Volume 14: Responsibilities for Human and Animal Health
8. Pollution control and waste disposal
Animal waste and pollution on farms at 1986
Disposal of carcasses on farm
The disposal of other wastes on farms
Use of wastes on farms
Summary
Waste and pollution off the farm at 1986
Waste and pollution in the waste food and protein processing industries
Waste and pollution in other industries processing cattle waste
Air pollution controls
Water pollution controls
Summary of the 1986 Waste and Pollution Regime

Disposal of carcasses on farm

8.24 In most parts of Great Britain, animals that died or were sick or lame and beyond treatment had traditionally been collected by knackers or hunt kennels. But in some areas remote from these services, or in other circumstances, farmers could choose to dispose of such animals on the farm itself. It was an offence under the Dogs Act 1906 to leave a carcass unburied so that dogs could gain access to it, thereby risking the spread of infection. Failure to bury a carcass could also constitute a 'statutory nuisance' under the provisions of the Public Health Act 1936 (in Scotland the Public Health Act 1897). Local authorities had a duty under section 91 to survey their area 'from time to time' to determine whether there were any statutory nuisances, which could include 'any animal kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance, and any accumulation or deposit which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance'. The local authority could serve an abatement notice in those circumstances, requiring the occupier or owner of the land to abate the nuisance 'and execute such works and take such steps are necessary for that purpose'. If the notice was not complied with, summary proceedings could be taken against the offender. Where a local authority was satisfied that a nuisance was likely to recur, it could serve a prohibition notice under the Public Health (Recurring Nuisances) Act 1969 whether or not the nuisance existed at the time of service and, if the Order was not complied with, magistrates could then make an abatement order.

8.25 When the burial of carcasses did take place on a farm the manner in which it was undertaken was subject only to the water pollution controls of Part II of COPA 1974. Section 31(2) made it an offence to permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to enter any stream, the sea or underground water. Although an exception was permitted where the act leading to entry was in accordance with good agricultural practice as recommended in the 1985 Guide to the Code of Good Agricultural Practice published by MAFF, that code did not contain advice on the burial of carcasses. However, MAFF had published, in 1980, a leaflet advising on how to construct a simple disposal pit for foetal material and small carcasses in the light of the brucellosis outbreak of 1978, and this advice could have been taken into account in any proceedings, even though the leaflet was not formally part of the Code of Practice. ¹

8.26 The on-farm alternative to burial was burning, either on a bonfire or pyre, in a pit, or by incineration in a purpose-built incinerator, whether fixed or mobile. This would occur especially in areas with shallow soils because burial usually required about a 3-metre-deep pit or trench. Burning by whatever method was at this time subject mainly to the provisions of the Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968. Section 1(1) of the 1968 Act prohibited the emission of dark smoke from any industrial or trade premises; land on which an agricultural business was being undertaken was considered to be trade premises for the purposes of this legislation. However, article 3 of the Clean Air (Emission of Dark Smoke) (Exemption) Regulations 1969 exempted the burning of animal carcasses from these provisions, where the animals concerned had died, or had been slaughtered, as a result of a notifiable disease. Two conditions were attached to this exemption; that there was no other reasonably safe and practicable method of disposal, and that the burning was carried out under the direct and continuous supervision of the occupier of the premises or a person authorised to act on his behalf. If the burning was carried out by or on behalf of a MAFF inspector, the conditions did not apply. Smoke control also came within the 'smoke nuisance' provisions of Section 101 of the Public Health Act 1936, where the emission was from an installation (which would include an incinerator) or from a chimney, but not from open burning, which could constitute a statutory nuisance under section 63. Enforcement of both the Clean Air Acts and the Public Health Acts was the responsibility of local authorities. ²

The disposal of other wastes on farms

8.27 The exclusion from the control of COPA Part I of waste from 'premises used for agriculture' was extremely wide. The MAFF advisory booklet 2077 'General information - farm waste management' implicitly acknowledged in its advice that:

Certain unwanted pesticide wastes may possess properties and characteristics which would make them 'special waste' if they were not waste from premises used for agriculture. Such wastes when disposed of away from farm premises should be regarded as if they were 'special wastes'. Similarly all unwanted medicinal products prescribed by a veterinary surgeon should be regarded as 'special wastes' when disposed of outside farm premises. ³

8.28 The exemption from the dark smoke provision of the Clean Air Acts 1956 and 1968 also applied to smoke from the burning of containers 'contaminated by any pesticide or by any toxic substance used for veterinary or agricultural purposes'. ⁴

8.29 The one area in which the disposal of waste on farms was subject to control was where this could lead to pollution of watercourses or ground water. Part II of COPA extended earlier controls to almost all discharges to inland and coastal waters, to underground waters, and onto land (section 32), and also made the entry of polluting matter to such waters an offence - for example, by casual dumping - through powers under section 31. But despite agricultural premises being considered as trade premises and their effluent discharges as trade effluent, there was some relief for farming from the Part II provisions. This was explained in the MAFF 'General Information' booklet as follows:

This legislation is, of course, primarily concerned with preventing or controlling pollution from the disposal of waste or surplus material, but the position with agriculture is rather different. Normal farming practices may sometimes result in water pollution and farmers are therefore afforded some protection by the Act. Briefly, any person shall not be guilty of an offence (under Section 31 of the Act) if a polluting entry was as a result of an act (or omission) undertaken in accordance with a code of good agricultural practice approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the purposes of the Act. ⁵

8.30 The booklet went on to explain that intended discharges were all subject to Water Authority consent, and 'good agricultural practice' could not be pleaded in mitigation for pollution arising in such cases under section 32. Furthermore, if pollution occurred or was likely to occur, a notice under section 51 could be served by the Water Authority on a farmer requesting him to prevent such acts or omissions. Where such a notice was served, the 'good agricultural practice' protection was removed after 28 days and could not be used in any subsequent defence to a prosecution for causing pollution. ⁶

Use of wastes on farms

8.31 Because of the scale of the exemption in COPA 1974 for waste from premises used for agriculture, and the absence of other legislation on waste and pollution which applied to agriculture, there were no other provisions at 1986 which affected the control of pollution on farms or the disposal of waste on those premises. But waste from other premises was used on farms; in particular, the spreading of sludge from sewage works or blood from abattoirs as fertiliser. Of these non-farm sources of waste, only sewage spread on land for agricultural purposes enjoyed the agricultural exemption, so that all the others were controlled waste within the meaning of COPA. There were also two other types of waste, food and animal waste, which could in some circumstances be used on the farm. These were subject to their own regime of controls.

8.32 The use of waste human food to supplement the diet of farm animals, particularly pigs but also cattle, had been a long-standing practice, especially as a wartime economy measure. It had lasted into the 1950s, but the use of unprocessed waste food had been associated with outbreaks of swine fever and, later, swine vesicular disease. This had resulted in the introduction of an Order in 1957 prohibiting the feeding of unprocessed waste food to animals, which was re-enacted and amended by the Diseases of Animals (Waste Food) Order 1973.

8.33 The 1973 Order was aimed at liquid feed (swill) and expressly excluded from the definition of waste food, meal manufactured from protein originating from livestock or poultry. ⁷ But, the use of animal waste as animal feed was subject to the provisions of the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order 1981, which required all animal protein used in feedingstuffs to be processed. Although this Order was directed principally at the rendering industry, it did impinge on farmers who produced or mixed their own feed; hence it was referred to in the MAFF advisory booklet 'General Information - Farm Waste Management' of 1983. Both the Waste Food Order 1973 and the Protein Processing Order 1981 are considered in detail in Chapter 5 of this volume.

8.34 The spreading of sewage sludge and of blood and similar waste material such as gut contents from abattoirs onto agricultural land to fertilise the soil was a long-established practice in 1986. The spreading of sewage sludge onto agricultural land was exempted from the provisions of the Control of Pollution (Licensing of Waste Disposal) Regulations 1976. Under Regulation 3(c)(ii), sewage spread on land for agricultural purposes was not industrial waste and hence not controlled waste. Thus, the only controls that impinged on such spreading were those in Part II of COPA relating to pollution of a watercourse or water table.

8.35 MAFF had issued an advisory leaflet 'The use of sewage sludge on agricultural land' in 1982 to assist farmers, and this was taken into the Code of Practice in 1985 so that a farmer acting in accordance with its recommendations could use it as a 'good agricultural practice' defence to a water pollution charge. The leaflet included the advice that:

8. It is important to observe the safe, no grazing intervals of three weeks for anaerobically digested sludges or sludges that have been lagooned for at least two years, and a six months no-grazing period for cattle and pigs following the application of sludges which have received little or no treatment to control pathogens. The advice of the Water Authority should be sought on this aspect. ⁸

8.36 The spreading of blood and gut contents from abattoirs was not exempt from pollution control. MAFF advice on the spreading of such material was based on guidelines formulated in 1978 that fields dressed with blood from ruminants and pigs should not be grazed for four or six months respectively. ⁹ However, that guidance was not necessarily followed. In 1989, a householder living next to a Hampshire farm on which blood-spreading had been traditional practice, complained to the BBC following a programme about BSE in which blood-spreading had been mentioned. MAFF were asked to comment, and sent a Veterinary Officer to inspect the farm and the slaughterhouse in question. He reported that:

The premises extend to about 800 acres mainly clay and flint on high downland. Three hundred and fifty acres are used for cereal and the balance is grass. Dairy herd is approximately 145 cows with followers and bought in stores for finishing. Policy is organic and wastes spread are estimated at saving £10,000 p.a. in fertiliser costs. There are sheep at [redacted] which also have access to the treated land . . .

Yeast/brewers waste, poultry manure and slaughterhouse waste are all used as fertilisers.

Removal of slaughterhouse waste is currently licensed by HCC and Doc.1 (an out of date licence) outlines the conditions. Blood and slaughterhouse waste have been spread on the land for about 25 years. [redacted] own tanker (2,000 gallon capacity) with a spray on the back takes liquid waste which is blood and washing water from slaughterhouse to farm daily. 'This is usually half full'. Waste is sprayed almost every day on arable or pasture depending on time of year. I inspected one field of stubble turnips where the last waste had been sprayed at the weekend. Small clots about 1 cm across with the appearance of dropped solder were apparent across the soil and vegetation surface about every 5 cm. When sprayed on the grass the practice is to 'wait for rain to wash the blood in'. The blood is never spread near standing cattle who are reported to be frightened of the spreader. Appropriate records of spreading are kept by numbering fields and recording in a duplicate book field numbers for each day. These records are inspected by HCC at approximately three monthly intervals. Spreading takes place in compliance with the licence . . .

In 5 working days each week the slaughterhouse processes about 425 cattle, 1300 pigs and 3500 sheep depending on season.

No grazing record is kept of where stock graze on the farm and young stock and milkers are all equally exposed to the blood. At pasture there is no direct contact between the tanker and live stock.

In spring the grass may be spelled 4-6 weeks between application and grazing.

Animal health appears to be good and livestock all look well.

. . .

With this level of operation a 6 month spell between application and grazing is unacceptable to [redacted]. A spell of 4-6 weeks has evolved as his usual practice taking into account season, grass growth, rainfall, temperature, etc.

I visited [redacted] Slaughterhouse on 12 September 1989 . . . Waste blood from the bleeding area is pumped out to 2 overhead collecting tanks and then unloaded into the mobile tanker. Pressure washers are available and the outside of the tanker is reasonably clean . . .

Solid waste comprising bedding and lairage waste was being loaded . . . into an open trailer.

The blood tanker is removed daily to [redacted] and returned. With [redacted] tanker and the two overhead tanks there is capacity for 1½ -2 days blood.

Washing water from the dressing line and blood are the only material entering this route. [redacted] contract is to remove the 'blood' daily at no cost to the plant. ¹⁰

Summary

8.37 In 1986, legislative controls on waste and pollution on farms were limited, although there was some published advice from MAFF to assist the farmer. However, any waste disposed of away from the farm became subject to controls which dealt with pollution and waste in general, including waste from slaughterhouses and from the cattle by-products industries. The following section looks at these.

Waste and pollution off the farm at 1986

8.38 Waste material which did not originate from 'premises used for agriculture' did not enjoy the exemption from the controlled waste provisions of Part I of COPA 1974. Thus, for example, waste material from the slaughtering of an animal on a farm, whether blood, offal, gut contents or whatever else was not used or sold for consumption, did not constitute controlled waste, and could be deposited or disposed of without a licence. By contrast, the same material from an animal killed in a slaughterhouse, knacker's yard or anywhere else other than a farm was subject to the controlled waste provisions of COPA and could not be disposed of except on a licensed disposal site. Waste material in the animal processing industries, from the slaughterhouse through the sequence of processes to final products, was all subject to the controlled waste provisions in Part I of COPA 1974, which had been brought into effect in July 1984 by Regulations. On the other hand, liquid trade effluents were subject to Part II of COPA 1974. As noted earlier, in terms of air pollution, Part IV of COPA did not deal with processes with which this Report is concerned; the provisions of the Clean Air Acts 1956 and 1968, and the Public Health Act 1936 remained the principal controls.

Waste and pollution in the waste food and protein processing industries

8.39 One entirely separate strand of legislation in this area related to waste food and animal protein to be incorporated into animal feed. This legislation, made under the predecessor of the Animal Health Act 1981, was drafted to apply to animal waste material in all circumstances, both on and off the farm. The two Orders concerned, the Diseases of Animals (Waste Food) Order 1973, and the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order 1981, applied to two specific industries. The Waste Food Order and its 1957 predecessor applied mainly to the swill-boiling premises around the larger towns and cities, which collected food waste, boiled it and then sold it for feeding to animals, mainly, though not exclusively, to pigs. The Protein Processing Order, on the other hand, applied mainly to the rendering industry and was intended to ensure that the meat and bone meal produced by the rendering process was free from salmonella and hence suitable for feeding to livestock as intended.

8.40 These two pieces of legislation were complementary: article 3 of the Protein Processing Order exempted its provisions from applying to waste food; and the definition of waste food in article 2(1) of the Waste Food Order 1973 expressly excluded 'meal manufactured from protein originating from livestock or poultry'.

Waste and pollution in other industries processing cattle waste

8.41 Both Orders dealt with material which was waste before it had been processed. Thereafter it was a commercial product to be used for a beneficial purpose. But both processes gave rise to waste or pollution in the form of liquid or gaseous discharge and/or solid waste residues. These were not subject to the provisions of the Orders, but were subject to those of COPA 1974, as with any waste discharges from other industries at that time. Where they were not further used for some beneficial purpose they constituted waste and were potentially pollutants if they contained pathogens and/or poisonous compounds. Similar considerations applied to every other stage of the processing of waste from slaughtered cattle. Thus blood from the slaughtering itself, if it was not used in food manufacture, was waste to the slaughterhouse; the remains of animal hooves, feed and leather waste after gelatine had been extracted was waste to the specialist bone processing industry; while condensate from the rendering process was waste to that industry.

8.42 Many of these processes also involved the use or addition of water or additional materials as activants. Once used that material was itself waste to the process, having no further use. For example, in the manufacture of rennet, ¹¹ part of the intestines of young calves was minced and then mixed with beechwood pulp, oat husk and water before being squeezed in a screw press. The liquid then went on to further processing but the solids left behind in the press were of no use to the rennet manufacturer and had to be disposed of as waste. Washing water was used in many processes; it became contaminated by the material it was designed to remove and thus became a polluted effluent. In processes where heat was applied, fumes were given off, which might or might not be condensed into liquid/solid material, while sedimentation produced solid and/or liquid wastes and effluents, as did filtration and precipitation, all of them comprising or containing waste material which might be polluted.

8.43 Whether these wastes or effluents or discharges arose from processes covered by the Waste Food Order 1973, the Protein Processing Order 1981, or from some other process, they were subject to the provisions of COPA 1974. The way in which they were treated depended on whether they were solid waste going to land, effluent going to water, or gaseous emissions to the atmosphere. Waste from commercial or industrial premises was controlled waste and fell within Part I of COPA. The deposit of such material on land, and the use of plant or equipment for disposing of controlled waste (including sorting or treating it), was an offence unless it was carried out in accordance with a valid disposal licence. To obtain a licence for a waste disposal facility, which included both landfill sites and incineration plant, the occupier of land had to apply to the waste disposal authority for the area. ¹² Where the waste disposal authority itself owned a site or potential site, it was required to pass a resolution laying down the conditions under which it would operate. In all cases, planning permission had to have been granted (or not be required) before a waste disposal licence application could be determined.

8.44 The model application forms to operate a licensed waste site recommended by Department of the Environment (DoE) Circular 55/76 asked applicants, among other things, to estimate the quantities of eight different types of waste which were expected to be delivered. These included domestic and commercial waste, which were grouped together; medical, surgical and veterinary wastes; non-hazardous industrial wastes; and farm wastes. Although the model form acknowledged that the last was not controlled waste, it was 'helpful for the disposal authority to know about them'. A separate question asked for estimated maximum quantities of 'difficult wastes', to be described according to a detailed list of codes in an annex to the form. Four categories were relevant to BSE:

1. fats, wax and greases (M60);
2. the fine chemicals and biocides group - pharmaceuticals and cosmetic products (N10), pharmaceutical products in retail containers (N11) and in bulk and production containers (N12);
3. the miscellaneous wastes group - tannery waste (S11), fellmongers' waste (S12), soap (S51), detergent (S52), and other industrial wastes (S90); and
4. fourthly the animal and food waste group - animal processing wastes (T10), carcasses and flesh (T11), blood, fat, grease, etc (T12), excrement (T13), food processing wastes including starch (T20), and glue wastes (T30).

8.45 For landfill sites, the model form requested plans and details of the existing and proposed layout, including drainage facilities and known watercourses, adits and shafts. An accompanying statement was also required, giving the applicant's intention on several matters including drainage and outfalls, provision for recording waste intake, working methods, the method of dealing with hazardous or difficult to handle waste, water and waste sampling, geological information, and final restoration. For other types of waste sites such as incinerators, information was requested on the recording of intake and output, instrumentation to maintain a satisfactory operating method, storage and quantities of wastes awaiting treatment and of residues, the destination of residues, emergency procedures in case of breakdown and steps to be taken to avoid noise, fumes, dust, grit and odours being emitted.

8.46 Although the DoE circular requested and recommended to waste disposal authorities that they should use model forms containing this level of detail, the Regulations themselves (the Control of Pollution (Licensing of Waste Disposal) Regulations 1976) required very little of an applicant. Under Regulation 5, an applicant for a disposal licence had to give his full name and address and the following information concerning the land, or the plant and equipment, to which the application related:

(a) a map showing its location;

(b) the full address of that location;

(c) a plan showing its layout;

(d) the form of deposit or disposal for which the licence was being sought;

(e) the types and estimated quantities of controlled waste it was proposed to deposit or dispose of; and

(f) details of any planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which had been granted in respect of the use which was the subject of the application.

8.47 Before issuing a licence, the waste disposal authority was required to consult the Water Authority for the area (or the River Purification Authority in Scotland), the Health and Safety Executive, and in certain cases the Institute of Geological Sciences. If the waste disposal authority and the Water Authority could not reach agreement on the issue of a licence or the conditions to be attached, the matter had to be referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment for determination. Section 5(3) of COPA limited the reasons for refusing a site licence to those concerned with preventing pollution to water or danger to public health. In any case of refusal or permission subject to conditions, the applicant had a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

8.48 Once a licence had been issued to operate a landfill site or an incinerator, the waste disposal authority was required to do two things. Firstly, it had to keep under review the terms and conditions of a licence and could modify or revoke them if it considered it appropriate. Should the disposal facility cause water pollution, a danger to public health or become seriously detrimental to the amenities of the locality, the disposal authority was under a duty to modify or revoke the licence. However, section 8 allowed a licence holder to transfer or relinquish a licence simply by giving notice to the waste disposal authority. Although the authority could decline to accept a transferee, it could not refuse the relinquishment of a licence. Secondly, the waste disposal authority was required to keep a copy of every licence issued in a register open to public inspection. The register had to include details of the conditions attached to the licence and in many cases these would limit the nature of the material the site could accept. Failure to observe a condition by depositing, or - in the case of an incinerator - burning, waste not in conformity with the condition was an offence.

8.49 However, in some cases licences did not indicate what wastes could be accepted, and in other cases certain types of waste were only permitted in limited quantities each day, with prior approval or depending on the interpretation of the conditions. A survey conducted in 1991 of licensed landfill sites in Great Britain ¹³ found that only 16 counties in England had sites licensed for 'carcasses and flesh' or 'blood, fat and grease', with five counties having sites for 'animal processing wastes'; allowing for overlaps this gave a total of 17 English counties with facilities for all these categories. ¹⁴ In Scotland and Wales respectively, there were five and three sites licensed for 'carcasses and flesh'. It explained that even in counties where such waste was accepted, the quantities were severely limited:

[redacted] has ten sites licensed for animal processing wastes, two of which have limits of 50t/d ¹⁵ and 20t/d, the remainder being unspecified. Others are licensed to take abattoir waste one at 20t/d and the other 10t/d. [redacted] has no incinerator and it does landfill BSE infected carcasses. The animal processing waste is dominated by that from pet food processing, all of which is sterilised and subject to a maximum daily input in aggregate of 100t. The landfill with the largest permitted daily input is licensed for 50t, but rarely achieves this throughput since it is considered a reserve for use only in emergencies. Typical of the type of emergency was the need recently to dispose of 200 piglets and a large number of turkeys all of which died from accident or error, but not disease. ¹⁶

8.50 It continued:

In [redacted] there is a problem with the increasing demand for animal waste disposal and because of this they have approved the installation of a dedicated animal waste incinerator. Meanwhile, slaughterhouse waste is accepted for landfill but it is proving difficult to set quotas because of the variable rates at which the waste arises. They refuse all liquids but accept skips of unsterilised waste provided it is not malodorous. In the northern part of the country there is a shortage of landfill space and they suspect that some goes over the border into [redacted] - although the latter profess no knowledge of this. In [redacted] much of the waste is taken by one landfill and the remainder probably goes south into [redacted]. No figures for the quantities of waste involved were available.

[redacted] is an arable farming area and does not have a high animal population. The abattoir waste that arises is modest and creates no problem; it is accepted into the six landfills operated by the County Council as well as three privately operated sites. The aggregated quantities are low but there was no indication available of the estimated tonnage disposed of. No liquid wastes are accepted at any of the county sites. ¹⁷

8.51 The COPA solid waste system was overseen by the central government's Hazardous Waste Inspectorate; from 1987, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP). The role of the Inspectorates was only advisory and there were no default powers available to the Secretary of State. The situation with regard to the effectiveness of the COPA licensing regime can be judged from this extract of the HMIP Annual Report for 1989-90:

4.8 HMIP continues to be concerned about the inadequate resources that some WDAs ¹⁸ devote to waste regulation, in particular the monitoring and enforcement of licences. Authorities rarely make inspections as frequently as recommended and some undertake only a small proportion of the recommended level. There was also insufficient sampling of wastes at many sites. For instance, even at sites which deal with a wide range of wastes, the WDA may only take one sample of waste a year.

8.52 The picture that emerges in this sector of the landfill industry is one of a wide variation in the availability of sites for animal waste, of few records of disposals, and of varying approaches to the issue between different waste disposal authorities. There was in practice no national waste strategy or control, notwithstanding that the Department of the Environment had issued advice to disposal authorities from 1976 onwards in Circulars and in Waste Management Paper No. 4 'Licensing of Waste Management Facilities'. ¹⁹ Enforcement of the legislation was principally undertaken by the waste disposal authorities (county councils), but because many offences resulted from smoke, smells, vermin and litter, the Environmental Health Officers of district councils were often involved in enforcing controls under Public Health Act provisions and, where water pollution was an issue, officials from the Regional Water Authorities had the responsibility for enforcement. Thus a fragmented system of enforcement within each waste disposal authority's area arose.

Air pollution controls

8.53 As noted above, controls on air pollution under Part IV of COPA 1974 did not apply to the industries involved with processing cattle waste, although local authorities were given powers to collect information on air pollution and could require the occupiers of premises to give them information on pollution emissions to the air. Air pollution controls on the animal waste industries in 1986 were, firstly, those which applied to agricultural premises - the dark smoke provisions of the Clean Air Acts 1956 and 1968, and the smoke and statutory nuisances provisions of the Public Health Act 1936. Secondly, there were additional controls on the emission of grit, dust and fumes from furnaces or incinerators under the Clean Air Act 1968, and the licensing of waste incinerators under Part I of COPA.

8.54 The statutory nuisance provisions of section 92 of the 1936 Public Health Act and the offensive trades licensing system under section 107 were closely related in that they frequently applied to the same premises. Thus the 'blood boiler, blood drier, bone boiler, fat extractor, fat melter, fellmonger, glue maker, gut scraper, rag and bone dealer, size maker, soap boiler, tallow melter or tripe boiler' defined in section 107(1)(i) of the Act would by their very nature tend to emit 'effluvia . . . prejudicial to the health of, or a nuisance to, the inhabitants of the neighbourhood' of section 92(1)(d). These trades and processes were also central to the animal waste industries. However, as DoE Circular 9/76 pointed out, there was a balance to be struck between the enforcement of such controls and the need to maintain an effective animal waste industry.

8.55 The problem of controlling smells and effluent discharges in these industries at this time is illustrated by the following description of rendering at 1983:

The cooking process largely involves the evaporation of the water content of the raw material and this can vary from about 10% in the case of suet, to about 25-30% in edible butchers' shop fat. In the case of the inedibles processors we would be thinking in terms of 50% water content in offal.

As you will appreciate, the evaporation process is very expensive in terms of present fuel costs. The evaporated vapour and steam also create offensive odours. They have to be condensed and, in the case of inedible works, chemically treated also.

Sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, acids, ozone, activated carbon filters and catalysts are all used in various combinations. The resultant liquors then create effluent pollution. To date, no completely acceptable system of coping with rendering vapours and effluent has yet been devised and renderers are frequently in trouble with their local authority, as has been stated previously. ²⁰

8.56 Section 3(1) of the Clean Air Act 1968 made it an offence to use a furnace capable of burning any solid matter at a rate of 45.4 kg/hr or more unless it had been fitted with plant for arresting grit and dust emissions given prior approval by the local authority (district councils in England and Wales, and island or district councils in Scotland). However, if the local authority was satisfied that the grit and dust emissions would not be prejudicial to public health nor become a nuisance, it could exempt the furnace from being fitted with arrestment plant. If it failed to determine an application for exemption by a furnace operator, the exemption was deemed to be granted (section 4). Prior approval of the height of a chimney attached to a furnace of that size was also required from the local authority, again subject to similar exemptions, under section 6. Regulations made by the Minister (the Secretary of State for the Environment) could prescribe that fumes be controlled by arrestment plant, and the rate of dust, grit and fumes emission could also be controlled by Regulations. By 1986, no such Regulations had been made. Enforcement of the smoke nuisance provisions of the Clean Air Acts and the Public Health Act was for district councils.

8.57 The system of waste licensing under Part I of COPA, which has already been discussed, applied to incinerators as well as to landfills. In 1986 there were relatively few incinerators in Great Britain outside hospitals and research institutions and of these, fewer were licensed to accept animal waste. The 1991 report 'Disposal Options for Abattoir Waste', ²¹ referred to earlier, gives some idea of the situation in the early years of BSE, although it was prepared some five years later, and under different circumstances, including a different waste licensing regime. In Great Britain only 11 large incinerators (over 45.54 kg/hr capacity) were licensed to accept animal carcasses, and, of these, only one was licensed for all three categories of animal waste processing (ie, offal, animal waste carcasses, and blood, fat and grease). ²² 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. ²³

Water pollution controls

8.58 The water pollution provisions of Part II of COPA 1974 built on and replaced the earlier legislation contained in the Public Health Acts 1936 and 1961, the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Acts 1937, the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 and 1961, and the Water Resources Act 1963. ²⁴ The rationale of the system was, through licensing arrangements, to control discharges to water so that the legality of such discharges could be determined by the extent of their compliance with the conditions attached to the discharge consent (the licence). The overall aim of this part of COPA was to prevent the pollution of water, whether in streams and watercourses or in rivers and tidal waters and 'controlled waters', that is, the sea within three miles of the coast. These were collectively referred to as 'relevant waters'.

8.59 Section 31(1) made it an offence to cause or knowingly permit 'any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to enter a stream or "restricted waters" (tidal rivers), or to allow any matter (alone or in combination) to enter a stream so as to tend to impede its flow and be likely to lead to pollution'. However, where the entry was authorised by a disposal licence or discharge consent, no offence was committed. This included where a waste disposal site had runoff or leachate ²⁵ entering a watercourse with the consent of a condition on its licence. Under section 32(1), it was an offence to cause or knowingly permit any trade or sewage effluent to be discharged into any relevant waters, or any matter other than trade or sewage effluent to be discharged into relevant waters from a sewer or a drain unless the discharge had consent under section 34 of the Act. A person guilty of either offence was liable on indictment to imprisonment for up to two years or a fine or both.

8.60 Applications for a consent to discharge were made to the Regional Water Authority in England and Wales or a River Purification Authority (the seven River Purification Boards and the islands councils) in Scotland. In Northern Ireland the Department of the Environment (NI) was responsible for all consents for discharges to watercourses or underground strata. Applications were required to state where the discharge was sited, the nature and composition of the matter to be discharged and its temperature at the time of discharge, and the maximum amount each day to be discharged, including the highest rate of discharge. The Authority was given three months to determine applications but if it failed to do so in that time the application was deemed to have been refused. Appeals against non-determination, refusal or conditions attached to a discharge consent could be made to the Secretary of State. In granting consent subject to conditions, the water authority could impose any reasonable conditions it thought fit. Water authorities had a duty under section 37 to review all consents and conditions, and could revoke, amend or impose further conditions, although the period before review had to have been at least two years from consent. Licence holders had a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against variations imposed by the water authority. Existing trade effluent and sewage discharge consents granted under earlier legislation came under the provisions of this Part of COPA from July 1984 when section 32 came into force.

8.61 The provisions of Part II of COPA 1974 were mainly introduced in July 1984 and January 1985 by a series of Commencement Orders which applied to England, Wales and Scotland. Their effect was that all trade effluent discharges, existing or proposed, required a consent by 1986. These provisions applied equally to waste material which was discharged into any watercourse or to land from both rendering premises and waste food processors, even though those processes themselves came under other legislation. For example, in the case of Thruxted Mill near Canterbury, the Southern Water Authority granted a discharge consent in 1985 for its effluent which was discharged directly to land (for more details see ch. 10, vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-96). However, most premises processing animal waste or waste from other industries downstream of the slaughterhouse, discharged via sewers to a sewage treatment plant. The discharge into the sewer required consent as did the discharges of the sewage treatment plant, both of them controlled by the discharge consent legislation of this Part of COPA, even though most treatment plants were operated by water authorities. Where a water authority operated sewage works, it required the consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment for the discharges. In Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland was responsible for approval of all discharges by Island Councils' sewage works.

8.62 Enforcement responsibilities were for the 'water authorities', which meant the Regional Water Authorities in England and Wales and the River Purification Boards in Scotland. Environmental health authorities also had some responsibilities, where pollution or waste in a watercourse could be considered a statutory nuisance under the Public Health Acts.

Summary of the 1986 Waste and Pollution Regime

8.63 Although the system created by COPA 1974 had come fully into force by 1986, it was a regime that was unbalanced in the extent and nature of its controls, and geographically uneven in its application. Industrial and commercial undertakings were generally subject to tighter controls than agriculture, but much depended on the type of waste produced. Gaseous discharges generally were subject to very little control, whereas the regime protecting water from pollution was relatively robust; the solid waste regime varied so widely according to the type of material involved and the particular situation in each waste disposal authority's area, that no generalisation is possible. Furthermore, solid waste was controlled, not at the point of origin, as were emissions to air and discharges to water, but at the point of disposal. By the time solid waste had reached its disposal destination, it was difficult if not impossible to check its origin. Nor was it necessarily easy to refuse to deal with waste which arrived at a disposal site not licensed to accept that type of waste. Many sites were huge and long-lasting; this and the 'dilute and disperse' philosophy of such sites meant that the occasional unauthorised deposit could easily escape notice. That the licensing system for solid waste did not work effectively is demonstrated by the records of BSE carcasses disposed to landfill by MAFF between 1988 and 1991. A subsequent trace in response to a Parliamentary Question in 1997 established the record of disposals, not from waste licences, but from MAFF records kept by the State Veterinary Service (SVS). ²⁶

8.64 The overall position at or around 1986 may be summarised as follows:

'[We] consider the present degree of control exercised by waste disposal authorities to be defective and urgently in need of strengthening.'

(House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, 1981).

'Waste management must not remain the Cinderella of government and industry.'

(Ninth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1985)

'. . . ramshackle and antediluvian?'

(Second Report of the Hazardous Waste Inspectorate, 1986)

'Never, in any of our enquiries into environmental problems, have we encountered such consistent and universal criticism of existing legislation and of central and local government as we have during the course of this enquiry.'

(Second Report of the House of Commons Environment Committee, 1989)