Agenda item

To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.

Note:   A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

Sarah Coffin referring to Item 8 (Anaerobic Digester Working Group) on the agenda stated that I must compliment the Working Group on a very genuine report into the potential plusses and minuses presently existing within the complex green energy biogas industry. In particular, I refer to the industrial sized on-farm anaerobic digesters, which are neither self-sufficient nor self-contained.

I would like to point out in addition that the AD industry itself has acknowledged various problems AD operators are facing:

1. The difficulty of controlling the balance of different gasses produced within the Digester during the digestion process and the consequential bio-chemical interactions.
2. Disposal of the large volumes of liquid digestate produced during the process of energy production. Because the EA does not regulate via full permits nor require certification that digestate produced by on-farm ADs (industrial or small) is safe and fully spent, on release into the wider environment, farmers not associated with the operation do not have sufficient confidence in the product as a fertiliser. So despite best efforts of various agencies and the AD Industry to secure a wider commercial end market for this product, the reality is - due to lack of confidence in the safety and sanitisation credentials, there is only a limited end market available for the digestate.
3. If the digestate is not disposed of as a fertiliser for the benefit of soil and growing crops on farmland - it has to be disposed of as a ‘waste’, which is extremely costly and reflects negatively on both logistical and commercial viability of the plant.
4. Given that the qualification required for disposal of liquid digestate as a fertiliser and not a ‘waste’ depends on adherence to the Voluntary Farming ‘Best Practice’ guidance together with max tonnage per annum and NVZ restrictions - it is imperative that sufficient storage and landbank is identified so as to avoid the overspreading and high risk potential pollution of soil, air and water.
5. As MDDC has acknowledged its potential responsibility towards all ‘statutory nuisance’ issues that may arise from all problems identified and given the lack of EA permitting and control required by farmers disposing of liquid digestate from on-farm AD’s, I hope the committee will approve the recommendations made in No 15 of this report?
6. I further ask how will any mitigating measures be meaningfully implemented?  Unfortunately, the fact that such an in depth report was not done by EH or Planning departments at the initial application stage and insufficient consideration given to the detailed warnings made by knowledgeable objectors; the Council has incurred considerable expenses to date.
7. Finally will any mitigating measures approved and implemented be made available to the public?

Honorary Alderman David Nation referring to item 9 (Local Improvements Scheme/ Asset Management) on the agenda and in particular the Council Offices in Market Street, Crediton stated that Members were aware that the Council received a petition regarding the sale of the Crediton Offices of 800 signatures at its meeting on 29 August; today, Cllr Letch has handed in a further 400 more signatures and there are more to come.  He asked the Committee to consider what more they could do to ask the Cabinet to reverse its decision and save this historic local government building, the building was fully used and a much needed and essential venue.  Community Groups were being made homeless which was contrary to policy with regard to supporting local communities and community provision  and he hoped that the committee would do all it could do to make the Cabinet reverse its decision.

The Chairman stated that the Scrutiny Committee’s role was to call in the original decision and the recommendation of the Committee was that the purchase should not be pursued, however the decision was made.

Honorary Alderman David Nation responded stating that there was evidence in the petition as to how much the decision was disputed by people in Crediton and asked that the item be added to the agenda for further discussion.  

The Chairman stated that he would seek advice from the Monitoring Officer.

Mrs Faulkner referring to again to Item 8 on the agenda and referring to paragraph 3 - desktop reviews stated: as you all know, from my constant odour reports, I am blessed (or maybe not) with a good sense of smell. Anaerobic digesters are known to have many odour issues. Ammonia, that is a known odour to all and everyone knows what that is like, it makes your eyes sting.

Hydrogen sulphide that is a known eggy odour at low levels, at higher levels it is sweet and then if you cannot smell it, you may already be dead.

We then have the phenols and cresols, they smell like disinfectant. The hemlock smell, well that may be a piperidine, another VOC produced by anaerobic digesters. And just to mention, burnt toast and rubber (which is very evident at Avonmouth), that too is linked to sulphur emissions.

There are many more chemicals produced by anaerobic digestion. From what I gather, Mr Winter is the only qualified “sniffer” in EH. I am a citizen science investigator for West Country Rivers Trust; I check the local stream for pollution with simple testing kit. This information is put on data which builds up a picture of pollution for SW Water. It also helps the EA in their investigations. There is no reason why a similar operation using free labour from the general public could not be used for smells. There are many people who would be willing to participate to help improve our air quality. A day’s course would probably be sufficient (hopefully paid for by the Council). Devon would then have its own “air pollution sniffers”.

Peer Review from PHE - the whole system of secrecy of patient confidentiality, this makes it impossible to connect patients up with similar symptoms from the same source; the system wants changing.

Page 9 - Ecology - the plants and lichens should be used as bio indicators of pollution, MDDC should link up with APHA. All authorities should work together and not pass the parcel. I personally have smelt many odours associated with anaerobic digesters and digestate in many areas: Dartington, Stow on the Wold, Bristol (Avonmouth), Cannington and Salisbury Plan to name just a few. Showing a picture - it is a crop circle on Salisbury Plan - some say it is a chemical weapon, my interpretation is that it stands for SO3.

Mr Faulkner again referring to Item 8 on the agenda stated: thank you sub-committee for revealing salient facts and aspects around anaerobic digesters. There is so much in it, I will concentrate on just one element. For me, there is one very significant omission within this report. Although you mention volcanos, you have not specifically mentioned Brimstone, that which the ancients mined around the brims thereof.

Looking forward to 1883, I quote Primrose and McConnell Agricultural Notebook “sulphur - H2S and elementary sulphur formed during the decomposition of organic matter”. This is exactly what happens in AD’s. Crops are decomposed, part of the sulphur cycle that the report mentions. During our private meeting with MDDC, I was unable to understand why Mr Pritchard, experienced in composting, refused to test for sulphur, relying on his professional opinion.

In June 2017, we asked Mid Devon what the ubiquitous crystals were, presumably, they have returned the answer to the committee for background data for this report.

The report infers that ammonia is responsible for the damage to the vegetation. I concede that it can harm, However, look at the damage to the leaves throughout the county, compare that to that of acid rain, (ref internet). The pathway may be expressed thus:- sulphur goes to S02 goes to SO3 goes to H2SO4. This damage to the leaves also makes them susceptible to secondary invaders.

The standard AD problems are shown by Aquafix. The remedies are not 100% effective. Optimistically, the manufacture of fool’s gold, iron pyrites (FeS) is the AD operator’s answer to too much elemental sulphur.

Physically, normally, the sulphur grains are solid, however when heated it can sublime straight to gas, still in its S8 rings (ref phase diagram available). From this you can see, sulphur gas can be boiled off in transport by transport in vacuum tankers.

I had hoped all of this would have been covered by Neil Parish EFRA air quality response to my submission No 33 to his enquiry in which I asked for more scientific help to examine sulphur, volatile organic compounds and volatile sulphur compounds.

Therefore, over to your Mr Walford, may the officers now be able to finish the investigations started in January 2017 and then provide us with the answers to what was and is coming from the AD’s causing our distressing symptoms?

Mr Benson (solicitor representing Mr Winston Reed) again referring to Item 8 on the agenda stated that Mr Reed was very pleased with the Scrutiny Working Group report, he felt that it was balanced and factual and was pleased that it emphasises the legality of the AD process. With regard to regional and local monitoring it might be helpful to see the difference between reports from the public with suspicions and actual incidents discovered by authorities and acted upon.

With regard to the recommendations in paragraph 15: he suggests that the authority does not believe there is enough coordination between partner authorities. Mr Reed’s view is that from the number of visits made to his property, there is ample and very good coordination between MDDC and partner agencies and he hopes that the cooperation will continue. Section 15, recommendation 3 could say that the current levels of cooperation and liaison should continue.

The Chairman indicated that written answers would be provided to questions.