TOXIC WASTES FROM INDUSTRY

HL Deb 25 February 1964 vol 255 cc1089-97

5.49 p.m.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what research has been conducted on the disposal of toxic wastes from industry and other processes and whether it is desirable to subject this to statutory control. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to draw attention to a question which has arisen out of recent incidents at Merthyr Tydfil, where 100 or thereabouts of dogs and cats were killed, and at Smarden, in Kent, where some 20 farm animals were killed by a pesticide known as fluoroacetamide. This raises the question of how things of this kind are handled.

First of all, I want to point out how extremely toxic this substance is. In the Merthyr Tydfil case, these domestic pets were killed by eating the flesh of a pony which apparently had been grazing in the neighbourhood of a rubbish dump and which presumably had in some way eaten a dose of this substance derived from its use as a rat poison. Apparently it was used by the local authority for this purpose, and one would assume that a local authority and its medical officer of health would take great precautions; but in spite of that, this accident occurred. At Smarden, the circumstances were different. The toxic substance came from a factory at which it was being manufactured. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, when I asked a Question about this matter, said that it was an industrial accident. His right honourable friend in another place was more accurate; he called it an industrial incident, although he also slipped into describing it as an industrial accident.

It was not an accident. It was a policy. It appears, from the information I have received, that the apparatus used in the factory tended to become clogged with silt which contained the poison, and from time to time it was washed out. It was washed out into the yard of the factory, although it must have been known that this was a very dangerous and toxic substance, and it built up to such an extent that it invaded the neighbouring farm and killed the farm animals. Presumably, as it is soluble, it became dissolved in water and was distributed through the water courses, sucked up through the soil, went into the vegetation and so was eaten by the farm animals.

It is certainly known that fluoroacetamide is taken up by plants. In fact, it has been sold as a systemic pesticide: that is to say, it is sold on the principle that when applied to plants it will be taken up into the sap and thereby will destroy pests which feed upon the plant in question. Its toxicity has been known since 1946 at least, and so long ago as 1949 a textbook on this kind of substance pointed out that it should be used only upon non-edible crops. It has never, apparently, been approved under the Agricultural Chemicals Approvals Scheme, and yet it was sold freely for application to cabbages, to strawberries and to sugar beet; and I am told it was made a condition of contract by sugar-beet factories that it should be used upon sugar beet. So much with regard to the toxicity of the substance.

Let me come now to the problem which I particularly want to raise about the disposal of toxic waste of this kind. In the case of Smarden, I understand that ditch water was pumped out of the ditches and was dumped into the sea at Dymchurch, on the coast of Kent. It was proposed, apparently, originally, that the contaminated soil should also be dumped there. Protests were raised. Then it was proposed that it should be dumped in the Atlantic. I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, that throwing it loose on to the surface of the sea would not sink it down to the bottom of the sea, but it would float for a long time on the surface and, of course, as it is extremely soluble it would not go to the bottom at all. The consequences of that could, conceivably, have been quite serious. It might have been taken up by the plankton in the sea, then taken up by fish until it reached a serious concentration. So finally it was proposed—and I understand this will be done—that it be dumped in steel containers so that it will sink to a depth of two and a half miles in the Atlantic.

But I understand also that the ditch water is still being pumped up and put into the sea at Dymchurch. I have been told also that some, whether from this factory or another, has been dumped into the sea at Chelmsford. It is quite a possibility that some of it might be taken up by marine animals, by fish or by oysters or other shell fish, and somebody might in that way be injured, because it is terribly toxic. It is so toxic that it will kill mammals although in a dilution, it is believed, of one in ten million, and in a dilution so low that it is almost impossible to detect it by means of chemical analysis. In addition, it is very difficult to detect it in the body of the animal that has been poisoned, and unless it is taken for analysis immediately after the death or perhaps removed to the laboratory before then, it is not possible to determine with precision what has been the cause of death. I point this out particularly, because not only is this kind of thing a danger to animals, but it could conceivably he a danger to human beings. If somebody dies upon that account it will probably be quite impossible, in default of precise evidence of the whole history of the matter, ever to prove what the cause was. That is one of the great dangers in it.

Since this incident occurred, regulations have been made which will prohibit the use of this particular thing as an agricultural or horticultural pesticide. It is still, I understand, to be used as a rat poison, and I have already pointed out what happened at Merthyr Tydfil, where it was used for that purpose. One of the principal uses which is advocated for it is the killing of rats in sewers. But it is always a possibility that some of the poison may be washed down the sewer and eventually will go through the purification plant—and there is no reason whatever to believe it will be destroyed in the purification plant; on the contrary, there is very good reason to believe it will not be, because this stuff is so stable that it requires to be raised to a temperature of 500 or 600 degrees centigrade in order to disintegrate it, or else it requires to be boiled for a very long time at 100 degrees in very strong alkali. It is therefore certain that if it does escape from the sewers in the purification plant it will emerge from that in the effluent, and in very many cases the effluents go into rivers which are again sources of drinking water for human beings. On that account, therefore, I press the point that the most stringent precautions ought to be taken to see that toxic waste substances of this kind are disposed of in a way which will avoid any possible danger to animal or to human life.

There are, I believe, besides the plant at Smarden, three other manufacturers of this substance in this country. I do not know how they have disposed of their factory wastes or what has happened to them. And, of course, there are possibly many other toxic substances of a similar kind which may be a danger. So far as I am aware, there is no supervision or control over the disposal of toxic waste products of any kind. I believe there is no Statute which regulates it and there are certainly other substances besides this one which ought most carefully to be considered. Recently I came across a case where the effluent from a factory in Japan which was making fertilisers for agriculture was let into the sea. It affected fish and shell fish and gave rise to a disease which was new to the Japanese doctors and which they called Minemata disease. This is another illustration of the possibility of serious injury arising from the lighthearted and careless disposal of things of this kind upon the assumption that they will automatically become so diluted that there will be no possible danger.

Finally, let me point out that in this particular case this is a substance for which there is no known antidote, and, as I have said, it is so dangerous that it is capable of being lethal in dilutions which it is practically impossible to detect by chemical analysis. Therefore I hope that the Government will give to this question of the control of disposal of toxic waste products the most careful consideration, with a view to establishing a system of regulation and supervision which will make incidents of this kind impossible in the future.

6.2 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS)

My Lords, the Question before us this evening relates to the disposal of toxic wastes from industry and other processes. The noble Lord has asked what research is being conducted on this problem and whether it is desirable to subject this disposal to statutory control. I and my colleagues on this Bench who are particularly concerned with this matter are indeed grateful that the noble Lord has raised this important subject. It certainly is a good thing, I think, that the public should be allowed to know what the present situation is, and what in the circumstances Her Majesty's Government are doing. Of course, to-day we are seeing this problem in the context of the deplorable incident at Smarden, and to a lesser extent that also at Merthyr Tydfil, but particularly at Smarden, on which the noble Lord has dwelt at considerable length. On the other hand, the noble Lord's Question raises issues that go much wider than that and it is to these wider issues that I would rather pay attention.

I do not think we need go over the known incidents in detail again. I would refer noble Lords to the statement made by my right honourable friend, in this case the Minister of Agriculture, on February 3, and the reply to the Adjournment Debate in another place on February 11. I would merely emphasise, as I think the noble Lord said, and certainly as he knows, that this substance has been banned for use as an insecticide since this incident, and that, in so far as it is used in poisoning rats, that use is to be investigated again by the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances, at the request of the Minister of Agriculture. Apart from that, I think I need say nothing about the past incidents.

In regard to the wider problem before us, noble Lords will realise that toxic wastes from industry can be solid, liquid or gas. To take the last one first, noxious emissions of gas from factories have been the subject of much research (I daresay that noble Lords are well aware of that), and for many years now they have been controlled under the Alkali Acts. The annual reports of the Chief Alkali Inspector are the best source of information on the subject.

The Water Pollution Research Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has since 1929 been carrying out research on the effects of polluting discharges, including toxic discharges from industry, on surface waters. The Laboratory has also carried out much research on the development and improvement of methods of treating and disposing of polluting liquids, both domestic and industrial. With industrial waste liquids the aim may be either to modify the processes of manufacture, so that there is less polluting material to dispose of, or to purify the material either wholly or partially before discharging it. Successes in different industries have been achieved in all three ways. An important class of highly toxic materials successfully dealt with a few years ago were cyanides, which are present in several types of industrial waste waters, especially from metal industries. The best conditions for destruction of cyanide by chlorination were determined and have been incorporated in a process which is now used throughout the country. The programme of work on industrial waste waters at the Water Pollution Research Laboratory receives financial support through the Federation of British Industries.

There are several Research Associations and other bodies which are also investigating specific trade wastes. I can mention the paper and board industry, leather, and fruit and vegetable canning. This work is co-ordinated by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The consent of a river board is needed under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts, 1951 and 1961, for any discharge of an effluent to a watercourse. This gives a river board full power to require any effluent to be treated to an appropriate standard, and to refuse consent if it is not so treated. In the case of an unauthorised discharge (including leakage to a ditch from a deposit of waste, as at Smarden) the board can prosecute. I do not think that further legislation is needed to safeguard rivers and water supplies against toxic liquid discharges.

There remain solid chemical wastes. I refer to chemical wastes, and not merely to toxic wastes, because in practice it is extremely hard to decide exactly what is toxic. A good deal is known about the disposal of radioactive wastes, and it is controlled effectively under the Radioactive Substances Act, 1960. I propose to leave those aside and to turn to what I take to be the noble Lord's main interest—those toxic chemical wastes which are not radioactive. There are two main aspects to the disposal problem of these wastes—the appearance and safety of the tips themselves which are used for this purpose, and the possible seepage of polluting matter to rivers and to underground water. Noble Lords who know South-West Lancashire and other areas where the chemical industries have flourished will not need to be reminded how unsightly areas sterilised by chemical tips can be. But the siting of tips is now covered by planning control.

The difficulty is that, once a tip is established, there may be no effective control of what is put on it. A few county councils have powers under local Acts that enable them to exercise some control over this, but we know that even those who have powers are not all satisfied with them. Nor are they confident that they have a sufficient basis of knowledge on which to exercise the powers they have. Nevertheless, I think I should emphasise at this point that the absence of trouble, of the sort we are discussing, from tipping in general suggests that nothing has gone wrong with this method of disposal so far. Yet in view of the increasing quantities involved and the increasing toxicity of some of the wastes, we cannot be sure that it will always be safe in the future.

There are differences between the pollution arising as a result of seepage from tips to ground water and the pollution of river water from effluents which the noble Lord mentioned in particular. When a toxic discharge is made to a river, the river is polluted immediately; on the other hand, when the discharge stops, the river quickly recovers. By contrast, a tip may take months or years to contaminate ground water, and contamination may continue for years after the tipping stops. Tracing the responsibility for the original pollution may therefore be impossible. On the other hand, a further difference—and this is an important point—is that the soil may purify the polluting substance before it reaches the water underneath. Only detailed investigation can show.

Our first need, therefore, is for more knowledge on this question. We do not at present know enough about chemical industrial wastes or what are good and bad ways of disposing of them. We require, in the first place, a comprehensive list of chemicals which may become industrial wastes. We need to decide which of these are potential dangers and how they can safely be disposed of. Some of them may not be safe for dumping in the normal way at all; they may have to be disposed of by incineration or taken far out to sea. When we know the answers to these questions we shall he able to decide whether further statutory controls are necessary and, if so, what form they should take.

Inquiry on these lines has more immediate relevance to the problem than further pure research would have. My Lords, the Government have therefore decided to set such an inquiry on foot. Those chiefly concerned will be the chemical industry, local authorities, and water interests. The terms of reference and composition of the Committee of Inquiry are still to be decided.

Noble Lords may ask what can be done in the meantime. We cannot, of course, stop industrial wastes without stopping industry. We can only study the problem and seek remedies, and, in the meanwhile, look carefully at our water supplies and our rivers. The responsible authorities can be relied upon to do that thoroughly; and here I should emphasise that there has never been any question in the Smarden affair of any public water supply being in danger. The Government, for their part, will see that no time is lost in getting to grips with this question. But the inquiry will have to cover a great deal of ground, and it would be unwise to expect results very soon.

LORD TAYLOR

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask him a question on the committee of inquiry? Will it be concerned with liquid wastes as well as solid wastes; and will it be concerned with marginal toxic substances—for example, pencillin or antibiotics— which, if discharged into sewers, are not toxic to human beings but toxic to the bacteria in the sewage works, and which can produce quite disastrous results?

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, it will certainly include all chemical wastes, particularly industrial wastes which may be tipped on to these places. I think the whole subject will come under review.

In respect of the noble Lord's more detailed question, I do not know that I could answer that without notice. But, of course, as I am sure he realises, all sewage disposal works have powers to inspect and control the degree of chemical waste which is emitted from factories and which enters sewers. They have testing laboratories at work all the time so that immediate warnings are given, and they therefore rely on those methods to ensure that their effluent is not interfered with.