Environmental Update (August 2009)

Hazardous Waste Danger

Two businesses have been fined a total of £20,000 after hazardous waste residue was left in storage drums sent to a scrap yard. The Court heard that it was only a matter of luck that the contaminated drums had not caught fire when they were crushed.

A waste disposal business in Middlesbrough was fined a total of £15,000 and ordered to pay £4,750 prosecution costs after accepting it had acted with gross negligence. The Company pleaded guilty to two charges and was found to be contrary to Section 33(1)(c) and 33(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It also asked for a third offence to be taken into consideration and was found to be contrary to Section 34(1) and 34(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

A second man, Harlow, Essex, was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £4,750 prosecution costs. The Company had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to one charge and asked for a second offence to be taken into consideration.

The second man pleaded guilty to one charge and was found to be contrary to Section 33(1)(c) and 33(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It also asked for a second offence to be taken into consideration and was found to be contrary to Section 34(1) and 34(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The Environment Agency (EA) stated that since March 2002 the Company had held a waste management licence allowing it to keep and treat various wastes. A condition of this licence required waste drums to be washed before crushing, to ensure any hazardous waste residues were removed. However, on or about 10^th October 2006 the Company received 160 metal drums, with plastic liners, from a chemical manufacturer from its site in Accrington, Lancashire, where it manufactures metal salts based on arsenic, copper, tin and zinc.

The Company's drum washing machinery had broken down that morning and its usual operator was on holiday but the company chose not to wait until the drums could be crushed and disposed of safely. The EA commented that it was only by 'sheer luck' that the drums did not ignite when crushed and that the Company had not checked the state of the drums.

Paperwork from chemical manufacturer to accompany the drums did not specify they had contained hazardous waste and the Environment Agency submitted that this omission meant the company had fallen well below what was legally required of it.

On 11^th October 2006, the crushed drums were among a load of drums taken to a scrap metal dealer in Darlington, who rejected the waste and alerted the EA. Paperwork accompanying the drums described the waste as being 'metal'.

EA officers accompanied the waste back to UKRM and saw several drums leaking powder and liquid. It was apparent that almost all the drums were contaminated and had not been washed out.

The Company had previously been convicted of five environmental offences - between 2004 and 2007. They pleaded guilty to the Leeds offence in April this year and were fined £25,000 by Leeds magistrates.

In mitigation, the Court heard that the Company had since changed its procedures to ensure all drums are cleaned before crushing and both companies had fully co-operated with the EA investigation. Both companies were given credit for their early guilty pleas.

For further information on The Environmental Permitting Regulations and/ or the Duty of Care, contact the 24 hour Mentor Environmental Advice Line, on 0800 634 7006 (option 3).