from Sunday Herald, 28 August 2011
Over 240 industrial plants across Scotland have been condemned for their “poor” or “very poor” performance on pollution by the government’s watchdog, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa).
In the biggest-ever assessment of the environmental record of Scottish industry, waste companies, fish farms and Scottish Water’s sewage works have come out the worst. They are accused of frequently breaking pollution rules, causing spills, smells, leaks, breakdowns and a host of other problems.
Major companies like INEOS, Scottish Hydro and Philips have also been singled out for criticism, along with whisky distilleries, a paper mill, an aerospace plant, an aluminium smelter and a cake maker. They have suffered pollution incidents, or failed to follow environment regulations.
Several operators have been named as repeat offenders, with their sites rated as poor for the last two years running. They include Aberdeenshire, Glasgow and North Ayrshire councils, Greenoakhill landfill in Glasgow, Healthcare Environmental in Shotts, SITA’s Binn landfill in Perthshire and The Cheese Company in Lockerbie.
“This is a catalogue of environmental failure across Scotland, and the companies and organisations on this list should hang their heads in shame,” said the Green MSP, Alison Johnstone.
“Year after year we read about spills, pollution, failures to report incidents, and all the rest. We need tougher action from Sepa and SNP Ministers to get industry's house in order.”
Sepa conducts an annual assessment of the environmental performance of industrial sites, which provides the best and most comprehensive guide to how well, or badly, operators are doing. On Friday, it put online its assessments for 2010 covering 4,075 sites, nearly four times as many as in 2009.
Forty-three sites were given the lowest rating of “very poor” because they were guilty of major pollution breaches, with some facing statutory enforcement action or prosecution. A further 200 sites were rated as “poor”, meaning that there had been significant problems.
As well the poor performers, Sepa outed a further 354 industrial sites which it said were “at risk” of performing badly. They included petrol stations run by BP, Shell, Tesco, Morrisons, Asda and Sainsbury’s, scores of dry cleaners and dozens more sewage works.
Sepa said it had managed to improve compliance in some sectors by targeting poor performers, and that 85% of operators were assessed as excellent, good or broadly compliant. The process would lead to “more effective, transparent and efficient regulation,” according to the agency’s director of operations, Calum MacDonald.
"Although Sepa is committed to helping operators to meet their environmental responsibilities, we will not shy away from taking appropriate enforcement action in relation to sites which consistently fail to meet our standards,” he warned.
By far the biggest category of poor performers were those from waste and related industries, like landfill, recycling and scrap metal. Over 100 operators across the country were damned as poor or very poor because of gas leaks, bad smells, inadequate maintenance and other breaches of their licences.
Binn Farm landfill site at Glenfarg in Perthshire was criticised for the second year in a row for pollution problems and odours. So was Greenoakhill landfill site in Glasgow, for an “unacceptable” monitoring network, gas leaks and slow responses.
The Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM), which represents professionals in the industry, said it was “disappointing” that companies had been rated as poor. But it pointed out that they were only a small proportion of the waste industry.
“CIWM takes performance seriously and will continue to seek the highest standards of operation from its members and from operators of waste facilities in Scotland,” said CIWM chief executive, Steve Lee. “We look forward to working with Sepa to upskill the operators of those sites that have received a poor rating.”
Scotland’s £1 billion salmon farming industry also came out badly, with 51 fish farms around the coastline classed as poor in 2010. Many were accused of polluting the seabed with waste, while others breached stocking limits, used excessive amounts of chemicals, or had equipment failures.
Sepa’s assessment was described as a “damning indictment” of the fish farming industry by Paul Knight, the chief executive of the Salmon and Trout Association, which campaigns to protect wild fish. “We are constantly assured by the industry's representatives that Scotland's salmon farmers operate to the highest environmental standards,” he said.
“But Sepa's official report gives the lie to this contention. It demonstrates how salmon farming as it is currently practised - in open-net cages - is simply unsustainable.”
Scott Landsburgh, the chief executive of the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation, accepted that the performance of a minority of fish farms had been disappointing. “It is frustrating that some administrative matters such as submitting reports late have adversely affected the results, but we continue to strive for the highest possible standards,” he said.
Sewage and other waste plants run by the public sector company, Scottish Water, didn’t fare much better, with 46 sites across the country categorized as poor or very poor last year. Again, there was a litany of problems, including overflows, leaks and bad smells.
Sludge wastes were still present in breach of license conditions on a site in Cupar, seven years after it had been closed. Sludge had spilled into a river at Alva, while there had been pollution incidents at Tillicoultry and Lochwinnoch sewage works.
“It is particularly disappointing to see so many Scottish Water sites singled out for criticism,” said Dr Richard Dixon, the director of WWF Scotland. “As a public body they have a major responsibility to keep our waterways clean and they clearly have a lot of work to do to come up to scratch.”
Scottish Water argued that most of the sites rates as poor were for “management conditions which have never been measured before and have no environmental impact.” The quality of wastewater effluent in Scotland was the highest it has ever been, it said.
“We are investing heavily in waste water treatment after decades of under-investment,” added Rob Mustard, a general manager with Scottish Water. “When the performance or management of any asset requires improvement we have agreed processes in place with our regulators.”
Dixon also highlighted the poor performance of the petrochemical refinery at Grangemouth run by the £17 billion British-based multinational, INEOS. “This is perhaps the most worrying inclusion since an accident there could be a real disaster for people and the environment,” he warned.
According to Sepa, the INEOS refinery suffered “a number of significant incidents in 2010 due to poor operational control”. It also had “an inadequate system” for ensuring good maintenance in winter conditions.
INEOS pointed out that Sepa had accepted that improvements were being made. “We are continuing to invest in technology that will further improve our performance and drive down emissions from the site,” said a company spokesman.
Other sites censured by Sepa were Scottish Hydro’s power plant at Stornoway on the Isle of Lewis, Norbord’s paper mill at Cowie in Stirling, a Philips Lighting plant in Hamilton and the cake maker, Macphie of Glenbervie, near Stonehaven. They defended themselves by insisting that they took pride in their environmental record, weren’t guilty of serious pollution and acted quickly to deal with any problems.
Whisky distilleries in Tobermory and Ballindalloch were also rated as poor, along with an aluminium smelter in Fort William, and an aerospace company in Perth (see tables below). They weren’t able to respond to requests for comments.
Scotland’s most polluting industries
industry / number of sites rated poor or very poor by Sepa
waste, recycling, scrap and landfill / 102
fish farms / 51
sewage and other effluent plants / 50
others / 40
Total / 243
Additional sites rated “at risk” of becoming poor performers
Total / 354
Companies with poor pollution performances in 2010
company / site / problem
Scottish Water / 46 sewage and other works across Scotland / rated as poor or very poor because of pollution, leaks, overflows, smells and other problems
INEOS / Grangemouth refinery / several “significant incidents” in 2010 due to “poor operational control” and an inadequate maintenance system
Scottish Hydro / Battery Point power station, Stornoway / rated as poor due to a major oil spill and air pollution
Alcan / Fort William smelter / “a number of issues” with the management of pollution reporting
Vector Aerospace / Almondbank, Perth / rated as poor because of breaches of air pollution limits for volatile compounds
Philips / Hamilton lighting factory / equipment was moved without authorisation and “room for improvement” on waste storage at plant in Hamilton
Burn Stewart Distillers / Tobermory distillery, Isle of Mull / rated as poor because of a failure to report incidents and inadequate sampling facility
Grant family / Glenfarclas distillery, Ballindalloch / downgraded to poor because of “repeated breaches” of pollution standard
Norbord / Paper mill, Cowie / a “significant number” of pollution breaches and problems with reporting, monitoring and the condition of equipment.
Macphie of Glenbervie / food plant near Stonehaven / rated as poor because of “repeated exceedances” of pollution limit
Repeat offenders rated as poor two years running
Border Precision, Kelso
The Cheese Company, Lockerbie
Aberdeenshire Council’s Brandon Howe Landfill Site, Inverboyndie
North Ayrshire Council’s Shewalton landfill site
TEG Environmental composting plant, Glenfarg, Perthshire
Augean Treatment waste plant, Paisley
Glasgow City Council’s Cathkin Landfill, East Kilbride
Healthcare Environmental, Shotts
Patersons Greenoakhill Landfill Site, Glasgow
SITA’s Binn Landfill, Glenfarg, Perthshire
source: Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Comment: Serial polluters leave a bad smell
by Stan Blackley, chief executive, Friends of the Earth Scotland
Every year, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) releases a depressingly long list of our country’s top polluters, and every year we see many of the same companies and organisations reappear on that list.
It’s never really a surprise that the most polluting sites in Scotland include those involved with waste, landfill, fish farming and sewage treatment, but it is always a surprise that the same names appear time and again, like a bad smell.
It’s clear that a weekend’s worth of poor publicity is way too weak a sanction, and that many of Scotland’s polluters are neither deterred nor bothered by being featuring on Sepa’s list.
That’s why Friends of the Earth Scotland is calling on the Scottish Government to provide greater powers for Sepa, to enable it to take tougher action against serial polluters, to impose tougher fines or even jail sentences on the worst culprits, and to act as a deterrent to those who might pollute in the future, either wilfully or through negligence.
The information on the list shows us that Sepa’s work is vital, and yet we see the body having its budget cut by the Scottish Government, which, even with the agency’s best efforts, will inevitably lead to less regulation of polluters, fewer site visits by inspectors, and more pollution incidents going unrecorded and unpunished.
This list is evidence, if evidence were required, that Sepa requires more resources, not less. If Sepa doesn’t or cannot get polluters taken to court, then community and environmental groups should be allowed the opportunity to do so.
Scotland’s environment belongs to us all, and we all have a collective interest in its protection. Unfortunately, Scots law doesn’t see it that way, yet many of Scotland’s poorest communities suffer a disproportionate share of pollution incidents and feel they can do nothing about it.
Many companies and organisations will continue to pollute wilfully and with impunity, and many more will pay scant regard to regulations, or will allow accidents and incidents to happen through poor practice.
The information on the Sepa list may only be the tip of the iceberg, and Friends of the Earth Scotland can’t help but wonder just how many pollution incidents go unnoticed or unrecorded.
In recent weeks, we’ve watched Shell knowingly pollute the North Sea with oil, and we continue to suspect that the delay in Shell releasing information regarding the oil spill from the Gannet platform was based around the hope that the spill might go unnoticed by others or that the weather might make it disappear.
Shell is yet to convince us otherwise. If the big guys like Shell may be acting this way, then how many of the little guys are doing so as well? How many pollution incidents are going unreported and what cumulative effect are they having on our environment? Unfortunately, we may not actually know the answer to these questions until it’s too late.
A list like this depresses. Education to our children has got to be the key. I know, I know, that is long term and will not help right now but we have to think long term as well as short term.
Posted by: Haul it Louisville Guy | 31 August 2011 at 02:56 AM
i say well done to SEPA for providing this information on their website.. let's hope this exposes the poor offenders and they clean up!
Posted by: David Aldrige | 28 August 2011 at 12:59 PM
Good article Rob and remember Viridor always here to comment on recycling and sustainable waste issues Inc our £800m Scottish investment programme.
Posted by: Martin Grey | 28 August 2011 at 12:23 PM