure complete combustion of the waste and that off-gases and vapours are subject to this temperature for at least 2 seconds. ⁶

8.153 That there was a need for such guidance to local authorities on the subject is illustrated by the situation in Devon in 1991. The Chief Executive of the County Council explained that:

Subsequently this [ie, a problem with open pyre burning of BSE cases by MAFF] was followed in 1991 by a spate of specialist incinerator proposals. Whilst MAFF had written early in 1991 to Local Authorities acknowledging the need for the provision of regional incineration facilities, there was again a lack of any clear guidance from the Department of the Environment as to where these should be sited. The submissions received, therefore, were generally speculative and ad hoc, driven by opportunities based on historic accident rather than any overall strategy. In Devon this resulted in much additional work for the CPA ⁷ and LPAs - much of which was abortive.

It is perhaps relevant to observe here that the largest facility permitted in Devon (at Tellams, Cheriton Bishop), was achieved through appeal to the Secretary of State; that it has never been fully used for BSE Cattle Carcass disposal because of failure to secure the necessary contracts; and that as a result significant additional workload has been subsequently imposed on the CPA with regard to monitoring and variation of planning conditions. There are real planning concerns over the future use of such facilities as this, once the current BSE crisis has passed and the possible legacy of a number of facilities in poor locations. ⁸

Exempt incinerators

8.154 In addition to the incinerators controlled under Part A and B of the 1991 Regulations, there was a third category of incinerators below 50 kg/hr capacity. These were exempt from both IPC and LAAPC, and included animal carcass incinerators of less than 50 kg/hr capacity. These incinerators were subject to the controls of the Clean Air Acts 1956 and 1968 (and from 1993 to the consolidated provisions of the Clean Air Act 1993), and the statutory nuisance provisions of section 79 of EPA Part III, which had replaced the Public Health Act 1936 in England and Wales. In Scotland, the controls derived from the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897. Ash and other solid residues from such incinerators and any liquid effluent was subject to waste management licensing under EPA licensing provisions.

8.155 Some small incinerators were installed by hunt kennels, as written evidence to the Inquiry by the Master responsible for the York and Ainsty (North) Hunt Kennels shows:

Prior to the crisis our surplus [of waste material] was collected free of charge by renderers. The consequences of the BSE crisis mean that it now incurs disposal costs. The costs of disposal escalated rapidly and we were faced with an annual bill in excess of £25,000 per annum which would have forced the closure of this small non-profit making organisation.

We have installed two incinerators at kennels to enable us to cope with the problem financially but the workload is now harder for hunt staff. Purchase and installation of the incinerators cost £10,000 and running costs were £3,000 in the last 12 months.

There is a veterinary inspector from MAFF who calls twice a month to inspect us and to whom we go for advice.

We also have various written instructions which come direct from MAFF but advice also comes to us from the MFHA (Master of Foxhounds Association) . . .

Any animal over two months old is classed as 'specified' and handled in accordance with MAFF procedures. The following must be incinerated: spinal cord, head, intestines, spleen, bones. Ash is put in a pit on site, fat is burnt in the incinerator. Remaining flesh is fed to hounds. Hides are processed. ⁹