Transcript of Facebook Q & A event 25/01/2023

PRES: Presenter

AH: Andrew Hitchings

JH: Jonathan Hall

PRES: Welcome to the January edition of the Facebook Q&A. First one of the year and a lot to get through. A couple of points though before we do get underway, this month, we noticed that some old information is being referred to within the Questions Thread. Now, this can become confusing especially to newer members of the group. We will answer them on this particular occasion including referring you to information we've already shared however, generally we won't be doing so in future. With me are Andrew Hitchings and Jon Hall they are both Project Executives at the Environment Agency with responsibility for regulation of Walleys Quarry.

PRES: First up then this month the subject of closure and why the Environment Agency has not revoked Walleys Quarry Limited’s permit. Four questions on this one. I'll read them out in full and then we'll go to Andrew for an answer. First up Sandra, what will it take for Walleys tip to contravene enough issues before you the EA will close the site down? Stephen writes to say, what is the largest number of Category One breaches allowed before a permit is rescinded and in how many cases have you allowed an operator to continue when they have accrued as many Cat 1 breaches as WQL/ Red Industries. Claire, how many more issues does it take for the landfill to be closed down? Why have they not been shut down yet? So many non-compliances and yet, it's still running, if this was any other business it would have been shut down. I don't understand this process. The community get told of the issues and then more issues. What is the threshold of non-conformance before it gets shut down or is there no particular amount? And finally, Richard does the current EA management team responsible for the regulation of the landfill site agree with the previous regime that a poorly and he quotes here, ‘that a poorly managed site is a better option than an orphan site?’ Andrew you've looked at this for us.

AH: Yes, thanks Neil and thank you to Sandra, Steven, Claire, and Richard for your questions about this subject. So, we've answered the question about closing the site a number of times and it's set out and, in our language, we would talk about either a suspension of the permit or a revocation of the permit and the answer to that is set out in our Frequently Asked Questions document and you can see that in paragraph 9.3. I'll not repeat that information here. In response to Richard specific question the Environment Agency's position has not altered following the change of individuals in our Project Team. Our views and any regulatory action we take are the result of objective considers assessments rather than personal preferences. In response to the other questions, the Environment Agency’s assessment when operators’ performance is not just based on the number and severity of non-compliances. We'll also consider the operator's actions to remedy the non-compliance, whether there's a pattern of repeated non-compliances, the duration of non-compliances, and whether we're satisfied that the operator is improving in order to achieve permanent compliance. Any judgment that we make is site and situation specific and there is no simple threshold number of non-compliances or overall Compliance Classification Score that means that the Environment Agency must serve a suspension or revocation notice. It is correct that the Environment Agency's guidelines indicate that it may be appropriate to revoke an Environmental Permit if a site is in the poorer compliance bans which we classify as an E or an F, unless there is evidence that the operator is working towards achieving compliance. We've said it before, but I'll repeat it, we believe Walleys Quarry Limited are working towards compliance and that's because of the measures implemented under our Contain, Capture and Destroy Strategy. Because of its response to actions on Compliance Assessment reports and taking into account the lower number of non-compliance which have been identified in recent months. So, since May 2022, we've not assessed the impact of non-compliances as greater than a CCS Category 3, which is a minor impact, and the majority of non-compliances is we've had related to the routine monitoring returns which is something that's not unusual in the landfill sector. I've covered quite a bit there and you can gather further information because there are a couple of explainer videos about Compliance Classification Scores within the Facebook Group, and they're pinned to the top or you can look at our guidance which is available on .gov.uk and there's a link to that below this video.

PRES: Thanks Andrew. A linked topic now question from Steven and Stephen writes to say, can the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs compel the Environment Agency to rescind permits where clear dereliction of duty of care to the public is manifest i.e., as is the case with EA handling of WQL, which is Walleys Quarry Limited. Back to you Andrew please.

AH: Ok and thanks Neil. So, to answer Steven’s question, the Secretary of State has a statutory power under the Environmental Permitting Regulations to direct a Regulator like the Environment Agency to exercise its powers under the regulations and we're generally must do so only do so after consulting with the Regulator. Any decision to revoke an Environmental Permit must be reasonable, must involve consideration of the core guidance on the regulations and enforcement of sanctions policy, compliance history, the risk of pollution posed by the operator of the site and the measures taken by the operator to address that risk.

PRES: Ok thank you. Next step then a different subject the Environment Agency’s investigation. Two questions on this particular subject. Michael writes to say, will the investigation into alleged illegal waste activity at Red Industry sites and the investigation into Walleys Quarry Limited non-compliance be concluded this year 2023? And also, a question from Sian and Sian says, when do you expect to wrap up your criminal investigation into Red Industries management of Walleys Quarry? Jon, Jon Hall will go to you please.

JH: Thanks Neil and thanks Michael and Sian for those questions. So, our investigations are active, they're ongoing and because of that we're unable to provide detailed information about them or specific updates. Unfortunately, that does include timescales for completion as well. There’re criminal investigations and as such they must be conducted in accordance with codes of practice. For both the Criminal Procedure Investigations Act and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act as well. By following these codes we’ll ensure that our investigation can stand up to scrutiny in the event of any enforcement action that could follow. Enforcement action will be taken in line with the Environment Agency’s Enforcement and Sanctions policy and this policy outlines a range of available enforcement options that could be applied. So, hopefully that's helpful.

PRES: Thank you. Next up, community engagement and the Facebook Group. Michael says in 2022, the Environment Agency met face to face with Walleys victims a total of 0 times. Can the same level of neglect being expected for 2023? When will you be doing another Multi-Agency community engagement session or dropping? And follow up from Pete when will you have a public meeting hosted locally for residents without the Internet to speak to you in a similar manner to these questions. Jon will go back to you please.

JH: Thank you and thanks Michael and others for your questions here. So, we last responded to this back in November’s Q&A session and so I'll touch on it again but we're likely to steer people towards the FAQ's that are relevant to these questions going forward. So, the group that we've got that we've set up is in response to suggestions from the community, the Facebook Group as of January 2023. It has 473 members and serves as a communication channel between the Environment Agency and the community. The situation at Walleys Quarry is incredibly complex as I'm sure you're aware. Whilst the group is managed by our Communications Team, they do need to bring in the right experts who are best placed to answer the questions and this does take a bit of time to facilitate. We often use comments left on the Q&A session posts to inform our explainer videos which hopefully have also been helpful for people. We're currently using the group as our preferred method of communication based on community feedback. In addition, we have our Citizens Space website which provides regular updates which are also sent direct to those on the mailing list, and this is an alternative for individuals who cannot use Facebook. We post the transcripts of our Q&A sessions on the Citizen Space web page and these communications allow us to share collectively allow us to share information in a timely manner and are more effective in terms of engaging with a lot of people at the same time. However, we do recognise that not everyone can access digital platforms and we are looking at other ways that we can share information. We are willing to consider further in person events however, it is important that such events are attended by our Professional Partners to facilitate answering the range of questions that the community have. We regularly meet with these Partners and do consider community engagement when we do and if any further public events are arranged, we’ll share the news around these with the community.

PRES: Thank you. Now turning to a concern about potential contamination of surface waters and groundwater. Cath writes to us to say, are there any ongoing investigations into the possible contamination of groundwater and local water sources by Leachate from the site? Is there any water quality monitoring undertaken by the EA of groundwater and local streams and rivers? Jon, bring you back into this please.

JH: Thank you Neil and thanks Cath for that question. You can find more information about Leachate management and monitoring requirements in the FAQs, if you if you turn to paragraph 6.3 and 6.1 there likely to be quite helpful there. The Walleys Quarry Landfill is permitted to make a discharge to the Silverdale Brook, and that's within limits specified in the Environmental Permit. As we explained on the 7th of July 2022, weekly update we had deployed two songs, now these are devices that we put into the watercourse to continually measure parameters that indicate water quality. So, they were installed one upstream and one downstream of the Walleys Quarry discharge point in the Silverdale Brook and they were in between June 2021 and June 2022. In reviewing the data from this equipment, we did not have any concerns about the impact of the discharge from the site. The landfill is engineered to protect groundwater and regularly we monitor emissions to groundwater, and this is required by the Walleys Quarry Environmental Permit. So, we assessed the data, and should any non-compliances of specified limits be detected we will require Walleys Quarry Landfill to take remedial action.

PRES: Ok, thank you Jon. Turning to what might happen now then, when the landfill enters aftercare and beyond, couple of questions on this one. Simmo first of all, when the Quarry is finished with, will the Quarry having so many problems with pollution will it actually be able to become a green space, plants, and wildlife that kind of thing? Would it be safe for us to use and also out of curiosity would it be safe to build houses on? And one from Jonathan, the pilot high nature of the site and the nature of its God knows what only content, will make this site unsuitable for a hell of a long time. It's also literally a time bomb currently he says, its Newcastle Council's biggest brown site loss as when it was full to level but mainly inner waste the process to prepare the site for building on should have started but now it's just the toxic underground sludge lake. That's more of a comment than a question but it's relevant to what we're talking about. Andrew?

AH: Yes, thanks Neil and thanks to Simon and Jonathan for the questions. I'll cover in my response to kind of process of what happens when the landfill closes but just to kind of start with, it is possible for a Quarries and other landfill sites to become green spaces and many landfill sites have become greenfield sites at the end of the kind of restoration process. So, following the cessation of waste landfill site it then enters the restoration aftercare period or phase. The site will be capped as necessary and restored in accordance with the submitted restoration scheme. Ongoing Environmental Monitoring will routinely be undertaken demonstrating that the control measures in place are adequately controlling any risks from the site and the permit will remain in place until the Environment Agency accepts an application to surrender from the operator. The permit can only be surrendered if it meets the criteria in our recently updated guidance and we put a link to this below the video for you to read. Under the Environmental Permit site closure and the moving into aftercare is controlled by a closure and aftercare plan. You can find a timeline on the Citizen Space web page of the sort of life of a normal landfill and again we'll include a link to that below this video. The planning permission also covers the cessation of operations and the restoration of the site. It requires the site to be progressively restored to agriculture, conservation grassland and woodland in accordance with the approved final restoration scheme. Turning to the kind of question of future development for the site, the local planning authority would be the authority for any approvals of any future planning developments.

PRES: Ok thanks Andrew. A number of questions as well this month about weather, and its impact on levels of Hydrogen Sulphide. I'll read them out then we'll go back to Andrew. Nick first of all, what measures are you going to propose and enforce implementation for, to ensure that emissions spikes do not occur, regardless of weather conditions, such as a cold spike we saw recently? And he says if none why? Michael seconds that question, he says, the weather we've had recently has not been extreme so the landfill gas management should have been sufficiently robust to prevent community nuisance? And then Tim has also joined in, and he refers to the December the 23rd weekly update on Citizen Space. He says, what are the outcome of your investigations? Was this due to unusual or unexpected temperature fluctuations? Quite a lot in there. Andrew will go back to you.

AH: Thanks Neil and to Nick, Michael, and Tim for the questions. So, significant improvements have been made particularly in respect of reduced, reductions in the operating phase size, capping and the gas management system being installed. In relation to the cold weather, I posted an explainer video following the cold spell in early December when we saw a temporary increase in levels of Hydrogen Sulphide over a two-week period. The video illustrates the genuine improvements that have been achieved already including during that period when conditions were least favorable for dispersion, so cold temperatures, and low wind speeds. Our Contain, Capture and Destroy Strategy has proven effective reducing the levels of Hydrogen Sulphide and the associated odour in the community. And it is important to recognise that the permit does not require Walleys Quarry Limited to prevent all odour outside the site boundary. There's more on information about the odour condition again in paragraph 2.1 of the Frequently Asked Questions. Having said that we believe Walleys Quarry Limited have not yet exhausted all the ways to reduce odour. As we progress through the next few months, we'll continue to look at the data and discussing specific for the measures with the company. In relation to Tim specific question, I think Tim has posted some data that is old and from last year in his comment around our weekly update. I won't go back over that now, but comments were made in that report at the time.

PRES: Thanks Andrew. Now, some questions up next about Air Quality Monitoring and we'll stay with Andrew, but I'll read the question first if I may. Claire's been in touch, and she says, what about damage that has already been done? When it was being monitored by the person who used their nose against the smell prior to monitoring. She says, we've already breathed this in for X amount of years and the little monitoring that was done, how was it done, where are the records from the start of the landfill? And again, Claire says the same question how is dust monitored? I don't seem to get a straight answer to this, and she says we can see records from the dust emissions from the start oh she says can we say records from the dust emissions from the start of the landfill? And she says by the start I mean prior to Walleys at the very start of it being a landfill. Also records of what was dumped there are they available? Back to you Andrew.

AH: Thank you Claire. For your benefit and for the benefit of newer members of the group I'll summaries again the monitor information that exists and is publicly available. The air around Walleys Quarry has been the subject of monitoring over three periods. The first was from July 2017 to February 2018, the second was from January to June 2019 and the current one started in March 2021 and is continuing. Reports on the on this monitoring on our Citizens Space pages, for the first two monitoring periods as well as the conclusions of this monitoring they include detail of the monitoring locations and the instruments used. In addition, for the current campaign the individual data recordings are made available on the Citizens Space page in rather large spreadsheets. In terms of the health impact of the releases from the current campaign this is addressed in the monthly UK Health and Security Agency reports which again are made publicly available on the Citizens Space page. Monitoring includes dust or as we refer to Particular Matter at two sizes; PM 2.5 and PM 10 that refers to micrograms per meter cubed and total suspended particulates. We said a lot about just in second part of the November Q&A session which was on 12th of December. So, I'm not gonna repeat all that here, but I will add the relevant statement from the UKHSA assessment on impacts upon health monitoring which seem fairly clear. Air contract and this is quote ‘air concentrations of Particulate Matter are lower than appropriate health based and odour standards, guidelines or assessment levels and therefore, the risk to health from these substances is minimal’ that’s the end of the quote. We've also said in the session that we do not consider dust to be a significant issue of Walleys Quarry based on our compliance assessments, our MMF data and reports from the public. We also say in our weekly updates that you can e-mail us at Enquiries_westmids@environment-agency.gov.uk if you've got a specific question or specific concern which we are not able to answer here. You can find the e-mail address again in the information below this video.

PRES: Thanks Andrew. Onto Gypsum controls now throughout the life of the permit and it's with Claire again. She says, one more question when prior owners were allowed to mix Gypsum and normal waste legally then the EA changed to no Gypsum waste with general waste what happened? So, there's a layer of mixed Gypsum and biological waste from when it was allowed, then it was not. So, how did this differentiate from the waste after the change was implemented? Or she says, did they just dump biological waste on top of the old waste with now dividing from old and new. If not, why not? but then Walleys accepted shredded waste with Gypsum in it anyway. So, that is now in there as well and still biological waste is being piled on top. So, we have a sandwich of stuff in there with no divide. Surely, this is classed as contaminated waste now, have they ever been made to scoop out the Gypsum? but if it's shredded, I guess they can't. And then she goes on to say yet another compliance flouted and no consequences and acceptance for the local community. I know there's a lot in there. Andrew you've got response for Claire.

AH: I do and obviously some of that question is actually statements rather a question but if I pick up the position with the Landfilling of Gypsum, which has changed over time. So, the Environment Agency first produced a position statement that came into effect on the 1st of April 2009 called Landfilling of Gypsum and we put a link below this video. This position state and that did allow some Landfilling of Gypsum alongside other wastes. That position statement was withdrawn in 2016, when it was replaced by revised sector guidance and there was a further current position which was published on the 30th of January 2020 and that's also available through a link below this video and those legal obligations are not retrospective. So, Walleys Quarry and other landfills have to operate according to the rules that are in place at the time. In terms of sort of Gypsum controls specifically at Walleys, between 2021 and 2022, we carried out audits of waste transfer sites to produce waste which was sent to Walleys Quarry and required improvements in procedures to prevent Gypsum contamination of Trommel Fines. In May 2022, we required Walleys Quarry to improve its waste acceptance and waste pre-acceptance procedures, with a view to minimising the likelihood that it may accept waste contaminated with Gypsum. And since 2021, Walleys Quarry has improved the landfill gas extraction so, Hydrogen Sulphide and landfill gas at Walleys Quarry is reduced from 6,500 PPM in July 2021. to around 1,500 PPM at present and that follows the implementation of the measures identified as part of Contain, Capture and Destroy Strategy.

PRES: Thank you. We've been asked about whether there has been an investigation into health impacts on children living near to Walleys Quarry. Lynn has written to say, has anyone looked into why some of the children have started having nosebleeds and investigated? Is it caused by the problems from the landfill and any other respiratory problems in the area? Jon, you've looked at this one for us haven’t you.

JH: I have yeah and thank you Lynn for your question. I previously had mentioned Professional Partners and the UKHSA are the one that comment on public health issues. However, we do have information about safeguarding public health which is in our FAQs in paragraph 3.3. Just note that any reference to the Public Health England or PHE should be read as the UKHSA instead reflecting that change. We've already drawn members attention to the health risk assessments that UKHSA produces using our monitoring data as we've mentioned previously in this session. Our weekly updates have referenced the public health messages and advice about the effects of odours from Walleys Quarry Landfill being available on the Staffordshire County Council's website so please do go there and to have a look for more information.

PRES: Ok thank you Jon. We've been asked about the death of a lorry driver in October 2021 and any information we shared about the risks of landfill gas at the time. This was a question from Richard and Richard says, a matter of weeks before the sad death of a third-party contractor (lorry driver) on the waste mass. He says the EA had banned all access to that waste mass for all of your staff for fear that the escalation of Hydrogen Sulphide gas on the site, could cause instant death due to Pulmonary Edema if the undiluted landfill gas was inhaled. He goes on to ask, did you inform the coroner or the HSE, Health and Safety Executive hopefully both about your concerns after this tragedy occurred? Jon back to you.

JH: Thank you and thank you Richard. Yes, we understand the inquest concluded that the death was attributable to natural causes so it wouldn't be appropriate for us to make any sort of further comment on that.

PRES: Ok, Jon thank you. Turning to the types of waste being accepted now and the presence of gulls. Louise has been in touch, she says, are you testing the waste that is going in to consider what it is because the amount of gulls around the site would suggest large amounts of biological waste is present for them? Andrew, I'll bring you back in.

AH: Thanks Neil and thank you Louise for the question. So, the Environmental Permit authorises Walleys Quarry Landfill to accept some biodegradable waste. The Environment Agency published guidance on landfill waste acceptance procedures, which includes criteria waste have to comply with based on leachability of organic and inorganic components. And we've provided a link to the guidance below this video. The permit also requires Walleys Quarry to take appropriate measures to prevent or where that's not practical minimise the presence of pests including gulls on the site and officers assess compliance with this aspect of the permit when conducting site inspections.

PRES: Thank you. Finally, looking at the impact of lorries on road surfaces near the landfill. This is one from Margaret. Margaret says, apart from polluting our air will Walleys Quarry be held responsible for their clients (HGV’s Heavy Goods Vehicles) destroying the road surface on Cemetery Road or will they dodge that responsibility too? Andrew?

AH: Yes, thank you Margaret for your question. This isn't something that is within the Environment Agency’s responsibilities. So, road traffic matters other than parking are enforced by the Police. Highway maintenance and parking restrictions part of Staffordshire County Council's role as the local highway authority. The number of lorries or traffic movements per day is controlled by conditions in the planning permission for the site and activities outside the site boundary including the kind of lorry movements are not covered by Environmental Permit conditions.

** END OF Q&A, Presenter wraps up asking for feedback and advises Questions Thread to open below.

 PRES: Ok, thank you. My thanks then to Andrew Hitchings and to Jon Hall for their input into the January Q&A. The next designated Questions Thread will open here on Facebook on Monday the 6th of February at 9:00am and that will remain open until 5:00pm on Friday the 10th of February. Please note as ever that there may be some questions that we can't answer for legal reasons, some may fall outside of our remit as the Regulator and there may be some we group together if they're on a theme. From all the team thank you for watching.