Environment Agency spotlights polluters
6 Oct 2000
A report on industry's environmental performance pulls no punches in naming and shaming the miscreants, as Stuart Nathan reports.
Naming-and-shaming has been in the headlines for a while now, and it was only a matter of time before the process industries found themselves on the receiving end. The Environment Agency's recently-published 1999 report, 'Spotlight on business environmental performance,' is forthright about naming polluters, and it calls for stricter enforcement and heavier fines for environmental miscreants.
One fact that will cheer up the cynics is that the report is by no means entirely critical. The first section is devoted to 'good performers' and is quick to give credit where it's due.
Among the good news is the chemical industry's 20 per cent cut in volatile organic compound emissions during 1999; a 29 per cent reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions by fuel and power stations; a 20 per cent cut in particulate emissions from the metal production and processing industries; and a 10 per cent particulates reduction by the minerals industry. 'This shows that significant improvements can be delivered,' says the report.
The EA warns against complacency, however, saying that, now industry has shown it can be good, it should continue to be so. Investment in environmental improvement programmes 'not only achieve active improvements to the environment but also deliver substantial cost savings,' it says. It also expresses disappointment that even companies which have improvemed have suffered pollution incidents at other sites which have required EA enforcement action.
Going into detail on its 'good news' list, the Agency praises the Drax power station in Yorkshire, which cut its SO2 emissions by 72 per cent in a year, mostly through use of clean-up technologies and low sulphur fuel. The minerals industry, which includes cement and glass manufacturers, has reduced particulate emissions through overhauls of control systems and changing the parameters of their processes to make kilns more efficient.
The water industry's efforts have centred around preventing the occurrence of pollution incidents, with notable success in the case of Dwr Cymru, with 49 per cent fewer incidents, and Severn Trent, with a 35 per cent reduction.
For the chemical industry, the most impressive performance of VOC emission reduction in terms of tonnage was Associated Octel at Ellesmere Port, whose emissions dropped by 4553tonnes between 1998 and 1999; while the best percentage improvement was DuPont North East, which reduced emissions by 99 per cent. Here, the environmental programme has also seen significant reductions in NOx and carbon dioxide emissions — in the latter case, the company has reduced total UK climate changing emissions by 3 per cent. Notable environmental projects still underway include the installation of an incinerator at ICI Runcorn to destroy fluorochemicals.
Unfortunately, the list of shame is equally long. During 1999, the report says, environmental offences 'killed thousands of fish; affected both bathing water quality and potentially human health; caused symptoms including nausea, headaches, dry eyes, sinus pain, sore throats, faintness and breathing difficulties; killed 90 per cent of the invertebrate life in a river at a sample site near one incident; and exposed employees, neighbouring works and the general public to the hazards from asbestos left lying in unsealed bags.'
Water companies in general have been lax in complying to environmental standards. The EA prosecuted seven water companies in 1999, with Thames Water being the most frequent offender. 'The fact that other companies prosecuted during 1998 do not appear this year does show that large companies can prevent pollution incidents,' it says.
Also named-and-shamed are several chemical firms. Croda Resins was the sector's worst offender, amassing fines of £50 000.
The agency considers many of the fines to be too low, however. 'It can still be cheaper for a business or individual to commit an environmental crime than to comply with the law,' comments EA chairman Sir John Harman. 'The fines that the courts impose often fail to reflect the impact that business has on the environment and human health.'
