Asbestos Waste (Tipping) (Hansard, 15 February 1984)

§ Mr. Den Dover (Chorley)
I wish to raise the important question of the proposed disposal of asbestos at Croston near Chorley in Lancashire.
In June 1983 the Lancashire county council waste disposal authority sought a licence for the tipping of not only domestic waste but asbestos in a tip near Croston, and, as the waste disposal authority, it granted itself that licence.
At a public meeting held in September as part of the consultation process—admittedly taken after the licence had been granted—I pointed out that the site was very waterlogged, that the claypits used for a brickworks would not retain the water and that round any asbestos that was put into the tip water would therefore be swilling. I mentioned to Lancashire county council, and to the North-West water authority, waste management paper No. 18 on asbestos wastes, in particular paragraphs 6.2 and 7.17. Paragraph 6.2 states: Waste disposal authorities will have taken into account for site licensing purposes the vulnerability of any ground water and surface water resources considered to be at risk from the possible migration of asbestos fibres from the deposition of fibrous asbestos waste or dust, whether loose or in bags. However, where sites are situated on fissured, fractured or jointed strata leading to aquifers, and where water-filled sites are in hydraulic continuity with surface and ground water resources, migration of fibres to water resources is possible.
Paragraph 7.17 states: The drainage characteristics of a land-filled site where asbestos waste is disposed of or the location of a deposit should be such that no possible wash-out of asbestos fibres is likely to take place.
Lancashire county council and the North-West water authority considered that the site was, nevertheless, watertight. I took it upon myself, therefore, to visit the site regularly to measure water flowing off from that site down well-defined sewers, and in particular from areas where I could measure the surface area and the rate of flow. Over the weeks I found that the flow-off of water as some 20 to 40 times normal rainfall. As a result, not only do puddles form from rainwater on the surface, but there is infiltration of ground water. Many of the local farmers and residents use underground boreholes to pump up their water, unfiltered, which they use for drinking water, for spraying crops and for their livestock.
I realised that the guidelines were being broken, and that there was the possibility of asbestos getting out into the ground water with a resultant health hazard. I therefore engaged the services of Professor Rowe, who is an international soil mechanics expert and one of my old professors at Manchester university. I asked Professor Rowe to produce a full soil mechanics report on the groundwater. I obtained three borehole logs from Lancashire county council, and Professor Rowe ascertained immediately that water, as when the boreholes were taken, would rise to 1.5m from ground level. He then had to gauge how long that process would take. Based on permeability readings on site, he was able to judge that that would take probably weeks or months, and not more than a year or two. There was, therefore, the possibility of water swilling round the asbestos tipped into the site. I collated that information, and sent it to the Minister who 358 will reply to the debate tonight. At about the same time, an inspector from the hazardous wastes inspectorate—an independent unit within the Department of the Environment — visited the site. He agreed that water would rise to within 1.5m of the surface but thought that that would take centuries rather than decades. Thus there was a great divergence of opinion between the two experts about something that might put public health and lives at risk.
I shall quote from the only source of information that I have from the hazardous wastes inspectorate. A letter was written by the inspectorate on 30 January to Lancashire county council. The fifth paragraph states: The clays themselves also have low permeabilities. On the basis of the information you provide"— to the county— plus visual inspection I would expect the clay in most areas to have a permeability lower and probably much lower than the 1 x 10^-12 metres per second measured by your laboratory.
That permeability could never be achieved by a clay, no matter how stiff. It could be achieved only by laboratory conditions, and by hand-made bentonite slurry. Therefore, there has been an error in laboratory testing or in the interpretation of the results. The factor of error is 100 or, possibly, 10,000 and that shows why the length of time taken for the water to rise up is centuries in the view of the inspector, rather than weeks or months in the view of Professor Rowe.
I then noted to my satisfaction that some monitoring boreholes had been put down. They were 4 in in diameter and have been put down during the past four or five weeks. They had been put down to a depth of between 13 and 16 in. I was interested about the level of water in those monitoring holes. They have been measured every few days, and the water has already risen from 16m down, to two to three metres from the surface. That surely shows the amount of water pressure from the underlying aquifer—water-bearing—sandstone strata.
In addition, there is clear visual and photographic evidence galore of enormous quantities of water on that site. Lancashire country council, which operates the tip, has had to use two or sometimes three large pumps night and day. Recently, it had to Import a 10 in diameter pipe to pump it away. The flow measure was much higher than the rainfall for that area. Therefore, there is a ground water problem.
Lancashire county council considers that it should dump asbestos on that site. It may say that even if the water flows up and swirls round the plastic bags — and everyone assumes that with consolidation the plastic bags will burst, and the dust will get out — it will not necessarily dissolve or gel: into the ground water. However, I submit that evidence is not categorical on that point. Research has been undertaken in America and other countries for several years without being conclusive. In addition, Professor Rowe says in his report that there are already well-defined channels from the water-bearing strata up through to the open pits.
It is no good the chief executive of the North-West water authority saying that those clay pits at the upper level are "effectively watertight". Either they are or they are not. There is a well-defined connection, according to Professor Rowe's report, between the upper pits and the lower water-bearing strata. That means that those fibres can easily be sucked down when people use the boreholes to obtain their drinking water. or water for their livestock 359 and crop spraying. In addition, those fibres can be transmitted not only a mile or two, but tens of miles in the underlying strata. The strata go on for tens of miles. They are open rocks, which will take the water at a fast rate.
I asked the county council for specific information, so that Professor Rowe and I could meet the hazardous wastes inspector and try to comply with the Minister's wish to sort out the difference of opinion round a table. I therefore asked the county for certain information, and repeated that request in writing. I have been refused, point blank, key information that would permit a meaningful meeting to take place. The sort of information I am asking for is the borehole logs for the initial boreholes and the monitoring boreholes, and the results of any laboratory tests. I am asking for comments and observations by any staff of the North-West water authority or the county on the effect of ground water and subsoil conditions on the dumping of asbestos. I am asking for a statement on why the excavation has been taken down to a certain level. I have had no answer to that. The county surveyor tells me that no calculations have been carried out on that. He saw no need for them. I asked how the leachate or the surface water within the site during the 10 years of tipping would be contained without being released to drainage, surface water run-offs or local rivers—because that is what was said in the planning application. When one considers that over the years there will be tens of metres of rainfall on that site, how can it produce an answer to that?
I have asked for readings of the water levels in the. monitoring period, a copy of the hazardous waste inspector's letter of 22 December and a large scale map showing where the boreholes were, the locations, the ground levels and the proposed contour lines before and after the tipping took place. None of this information is being released to me. I see this as an abuse of power by Lancashire county council when lives, health and safety are at risk.
While I have been investigating the problem in detail, it has become apparent that inadequate safeguards exist. That is why I wanted to raise the matter. I am hoping that at some stage I shall be given the information and the opportunity of sorting out the difference of opinion with the county.
There are some points of principle that I should like to raise. Why does the county want another asbestos tip? There are three privately operated tips within five miles of Chorley available for the disposal of asbestos. The quantity of asbestos now to be disposed of is 40 per cent. below the peak of four years ago. Why, then, is it necessary to supply more tips? It does not make sense. There should be more crossing of the county boundaries in waste disposal and more use of the private sector. Perhaps a guideline should be laid down that no hazardous waste will be put into areas where permeability is greater that 1 x 10^-7 metres per second. On this site, according to our calculations, it is greater than that.
There should be some sort of accountability or method of inquiry so that county councils do not grant to themselves licences without having to justify why they should have them. Where is the compliance with the asbestos waste guidelines and with the European Community directive under which, as a member state, we 360 are required to take the necessary steps to prevent the introduction into ground water of substances known to possess carcinogenic properties. That includes asbestos.
I have asked for the information from the county council to be provided within 14 days,. It would take a further 14 days before a meaningful meeting could be held. If I do not get the information, I can only conclude either that it does not exist or that the council is unwilling to release it to Professor Rowe or myself for reasons best known to itself. I would then have to consider what further steps were open to me, as the local Member of Parliament, to try to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of the people and the lives of the livestock in the area.
I may have to ask the Secretary of State to hold or call for the holding of a public inquiry and the revocation of the licence. I hope that I shall get the support of the Minister to go down that route if pressure from him, as from me, fails to get the necessary information from the county.

§ Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble)
I am grateful to the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) for allowing me to intervene briefly in the debate, particularly because, though the site is in my hon. Friend's constituency, the proposals will directly affect my constituents in the Moss Side part of Leyland. The lead that my hon. Friend has taken in trying to persuade Lancashire county council that the tip would be wrong for the area is welcomed by his and my constituents, and I am pleased to be able to give him support both tonight and generally in the campaign that he has been waging.
I find the attitude of the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council reprehensible in this matter. My hon. Friend has taken a great deal of trouble in seeking professional and expert advice, but when presenting the case so as to gain answers to his questions he has been met by a brick wall. It is instructive to note that even members of local Labour parties in my constituency — and, I suspect, in other parts of Lancashire—who have taken up the matter with the county council have also found themselves up against a brick wall. So the attitude of Lancashire county council has been reprehensible.
I hope that the council will provide the information that my hon. Friend and I have requested, and I wish to emphasise how strongly I believe that the Minister should support my hon. Friend in his campaign to ensure that this tip does not occur in Chorley, with the consequent effects that such a tip would have on the surrounding area, which includes part of my constituency of South Ribble.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave)
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) for the way in which they have spoken on a subject which is obviously of great local importance and which relates to a number of issues which are of national importance as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley has obviously become a considerable expert on the subject and will not need me to tell him that the principal responsibility in this area lies on the local authority, which is why, rightly, he went to the local authority for information and to express his concern about the matter. But it might be helpful if I gave some of the background on how the Government 361 view their responsibilities and how they relate to the local authority. The main relevant legislation is the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which makes it an offence to dispose of controlled waste anywhere other than at a disposal site specifically licensed or authorised by resolution by the waste disposal authority and which must be managed in accordance with site-specific operating conditions. These are drawn up by the waste disposal authority with the object of safeguarding health and environmental quality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley is right to say that these licences and resolutions involve the water authority, which has a statutory right of appeal to my right hon. Friend if it believes that there is any danger to water; but as at present designed, that procedure does not have all the public inquiry elements of the planning system. Any waste disposal site will require planning consent originally, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the addition of a special licence in respect of a site which was not originally intended for special waste can be granted by the waste authority without going through a further planning act; it is not thought to be a matter of planning law at that point.
The water authority has a right to intervene if it thinks that there is a danger to the water system. There is a duty on the water authority so to manage the site that there is no threat to public health. That might be relevant to a district council, although I do not know whether that would be relevant in this case. There is a duty on waste disposal authorities so to manage the site that there is no threat to human or any other safety. If there were a case—and I tread warily in matters of the law—for saying that the authority was in any sense in dereliction of its duty, it would be worth considering whether general legal action, perhaps by a district authority, or, in special circumstances—here, legal advice would be needed—by an individual, might be appropriate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley pointed out, my Department has published an extensive series of waste management papers — he quoted from one of them—including one on asbestos, setting out codes of practice and giving advice about safe disposal. We have found over the years that, on the whole, those are sensibly followed by most authorities. Indeed, some authorities—and in some respects, to be fair, Lancashire is one of them—have gone beyond our guidelines and developed further guidelines of their own.

§ Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has mentioned the district council. I represent west Lancashire, and the tip abuts upon my constituency. The district council is aware of the problem and, I suspect, is concerned about it, as are the residents of west Lancashire who live near the site.

§ Mr. Waldegrave
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. He may wish to draw the attention of the district council to what I have said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley mentioned the European Community directive on the protection of ground water. It would be absolutely necessary, as part of 362 the assessment of the suitability of any site for a range of wastes, to consider the possible migration of any pollutants from the site which might cause damage to the ground water. The site must meet the requirements of that directive.
I shall not waste my hon. Friend's time by dealing with all the matters which he already knows about. My hon. Friend's concern, and his conduct of the investigations, could not be said to be frivolous. My concern is whether the public are getting the information which would make the difficult and unpalatable legal action possible, if it was embarked upon.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend's anxiety that the Lancashire county council has not given him the information that he wants. My hon. Friend is by no means a crackpot, but, even if he were, the fact that he has sought out Professor Rowe, who is a man of undoubted international reputation—a reputation which has been further enhanced by the fact that he has talked to my hon. Friend—should convince the county council that this is not a frivolous matter. All hon. Members get letters from people who are not entirely serious, but the county council would be well advised to take seriously the concern of my hon. Friend.
As a result of my hon. Friend's concern about this I will return to what can be published of the work of the hazardous waste inspectorate — a newly formed, small but expert inspectorate of which the Department is proud. The inspectorate has a great deal of work to do in covering the whole country, but it is setting about it very sensibly and we have high hopes of it. It consists of high-quality people and it may be to the advantage of people who, like my hon. Friend, are concerned about these matters if we try to make some of its conclusions available if they are relevant to public concern.
Publication of the actual site reports might not be the best solution. The inspectors take notes and, rightly, set down at once their precise feelings and judgments about people. It might be difficult to publish those reports verbatim, but as a result of this debate I will consider whether we could as a matter of course publish any follow-up letters that the inspectorate may write to an authority following inspection of a site;, rather on the lines of the publication by my old Department of the reports delivered to school governors by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools. To show willing, as it were, in view of my hon. Friend's reasonable concern that these matters should be open and public, I will consider that.
I think that my best course tonight is to join my hon. Friend in the view that in matters of such great scientific doubt and difficulty, in which he is far more expert than I, there must be a serious meeting between the experts if their views diverge widely. To achieve that, my hon. Friend must be given the necessary information. I urge the county council to provide it so that the matter can be settled.