FEATURE
WASTEWATER POLLUTION: the prosecution pinch
Many have remained oblivious to a subtle change to the way fines for pollution incidents are imposed. However, it is a change that has the potential to impact on many companies and their approach to handling their wastewater. Rich Matthews, general manager at Siltbuster Process Solutions explains
magnitude of the incident and the size of the company and its culpability. So, companies now face the possibility of fines several orders of magnitude greater than those previously experienced, along with a ratcheting up of fines for repeat offences.
In 2014, the Sentencing Council set out a clear sentencing rationale whereby culpability, harm and the size of the responsible organisation will be used to determine the magnitude of the fine imposed on companies polluting the environment. In essence, the Courts now have a clear framework within which to set fines. Potential fines vary from between £100 and £700 for a near miss incident caused a micro company, through to between £450,000 and £3,000,000 for deliberately causing a major pollution incident. The magnitude of the fine imposed is
also determined by the degree of culpability and it is this additional factor that must eventually lead to a fundamental change in attitude. For example, a decision not to upgrade plant could well be deemed by the Courts to be an act of deliberate negligence, for which the maximum penalties apply. Likewise, the repetition of similar events, albeit of differing severity or location, could, depending on the background circumstances, also be considered to be a deliberate act of negligence. Companies need to take a fresh look at
their wastewater disposal. Particularly: • The risk of a plant failure resulting in an environmental incident. • Contingency planning to mitigate those risks. With corporate investment normally
A
lthough the Environmental Protection legislation has not
changed, and the maximum fine remains £3,000,000 for a major pollution incident, the way the size of these fines is established has fundamentally changed. Under the old system, fines were imposed on an ad hoc basis, without considering the ability to pay. This has been replaced with a new framework which takes into account the
| INDUSTRIAL COMPLIANCE
Rich Matthews is general manager at Siltbuster Process Solutions
driven by production requirements, many effluent treatment plants have suffered from under investment with old, poorly maintained plants running at over capacity. Plants operated in this manner are prone to breakdown and run an increased risk of causing an environmental incident. Manufacturers should consider the characteristics of the effluent received by their treatment plants – not just under current production regimes, but also allowing for future changes and any seasonal spikes in production. The actual performance of the effluent
treatment plant and the implication of production changes need to be assessed as well, with critical pinch points identified and the practicality gauged of installing standby equipment at these points. There may be options to consider the
practical use of balance tanks. Alternatively is it sufficiently large enough to homogenise the water quality, minimising the risk of shock loading the effluent plant or providing emergency storage? This all needs to be assessed for the critically of the site for potential environmental impacts to temporarily store strong/difficult to treat waste, which can then be bled back into the water treatment plant at a manageable rate, or tankered off site.
Having critically reviewed the performance of the effluent plant the next step is to put in place a contingency plan to reduce the risk of an environmental incident in the unlikely event of a plant failure. Such a plan should set out a procedure for quickly identifying the cause of the incident. This should include checking for changes to effluent volume/ characteristics and/or records of any incidents. New shift patterns or a transient workforce, unreported spillages, different production methods/cleaning agents can all affect the waste discharged and need to be checked for. The plan should also set out what to do
on plant failure – who to notify, whether the plant can be repaired without stopping production and how to stop production if it cannot be repaired. Where could emergency treatment be mobilised from? Temporary storage tanks, tankering off site or the hire of replacement effluent treatment technology – all need to be in the plan.
By applying this rigour, operators will not only reduce the risk of a plant failure causing an environmental incident, but they will also help minimise their culpability should a problem arise.
Siltbuster Process Solutions
www.siltbuster.com T: 01600 772256
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28
