§ Mr. PageTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what responses he has received to his consultation document on a new system of industrial pollution control for industry; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mrs. Virginia Bottomley[pursuant to her reply 28 February, Official Report, c. 110]: Our proposals for controlling inputs of the most dangerous substances to water—the "Red List"—were published last July. We have received responses from 80 organisations and individuals. A list of these has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. There was very widespread support for our proposals and it is now our intention to implement them. This will provide the regulatory framework for cleaning up our rivers, and for meeting our international obligations including those on cleaning up the North sea. It puts us in the forefront of developments in Europe in this area.
Comments were sought and received on a number of points of detail, and these have been taken into account in reaching conclusions.
We announced on 28 February (Official Report, column 110) our intention to proceed with the proposal that discharges from prescribed processes should be controlled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) under the proposed new arrangements for integrated pollution control. Such discharges would be subject to a requirement, to be introduced progressively for existing plant, that the process should be operated according to the best available technology not entailing excessive costs with a view to minimising discharges of the most dangerous substances. However, discharge consents would also have to ensure that strict environmental quality standards were met and maintained in the receiving waters, and the proposed National Rivers Authority would have to be satisfied that this was the case before consent could be granted by HMIP.
An important part of our proposals, welcomed by many respondents, was the establishment of a priority "Red List" of dangerous substances. As a result of consultation and of some new and corrected data received, we have slightly amended the provisional "Red List" set out in the consultation paper. The initial priority "Red List" will comprise the following substances:
406W
Substance CAS number Mercury and its compounds Cadmium and its compounds Gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane 00058–89–9 DDT 00050–29–3 Pentachlorophenol 00087–86–5 Hexachlorobenzene 00118–74–1 Hexachlorobutadiene 00087–68–3 Aldrin 003090–00–2 Dieldrin 00060–57–1 Endrin 00072–20–8 Polychlorinated Biphenyls 01336–36–3 Dichlorvos 00062–73–7 1,2-Dichloroethane 00107–06–2 Trichlorobenzene 12002–48–1 Altrazine 01912–24–9 Simazine 00122–34–9 Tributyltin compounds Triphenyltin compounds
Substance CAS number Trifluralin 001582–09–8 Fenitrothion 00122–14–5 Azinphos-methyl 00086—50–0 Malathion 00121–75–5 Endosulfan 00115–29–7 Further substances may be added to the list from time to time where there are sound scientific reasons for doing so. These will be identified broadly along the lines set down in the annex to the consultation paper. The selection scheme is being further developed and modified in the light of the comments received. Candidates substances identified by the scheme will be subject to a second-stage assessment, taking particular account of the risk posed for the aquatic environment, and to consultation before addition to the list.
Many respondents confirmed the view expressed in the consultation paper that diffuse sources constitute an important input for many dangerous substances and that these merit greater attention. In the light of comments received we remain of the view that existing powers and arrangements for controlling the supply, use and disposal of substances should be sufficient to deal with any potential pollution problem from diffuse sources, but this position will remain under review. In the meantime, we have initiated more widespread environmental monitoring for priority substances and will consider the need for specific action where this proves necessary case by case.
The consultation document also referred to earlier proposals issued by my Department for controlling discharges to sewer of the most dangerous substances after privatisation of the water authorities. There we have concluded that the Secretary of State, advised by HMIP, should authorise the discharge of these substances to sewer. However, dischargers need only make a single application to the sewage undertaker, who will refer any aspects involving dangerous substances to the Secretary of State. These arrangements are reflected in the Water Bill currently before Parliament, and regulations would be made under proposed powers in that Bill to prescribe the substances or processes to which they would apply.
The full application of technology-based emission standards to discharges from prescribed processes under a system of integrated pollution control will require new legislation, which will be introduced at the earliest opportunity. However, provisions included in the Water Bill currently before Parliament would enable such controls to be introduced before then on an interim basis. We will make further announcements about this in due course.
In the meantime the Department, together with the Welsh Office, has today issued a circular (DOE circular 7/89, Welsh Office circular 16/89) revising and extending existing guidance on the implementation of EC Directives concerning the discharge of dangerous substances into the aquatic environment. The circular includes environmental quality standards for a number of new list I and list II dangerous substances.