ea spotlight

Document Sample
ea spotlight Powered By Docstoc
					the environment:
what’s in it for you?
 Spotlight on business
 Environmental performance in 2005
We are the Environment Agency. It’s our job to look after your
environment and make it a better place – for you, and for
future generations.
Your environment is the air you breathe, the water you drink
and the ground you walk on. Working with business,
Government and society as a whole, we are making your
environment cleaner and healthier.
The Environment Agency. Out there, making your environment
a better place.

Published by:

Environment Agency
Rio House
Waterside Drive, Aztec West
Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD
Tel: 0870 8506506

© Environment Agency
All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with
prior permission of the Environment Agency.
July 2006
                                 Do you have a
                                 competitive edge?
                                 In this year’s Spotlight we show that if your business
                                 is making the most of all the opportunities that good
                                 environmental regulation and performance offers,
                                 then yes you probably do.
                                 Good environmental performance can save you money. Businesses that
                                 perform well will benefit from our modern approach, with fewer visits and
                                 lower charges. Cutting waste right down could save UK industry £3 billion
                                 in operating costs, better energy efficiency another £1.8 billion and water
                                 efficiency could cut bills by 30 per cent.
                                 Better still, good environmental performance can actually make you money.
               Sir John Harman   Companies with high environmental standards can financially out-perform
Chairman, Environment Agency     other companies by up to 43 per cent. Ethical investment is worth about
                                 £5.5 billion1 and ethical shoppers spend about £26 billion a year.2
                                 However, poor performance will cost you, and not just financially.
                                 Businesses paid almost £3 million in fines last year, and costs of almost
                                 £1 million. And if fines don’t deter you, how about one of the four prison
                                 sentences, two driving disqualifications, or 25 community punishment orders
                                 handed out last year?
                                 Fortunately for the environment and business pockets, regulation is working.
                                 Industry’s releases to air and water are going down while our economy
                                 continues to grow; water and energy efficiency are improving; pollution
                                 incidents are down; waste recovery is up; and greenhouse gases seem to
                                 be stabilising.
                                 The challenge for all of us is to keep these improvements going – and that
                                 includes the Environment Agency. We are modernising the way we regulate,
                                 offering more and more advice, targeting high-risk businesses and reducing
                                 our financial burden where we can.
                                 So the environment, what’s in it for you? Healthy profits or a day in court -
                                 it’s up to you.

               Contents            Overview                             4        Waste                                    27
                                   The sectors:                                  Water                                    30
                                   Chemicals                          11         Other sectors                            33
                                   Construction                       13         Appendices:
                                   Farming                            15         Company structures and                   36
                                   Food and drink                     17         the regulatory interface
                                   Fuel and power                     19         Company tables                           37
                                   Metals                             22         Glossary                                 41
                                   Minerals                           24         Sources of information                   42
                                   Paper and pulp                     25         Endnotes                                 42

                                                    Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   3
Good environmental performance could save UK indust ry£5.8 billion eve ryyear, enhance
reputation with customers and investors, drive innovation and create markets; all giving
business a competitive edge.3 But it works both ways: poor environmental p e rformance will
cost, and cost you in more ways than you might realise.
Reducing costs by using resources efficiently will help give                     water that contain conditions such as how the water is
that competitive edge: minimising waste alone could save                         used and the time of year it is taken not just the volume
UK industry up to £3 billion in operating costs, energy                          used. In 2005, 391 sites did not comply with some of the
efficiency another £1.8 billion4 and water efficiency could                      conditions of their licence, the highest number since 2002.11
cut bills by 30 per cent.5 Resource efficiency is also an
                                                                                 For all sites we regulate, disposing of all waste could cost
important strand of our regulation through Pollution
                                                                                 over £3 billion.12 For the sake of both the environment and
Prevention and Control (PPC).6
                                                                                 profits, business needs to minimise the amount of waste it
The sectors named in this report increased energy use by                         produces. But the total amount of waste produced by these
one per cent,7 compared to an increase in productivity of                        sites13 increased by almost a third in 2005 (over a half in
seven per cent.8 The fuel and power sector inevitably uses                       Wales) (Figure 1). This is partly because we now regulate
the most energy, while the water sector uses the least. The                      20 per cent more sites than in 2004, but waste produced by
biggest efficiency changes were made by the farming and                          sites reporting in both 2004 and 2005 increased by 11 per
fuel and power sectors, whose efficiency improved by 20                          cent. The fuel and power sector produces the most waste
per cent and 15 per cent respectively.9                                          and minerals the least. Fortunately, overall waste recovery
                                                                                 was the highest ever last year at 59 per cent (54 per cent in
There is a growing recognition of how much we rely on a
                                                                                 Wales), a seven per cent (six per cent in Wales) increase on
regular supply of water; after a second dry winter in 2005
                                                                                 2004. The minerals, paper and pulp, and food and drink
we are faced with what could be the most serious drought
                                                                                 sectors have the highest waste recovery rates, while the
to affect south east England in 100 years. So we are
                                                                                 chemicals sector recovers the least.
particularly pleased that industrial water efficiency has
improved and, at 45 million litres per day per unit output,                      The increase in total waste is partly due to changes in waste
is the best since at least 1996.10 We issue licences to abstract                 regulations that have affected the way hazardous wastes
                                                                                 are treated and disposed of and increased the scope of
                                                                                 waste that is classed and recorded as ‘hazardous’. Between
Fig. 1
                                                                                 2004 and 2005 the amount of this waste produced by all
                                                                                 of the sites we directly regulate increased by 15 per cent
                                                                                 (37 per cent in Wales14), and by 11 per cent by the sites
                                                                                 reporting in both years. At the same time, tougher
                                                                                 standards on what can be landfilled has encouraged
                                                                                 significant reductions in disposal of traditional types of
                                                                                 hazardous waste, particularly contaminated soil. It is
                                                                                 environmentally and economically important then that the
                                                                                 businesses we regulate increased the amount of hazardous
                                                                                 waste they recover to 44 per cent last year – again, the
                                                                                 highest on record. We support the industry-led National
                                                                                 Industrial Symbiosis Programme, the Materials Action Plan
                                                                                 Industrial Symbiosis (MAPIS) in Wales and the European
                                                                                 Union funded HAZRED programme in helping businesses
                                                                                 to do this and would like to see less hazardous materials
                                                                                 used wherever possible in the first place.
                                                                                 Good environmental performance can also generate
                                                                                 profit. We have found that companies with above-average

4   Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                              OV E R V I E W

environmental standards can financially out-perform                 were the food, beverages and tobacco sector (food and
companies with a below-average rating by up to                      drink), new to regulation under PPC, the chemicals and
43 per cent.15                                                      the fuel sector. Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)
                                                                    account for about 40 per cent of the total environment
A good environmental reputation is increasingly important
                                                                    protection spend.
to customers, investors, pension funds and shoppers alike.
Ethical shoppers spent about £26 billion in 2004, an increase       The business world and company structures are becoming
of 15 per cent on the previous year.16 The environmental            more diversified, complex and global. Our regulation needs
impact of packaging waste is a particular concern.17                to take account of this. We regulate many large privately
                                                                    owned companies, major public companies whose shares
Current valuations of the socially responsible investment
                                                                    are publicly listed on stock exchanges in the UK and around
funds – which apply some form of environmental, ethical
                                                                    the world, and SMEs (Appendices 1 and 2).
or social criteria to their investments - put the latest market
valuation for funds open to the general public at around
£5.5 billion in the UK. This is a 500 per cent growth
in 10 years.18
                                                                    Regulation is working
                                                                    There are an estimated 4,225 fewer deaths in the UK
Surprisingly then, we have found19 that only one in ten
                                                                    because regulation has reduced the amount of pollutants
of the FTSE All Share companies routinely report their
                                                                    released to the air.22 Investment in abatement technology
environmental performance to potential buyers and
                                                                    that reduces emissions makes economic sense: the return
investors, and only 12 per cent regard the environment
                                                                    can be at least six times higher in terms of health savings.23
as a financially material business risk or opportunity.
                                                                    For the sites we regulate, emissions of major air pollutants
We would like information on financially material
                                                                    that can harm health continued to fall last year. Releases of
environmental risks and achievement of key environmental
                                                                    dioxins fell by just under a third in England and Wales (and
performance targets to become a mandatory part of
                                                                    by almost three-quarters in Wales) after poor performance
companies’ annual report and accounts.
                                                                    at a single minerals site in Wales in 2004 was resolved.
We are disappointed with the Chancellor’s decision to               There has been a significant, 19 per cent (14 per cent in
abolish the mandatory Operating Financial Review, but we            Wales) decrease in emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2).
welcome the need to include environmental issues in the             As well as contributing to acid rain, sulphur dioxide reacts
new Business Review. We would also like directors’ duties           with other chemicals in the atmosphere to produce fine
with respect to the environment to be strengthened in the           particles that may affect people’s health, in particular people
draft Companies Bill currently before Parliament.20                 with breathing problems such as asthma.
At £3.2 billion,21 money spent on environmental protection          Climate change is widely recognised as the most serious
by UK manufacturing industry is put into perspective by the         issue facing us all, and total releases of greenhouse gases
potential benefits mentioned above. The biggest spenders            (quoted here in terms of their global warming potential -
                                                                    GWP) in the UK as a whole have been increasing since
                                                                    2002. We are particularly pleased then that GWP releases
Fig. 2
                                                                    from the sites we regulate remained substantially the same
                                                                    in 2005 (Figure 2), despite the introduction of about 20 per
                                                                    cent more sites to our regulation. In Wales, releases fell by
                                                                    nine per cent.
                                                                    The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS)
                                                                    began operating in 2005. The scheme includes around
                                                                    12,000 installations across Europe. It is designed to help
                                                                    move the EU towards meeting its Kyoto targets. The UK
                                                                    was one of five member states whose participating
                                                                    industries released more carbon dioxide than they were
                                                                    allocated.24 Industries in England and Wales released 29
                                                                    million tonnes more carbon dioxide than was allocated in
                                                                    2005. Buying carbon dioxide allowances to cover this could
                                                                    have cost up to £270 million.25 Most operators in England
                                                                    and Wales complied fully with the scheme. The power
                                                                    industry in England and Wales released 36.8 million tonnes
                                                                    more than it was allocated, while other industries released
                                                                    7.5 million tonnes less than their allocation.

                                                                  Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   5

This year we are reporting on the release to water of                            £7,500 and £27,500 respectively. This illustrates both the
chemicals that have been identified as definite priority                         need for all businesses to ensure the good environmental
hazardous substances by the European Union as part of the                        performance of their supply chain, and the damage that
Water Framework Directive.26 These substances ultimately                         environmental harm can do to your reputation. We
need to be eliminated or reduced to natural background                           have investigated this incident and will build into our
levels in order to protect the environment and human                             environmental management systems changes to prevent
health. It is encouraging that industry's discharges are, on                     similar problems arising in the future.
the whole, decreasing (Figure 3). We will be working with
                                                                                 In 2005, we prosecuted 317 businesses resulting in total
industry to make sure this continues, and that mercury and
                                                                                 fines of £2,742,250. This is a 16 per cent increase on 2004.
tributyltin (TBT) discharges reduce.
                                                                                 One hundred and sixty one businesses were fined over
                                                                                 £5,000 with Thames Water Utilities Ltd having the highest
                                                                                 cumulative fines at £128,000 (see Table 1 on page 8 for the
An unsustainable business environment                                            top 10 fines). Ninety-four businesses were fined more than
Poor environmental performance not only fails to capitalise                      £10,000, compared to 86 in 2004.
on the opportunities listed above, such as resource efficiency,
                                                                                 Directors and individuals are held accountable. We
savings and increased profit, but also has its own costs, and
                                                                                 prosecuted 28 directors - more than double the number
these are not just financial.
                                                                                 in 2004 - and 47 individuals for business-related crimes
There was a 12 per cent decrease in the number of serious                        (see sector pages).
industrial pollution incidents (category one and two
                                                                                 In some cases fines do not match the severity of the
incidents)27 last year (Figure 4). However, the number of
                                                                                 environmental damage, nor adequately deter poor
incidents that cause major environmental damage (category
                                                                                 performance; 22 businesses fined over £5,000 in 2005
one incidents)28 increased by seven per cent. About one
                                                                                 were also fined at least once in the preceding five years
third of all serious industrial pollution incidents are caused
                                                                                 (see for example case study illegal skip operator targeted).
by sites we regulate.
                                                                                 Fines are not the only penalties the courts can impose.
Waste, water and farming sectors combined are responsible
                                                                                 Sixty-six individuals were given other hard-hitting
for over three-quarters of all serious industrial pollution
                                                                                 penalties, including four jail sentences, two driving
incidents. We are pleased to see that the waste sector reduced
                                                                                 disqualifications and 25 community service orders
the number of serious pollution incidents it caused by a
                                                                                 (Table 2 on page 8 and case study).
quarter, and that both the metals and fuel and power sectors
reduced the number of serious incidents by over 80 per cent.                     We launched our Enforcement Strategy in 2005 and are
                                                                                 working closely with other law enforcement agencies to
One of our own subcontractors caused a major, category
                                                                                 tackle deliberate and calculated environmental crime.
one, pollution incident last year. We and our subcontractor
                                                                                 We are currently dealing with 34 complex or serious
were prosecuted for this in 2006, with associated fines of

Fig. 3

6   Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                             OV E R V I E W

Waste crime is a serious issue for businesses and the             Fig. 4
environment. The ‘Flycapture’ database, which local
authorities and the Environment Agency use to record
fly-tipping incidents, has recorded over one million
fly-tipping incidents, compared to just under a million in
2004. We estimate that over 15 per cent - 155,000 - of
these were caused by businesses. In total, fly-tipping
incidents cost taxpayers about £51 million to clean up,
and at £21.2 million, a significant proportion is for
business-related fly-tipping.
Nearly half (48 per cent) of the prosecutions we brought
against businesses and most of those against individuals
were for waste-related activity. Ninety four per cent of our
investigations into complex or serious environmental crime
are waste related (see case study); one set of offenders alone
had a turnover of £1 million in 18 months from illegal
waste disposal. Additional funding from Defra’s Business
                                                                  Number of industrial incidents 2000         01     02      03     04        05
Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) programme for
England and Materials Action Plan (MAP) in Wales have             Chemicals                           12      19     28      11     11        11
helped us support businesses who comply with waste                Construction and demolition         50      41     20      25     26        15
management law and target the illegal dumping of waste.           Farming                            256    226     180    131     1 45   130
                                                                  Food and drink                      22      28     29      25     21        27
All businesses have a responsibility to manage their waste
                                                                  Metals                                8     14      3      13     10         2
legally and ensure they use a registered waste carrier29
                                                                  Minerals                            28      11     10      10     11         6
(see Carlsberg case study on page 19).
                                                                  Paper and pulp                      10       8      4       5      5         6
Waste crime does not stop in the UK. Incorrectly sorted           Power generation                      5      5      5       6      6         1
or categorised recyclable materials are a serious problem         Waste management facilities        230    485     212    161     204    151
for the receiving, often developing, country. Half of all the     Water                              119    161     150    185     131    153
waste containers due for export that we inspected at ports        Wholesale retail                     27     50     28      27     23        19
were illegal.30 This is expensive for the operator – just one     Other                              117      85     53      41     46        41
had to pay £100,000 for its waste to be re-processed.             Total                              884 1133       722    640     639    562
We are conducting 15 criminal investigations now.                 Source: Environment Agency

  Case studies
  Illegal skip operator targeted
  We have been investigating an illegal skip operation at Finchampstead, Wokingham, since 2003. We
  successfully p rosecuted the ‘operator’ in 2004, and he was fined £12,000. The co u rt considered that his
  activi t i eswe re a delibera te breach of the law. The si te is loca ted in an Area of Sp e cial Landscape Importance
  and the waste activities being carried out at the si te were considered to ha ve had an adverse impact on the
  living conditions of nearby residents. When the illegal waste operation persisted at the site, we prosecuted him
  again in 2005, resulting in a six-month prison sentence. We have taken further action when the operation did not
  close during his imprisonment.

  When the Buncefield fuel depot near Hemel Hempstead exploded on 11 December 2005, we were among
  the first on the scene and our staff joined an expert team at multi-agency command centres.
  We are continuingto monitor the impact of the incident on the environment. So far, we have identified
  contamination of groundwa ter by fuel, fuel-re la ted pollutants and substances from the fire-fighting foam
  and contamination of surface wa te rs with pollutants from fire-fighting foam. We are wo r king to establish the
  spread and extent of this contamination. There has been no detectable impact on aquatic life. Reg ular
  upda tes are posted on our websi te:

                                                                 Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005    7

Table 1
Top 10 cumulative fines

Sector                     Offender                            Total fine         Events leading        Reason for                   Repeat
                                                                        £        to prosecution31       prosecution                  offender?
Water                      Thames Water Utilities Ltd          128,000                  4               Water pollution              Yes: 2000, 2001,
                                                                                                                                     2002, 2003, 2004
Waste                      Sundorne Products                     97,750                 7               Water pollution,             Yes: 2004
                           (Llanidloes) Ltd                                                             illegal waste activity
Chemicals                  Robinson Brothers Ltd                 63,000                 5               Water pollution,             No
                                                                                                        illegal waste activity
Water                      Southern Water Services Ltd           53,000                 8               Water pollution              Yes: 2000, 2001,
                                                                                                                                     2002, 2003, 2004
Water                      Severn Trent Water Ltd                52,750                 7               Water pollution, breach of   Yes: 2000, 2002,
                                                                                                        licence (abstraction)        2003, 2004
Construction               Edmund Nuttall Ltd                    47,500                 4               Water pollution              No
Water                      United Utilities Water PLC            47,500                 8               Water pollution, breach of   Yes: 2000, 2001,
                                                                                                        licence (abstraction)        2002, 2003, 2004
Construction               Wyman Ltd                             46,400                 3               Illegal waste activities     Yes: 2000
Waste                      Easco (Midlands) Ltd                  45,500                 5               Illegal waste activities     No: 2002
Wholesale and retail       Jewson Ltd                            40,000                 3               Illegal waste activities     No

Table 2
Restricting your freedom

Penalty                                                                                   Number                 Number against           Total duration
                                                                                     (all defendants)               directors
Community Punishment Order                                                                  25                            2                 3660 hours
(Community Service Order)
Custodial Sentence                                                                          4                                          1 year 6 months
Disqualification from driving                                                               2                                                 6 months
Suspended Custodial Sentence                                                                1                             1                   4 months
Community Punishment Rehabilitation Order (Combination Order)                               1                             1                      2 years
Community Rehabilitation Order                                                              1                                                12 months
Curfew Order                                                                                1                                                 4 months
Conditional Discharge                                                                       30                                       42 years 6 months

Is your business sustainable?                                                    Of those sites that were assessed in both 2004 and 2005,
                                                                                 just over nine in ten PPC sites maintained their operator
Many businesses are taking their environmental
                                                                                 performance. Overall, five per cent of sites improved
responsibilities seriously (Table 3). Operator environmental
                                                                                 their performance while three per cent got worse. We are
performance32 at many industrial sites we regulate was
                                                                                 disappointed that seven per cent of these ‘no change’ sites
good last year, even though most were assessed under the
                                                                                 were in bands D and E. We will concentrate our efforts
new scheme for the first time. More than 28 per cent of
                                                                                 next year to seek improvements to their performance.
sites rated in the top A (excellent) band for operator
environmental performance (Figure 5). Sites regulated                            For the first time this year, we are reporting on businesses’
under Pollution Prevention Control (PPC) specifically33                          compliance with our various permits and licences - that
did even better, with 47 per cent achieving band A.                              is, their potential for harm. Our Compliance Classification
                                                                                 Scheme (CCS) rates breaches from category one to four.
Over a third of all sites were in the lowest band for
                                                                                 Here, we report on category one and two – those non-
operator environmental performance but most of these are
                                                                                 compliance events that have a potential to cause serious
new to this scheme and their licensing regime has slightly
                                                                                 environmental harm.34 Last year, there were 1,731 serious
different requirements (see Waste section for more details).
                                                                                 non-compliance events, 61 per cent of which were caused
We will be working with these sites to improve their scores.
                                                                                 by the waste industry.
Just two per cent of PPC-regulated sites rated E.

8   Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                             OV E R V I E W

Operator environmental performance and CCS are                    series of Waste Protocols to assist the recovery of waste
two components of our risk-based charging scheme,                 back into productive use. We are targeting ten waste
Environment Protection Operator Pollution and Risk                streams with a potential commercial value of £2 billion.
Appraisal (EP OPRA). For those two components alone,
                                                                  We are concerned that some SMEs have said they are
the best-performing PPC sites each paid about £8,500 less
                                                                  discouraged from approaching us for advice because they
in regulatory fees last year than the poorest sites.
                                                                  fear prosecution.41 We are here to help and want businesses
We want to see environmental improvements across industry         to come and talk to us. For example, NetRegs42 gives
as a whole, not just the industry we regulate. Our Remas          on-line advice on environmental legislation and it can be
project has shown that companies with a properly managed          accessed anonymously and without cost. Seventy per cent
environmental management system (EMS) generally                   of users have rated this service ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. We
have better environmental performance.35 There are 3000           have also produced a one-page checklist43 for SMEs to
organisations with ISO 14001 accredited environmental             check that their sites are not at risk of causing a pollution
management systems, and 66 EMAS registrations.36                  incident. Over half of the businesses that used this checklist
There are 26 under a newer system ‘Acorn’.37                      took some action to improve their site.
Many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) still have         We are working with business, the European Union and
low awareness of their environmental obligations and are          government to ensure that our regulation of environmental
failing to take the sustained action needed to reduce their       legislation focuses most effort where there is highest risk.44
environmental impact. Only eight per cent of SMEs in              We are aiming to reduce the administrative costs for
England and Wales thought that their activities could cause       business of our regulation at the same time as maintaining
harm to the environment. This is a significant concern            environmental standards.
given that SMEs make up more than 99 per cent of
                                                                  Some of these efficiencies have already been realised.
businesses and are estimated to generate as much as 60 per
                                                                  Holders of 23,000 low-risk abstraction licences have
cent of commercial waste and 80 per cent of pollution
                                                                  been released from the licensing regime, saving them
incidents in England and Wales.38 Our NetRegs work aims
                                                                  approximately £1 million a year. And 500,000 low-risk
to help SMEs to reverse this.
                                                                  hazardous waste producers no longer need to register with
                                                                  us, saving them around £14 million a year. Hazardous
                                                                  waste registration is now available on-line.45
How we can help
                                                                  We are supporting a number of current Government
We provide advice to help businesses improve their
                                                                  initiatives to further modernise regulation. These include:
environmental performance. Our on-line register of
authorised waste carriers enables businesses to check that        • Defra’s Environmental Permitting Programme, which
their waste carrier is legal.39 We have set up an agricultural      will combine and simplify the PPC and waste licensing
waste helpline for farmers.40 We are working with the               systems, reducing the burden on business.
Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) to develop a
                                                                  • The Cabinet Office’s regulatory penalties review, which
                                                                    proposes a new range of tools such as administrative
Fig. 5
                                                                    fines and other non-criminal penalties to ensure better
                                                                    regulatory compliance.
                                                                  We welcome and encourage businesses to send us46 and the
                                                                  Better Regulation Executive other ideas.47
                                                                  In 2005 we published sector plans for the cement, chemical
                                                                  and nuclear industries. These plans were developed with
                                                                  trade associations and set environmental objectives for
                                                                  each sector that will be met through regulation and
                                                                  voluntary measures. We will be developing and reporting
                                                                  on indicators of performance against these objectives.
                                                                  Already, this work is resulting in real environmental
                                                                  improvements (see sector sections). We are expanding
                                                                  this approach with both directly and indirectly regulated
                                                                  businesses within the water, waste, energy, food and drink,
                                                                  dairy farming, metals, and retail sectors.

                                                                 Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   9
The sectors
In this section, we consider each ma jor sector in turn. We have chosen these sectors for
the importance of their environmental impact and/or the extent to which we regulate them.
We look at five main datasets:
• H ow well the sectors manage their sites environmentally, using opera tor environmental
  p e rformance, CCS non-compliance events (potential for environmental harm), and the
  number of pollution incidents (actual environmental harm)
• The environmental resul t s of their activities, waste production and recove ry, releases of
  pollutants to air and water, and gre e n h o use gas emissions
• Pros e cutions that resul ted in fines of £5,000 or more.
M o re information on our da ta is given at the end of the report.

Table 3
Relative environmental performance of the sectors in 2005

Sector                            Operator  Serious All waste                   All waste        Global Energy use Cumulative                    Regulatory Economic
                            environmental pollution produced                   recovered       warming              fines over                  compliance       size
                              performance incidents                                            potential               £5,000                       failures
                       (% of sites (% of sites    (number)       (million        (per cent)       (million        (energy use      (number of      (number     (GVA £
                         band A)      band E)                    tonnes)                      tonnes CO2)         per £ billion   companies)       category   billion)*
                                                                                                                        GVA)*                      1 and 2)
Retail and wholesale             -           -          19              -                 -                   -               -          16               -      142
Construction                     -           -          15          1.7    2
                                                                                          -                   -              3            21              -        56
Minerals                       59           0            6          0.6                76                    11            11              2            29         26
Food and drink                 30           3           27          2.6                70                     1              4            13            30         25
Fuel and power                 48           4            1   1
                                                                     8.3               67                187               71              3             5         18
Chemicals                      42           0           11          1.5                17                    12              7             7             6         16
Metals                         55           3            2          2.2                46                    23            10              2            22         15
Water                            -           -        153               -                 -                   -              1             9          205            7
Paper and pulp                 46           5            6          1.4                72                     2              2             2             6           3
Waste                          26         38          151           1.43                  -                  17              1           38          1057            3
Farming                          -           -        130               -                 -                  45*             2             6            21           2
- No data,
* 2004 data,
  Power generation,
  2004 construction: demolition and asbestos data (SWaT) so not comparable to others,
  Incineration only.

10    Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                        T H E SEC TO R S

Number of enterprises: 3,736
Our regulato ry activity: 254 PPC permits, 349 IPC permits, also abstraction licences and
consents to discharge to water
GVA: £16.1 billion
Energy use: 7.3 m illion tonnes of oil equivalent
We expect exemplary environmental performance                      output of a single site (Figure 7). This site is installing
from the chemicals sector because it handles and                   abatement equipment in 2006.
releases substantial quantities of potentially                     The industry produces nine per cent of all waste and
harmful pollutants and hazardous waste. In 2005                    45 per cent of the hazardous waste produced by the
we worked with the industry to produce a sector                    industries we regulate. Hazardous waste production by
plan to improve the environmental performance of                   the sector increased last year (Figure 8) because three
the sector and modernise our regulatory approach                   large producers reported to us for the first time. The
to it. We will be developing indicators of                         sector recovered (reused and or recycled) 17 per cent of
performance against the plan’s objectives.                         its waste in 2005, a lower proportion than in 2004. This
The chemical industry’s ability to comply with                     sector needs to produce less waste and recover more.
environmental requirements improved in 2005, with                  The new European chemicals legislation Registration,
42 per cent of the sites achieving band A for operator             Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH),
environmental performance compared to 39 per cent in               is expected to come into force in spring 2007. Chemicals
2004. Some sites improved including: Air Products PLC’s            of very high concern will be phased out, and replaced by
Bardon Acetylene Plant in Leicestershire, AP Chemicals             safer alternatives, unless industry can show the risk from
Ltd’s (now called Chemial UK Ltd) Station Road site in             their use is adequately controlled or that their value to
Staffordshire. Once again, no sites were rated a poor E            society outweighs the risks. In future chemical companies
for operator performance (Figure 6). This is good news             will have to prove that their products are safe for the
and we would like to see even better performance, while            environment and for health before they put them on the
some sites are new to PPC, the sector as a whole is well           market. It should benefit the environment and reduce
used to environmental regulation.                                  people’s exposure to chemicals by, among other things,
The sector’s CCS48 performance, or potential to cause              controlling downstream users.
environmental harm, is relatively good, though again
we would like to see better results. Its six serious non-          Fig. 6
compliance events were the second lowest number among
all the sectors we regulate. This compliance record is
reflected in the number of serious pollution incidents
(actual harm) the sector caused; while there was no change
in the total number (11), only five were caused by sites we
regulate. As a whole, the sector was responsible for two
per cent of all serious industrial pollution incidents. Seven
companies were fined large amounts for environmental
offences last year (Table 4), one of these, Robinson Brothers
Ltd (case study) was the third biggest fine of 2005.
The sector releases a complex mix of potentially harmful
chemicals into the environment. Last year, most of
these decreased. One of the most significant releases of
priority hazardous substances to water by the sector is
hexachlorabutadiene (HCBD); this chemical can cause
cancer. We will also be keeping an eye on benzene
releases to air: these are rising alongside the increased

                                                                Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   11

Fig. 7

Fig. 8                                                                                Table 4
                                                                                      Cumulative company fines of £5,000 and above for the chemicals sector

                                                                                      Offender                   Total fine      Events   Reason for
                                                                                                                          £    leading to prosecution
                                                                                      Robinson Brothers Ltd        63,000         5       Water pollution,
                                                                                                                                          illegal waste
                                                                                      Global Commodities           17,000         4       Breach of permit
                                                                                      (UK) Ltd
                                                                                      Rhodia Organique             10,000         1       Water pollution
                                                                                      Fine Ltd
                                                                                      Alberto Culver Company        7,500         1       Water pollution
                                                                                      (UK) Ltd
                                                                                      Potter and Moore              6,000         1       Water pollution
                                                                                      Innovations Ltd
                                                                                      Darcy Industries Ltd          5,000         1       Water pollution
                                                                                      McIntyre (UK) Ltd             5,000         1       Water pollution

  Case studies
  Profiting from good environmental performance
  Almetron Ltd has worked with us to improve the infrastructure and management of its site in Wrexham.
  It has bunded its chemical storage tanks, which will help reduce the risk of pollution in the River Dee
  and also protect the groundwater aquifer under the site. Improved management has helped cut costs
  by reducing the amount of chemicals that are disposed of. The company’s new management system
  minimises chemical storage and overstocking and it has sold surplus chemicals to other companies.
  These developments have cost the company around £100,000 and it is enthusiastic about making

12       Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                    T H E SEC TO R S

  further improvements. In 2006 the company is working towards gaining ISO 14001, an externally
  accredited, international standard for environmental management systems. The Green Dragon project
  from the Arena Network, an independent organisation in Wales that provides practical support on
  environmental management for business and other organisations, is helping the company achieve

  The polluter pays
  West Bromwich-based, chemical manufacturer Robinsons Brothers Ltd was fined £63,000 for seriously
  polluting the Walsall Canal on several occasions during a three-month period in 2002. The company also
  had to pay £ 62,000 pros e cution costs and more than £58,000 to cover our clean-up costs. The co m pa ny’s
  badly maintained drains leaked a mixture of chemicals into the canal, which caused it to turn black and
  stripped it of oxygen. The pollution killed many fish and caused local houseboat owners to complain of
  foul, bad-egg smells and other adverse health affects. The canal had to be drained to find the source of
  the pollution, which was 40 times more polluting than raw sewage.

Number of enterprises: 209,145
Our regulato ry activity: no IPC or PPC regulation, 237 waste management licences for mobile
plant used in cleaning up contaminated land. Also abstraction licences and consents to
discharge to water.
GVA: £56. 4 billion
Energy use: 2.5 million to n n esof oil equivalent
To be sustainable the construction sector must take            The sector produced nearly 1,700 thousand tonnes of
a life cycle approach and work to minimise the                 hazardous waste (including asbestos) in 2004.49 This is
amount of energy and water used and amount of                  a 48 per cent increase on the previous year. This large
waste produced throughout the life of a development,           increase was due to a number of major derelict-land
from construction to demolition. Sustainable                   clearance projects. Almost all of the extra hazardous
construction will bring significant challenges and             waste was disposed of in landfills.50
opportunities for the sector.                                  The amount of non-hazardous waste disposed of at
Waste is still a problem for the construction sector.          landfills by the sector fell by 2.75 million tonnes over the
Improving waste management on site and making better           same period.
use of recovered or recycled materials can save money,         We prosecuted more businesses in 2005, 21 businesses
because materials are used more efficiently and disposal       and two directors were fined £5,000 or more, compared
costs are reduced. Fly-tipping in particular is a serious      to 13 businesses and 3 individuals in 2004 (Table 5).
problem. In 2005 there were nearly 60,000 incidents            Most of the offences were for water pollution. The
involving construction-related waste, resulting in             largest fine was for the senior partner of a construction
significant clean-up costs for taxpayers.                      firm, who we prosecuted for illegal waste activities
There was a significant decrease in the overall number of      including tipping and burning waste on land without
serious pollution incidents caused by the construction         a licence. His construction company was the main
industry last year (Figure 9). A fifth of these incidents      financial beneficiary. The fines and damage to reputation
involved hazardous waste.                                      meant it was no longer financially viable for him to

                                                            Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   13

undertake this illegal waste activity. He has since                                   Table 5
invested £360,000 in new plant for the business, and                                  Cu m ula t i ve co m pa nyfines of £ 5 ,000 and above for the construction secto r
paid £36,000 in fees to turn this illegal site around and
become properly licensed.                                                             Offender                              Total fine £       Events   Offence
                                                                                      Edmund Nuttall Ltd                         47,500             4   Water pollution,
We are pleased that Government is bringing forward                                                                                                      b rea ch of co ns e n t
plans to strengthen the requirement for companies to                                                                                                    (water)
use Site Waste Management Plans. By requiring better                                  Wyman Ltda                                 46,400             3   Illegal waste activi t y
planning for waste management on construction,
                                                                                      G & K Roofing Contractors Ltd              26,000             1   Illegal waste activi t y
demolition and excavation sites, these plans will
                                                                                      Rialto Homes Ltd                           15,000             1   Water pollution
encourage businesses to reduce the amount of waste they
                                                                                      Balfour Beatty Utilities Ltd               15,000             1   Water pollution
generate and ensure that their waste is lawfully managed
(see Lindum case study).                                                              Gleeson Construction                       15,000             1   Water pollution
                                                                                      Services Ltd
                                                                                      Capital Demolition Ltd                     14,000             1   Illegal waste activi t y
Fig. 9
                                                                                      Enderby Construction Ltd                   13,500             1   Water pollution
                                                                                      J S Bloor (Sudbury) Ltd                    12,000             1   Water pollution
                                                                                      Miller Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd               10,000             1   Water pollution
                                                                                      William Hargreaves Ltd                     10,000             1   Water pollution
                                                                                      George Wimpey                               9,000             1   Water pollution
                                                                                      North Yorkshire Ltd
                                                                                      George Wimpey                               9,000             1   Water pollution
                                                                                      South Yorkshire Ltd
                                                                                      Baram Ltd                                   8,000             1   Water pollution
                                                                                      Westshield Ltd                              8,000             1   Water pollution
                                                                                      Galliford Try                               6,000             1   Water pollution
                                                                                      Construction Ltd
                                                                                      Leominster Demolition Ltd                   5,500             2   Illegal waste activi t y
                                                                                      Barratt Homes Ltd      b
                                                                                                                                  5,000             1   Water pollution
                                                                                      Porthmadog Ltd                              5,000             2   Illegal waste activi t y
                                                                                      Corbuild Ltd                                5,000             1   Illegal waste activi t y
                                                                                      Raynsway Estates Ltd                        5,000             1   Illegal waste activi t y
                                                                                      Repeat offender, year of previous prosecution: a2000; b2004

  Case studies
  Not wasting an opportunity
  After identifying a gap in the market, Lindum Construction Group decided to establish its own waste
  handling division. Its waste transfer station at Saxilby near Lincoln handled about 18,000 tonnes of
  waste in 2005, and 88 per cent of this was recycled. The site no longer just deals with waste from Lindum
  Construction sites, it also receives waste from other building sites, industries and retailers in the area.
  They’ve set their own target of ‘zero waste’ to landfill in five years, which we’re working with them to
  achieve. They have included a certified material in their aggregate range that they manufacture from
  recycled products. This has significantly reduced waste to landfill in the local area as well as providing an
  alternative to natu ra l agg rega te. The si te has an excellent co m pliance re co rd, and as l o ng as t h isco n t i n u es
  we’ll be able to regulate them more lightly and more cheaply (than for high risk sites) in the future.

  Harmful waste
  Capital Demolition Ltd in Addlestone Surrey was fined £14,000 for bringing white asbestos onto its site
  and for illegally storing it there. We found a 40-yard bin full of broken asbestos sheeting and flat cement
  board at the site. The managing director at the time said that storing asbestos like this was legal after
  recent changes to hazardous waste regulations; he was wrong. Storing asbestos without a proper waste
  licence is illegal, and as a we ll - esta bl ished co m pa ny it should ha ve been fully awa re of its resp o nsibilities.

14       Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                    T H E SEC TO R S

Number of enterprises: 162 ,00051
Our regulato ry activity: 18 PPC permits, also abstraction licences, waste exemptions, NVZ,
groundwater regulations
GVA: £2 billion
Energy use: 1.9 million to n n esof oil equivalent
We’d like to encourage more businesses in the                  Overall53 11 per cent of farms failed under environmental
farming sector to rise to the environmental                    criteria: six per cent for GAEC54 and five per cent for
challenges and build the environment into their                various breaches of statutory management requirements.
business. By doing this they can gain economic                 Most failures for GAEC54 were under the requirement for
benefits as well as protect the environment now                farmers to have a two metre uncropped (and fertiliser
and for the future. The introduction of measures               and pesticide free) strip alongside hedgerows and
to protect soil and water, called resource protection          watercourses.
measures, in agri-environment schemes is an                    All farmers and land managers can join entry level agri-
opportunity for farmers to build on their traditional          environment schemes to bring broad benefits for the
role as stewards of the countryside. Many farmers              whole environment. The schemes in England and Wales
already farm in ways that protect the environment,             are different (Entry Level Environmental Stewardship in
so for them it should be ‘business as usual.’ There            England and Tir Cynnal in Wales), but they both pay
are examples of the benefits of good performance               farmers who maintain, enhance or create environmental,
in the case studies.                                           habitat or historic features. To date in Wales there are
We regulate farms under a number of different regimes          2,243 Tir Cynnal agreements and 21,304 entry level
including assessment for cross-compliance, Nitrate             scheme agreements in England, more than half of these
Action Programme, groundwater regulations, waste               contain measures protecting natural resources (soil and
exemptions, sludge (use in agriculture) regulations,           water).55 Higher level schemes are also available to some
water abstraction licences and silage slurry and fuel oil      to provide even greater environmental benefits in priority
regulations. We regulate intensive pig and poultry farms       areas (Higher Level Environmental Stewardship in
through PPC.                                                   England and Tir Gofal in Wales).
CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) reform has
introduced new systems of farm support in England and
Wales based on single farm payments. Support depends           Fig. 10
on farmers achieving and maintaining certain basic
environmental and other standards, known as cross-
compliance. The two main elements are that land must
be kept in good agricultural and environmental
condition (GAEC) and that farmers must meet a number
of legal requirements, known as Statutory Management
Requirements. Being found to be ‘non-compliant’ could
result in a reduction in a farmer’s single farm payment.
So it is a big deal for farmers.
Last year about four per cent of farms we visited in
England and three per cent in Wales failed for breaches
of nitrate vulnerable zone (NVZ) conditions.52 The main
reason for NVZ non-compliance that we encountered
was farmers not taking proper account of the nitrogen
supplied by organic manure. The second most common
problem was incomplete or no records, particularly those
relating to where organic manure had been spread.

                                                            Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   15

Actual CCS56 performance is relatively good given the                             their support industries including advisors and
scale of the sector. Farming was responsible for 21                               contractors on campaigns such as the Voluntary
serious breaches. We are pleased that the number                                  Initiative on Pesticides. There is some evidence that
of serious pollution incidents caused by farming fell by                          pesticide concentrations in groundwater are declining in
10 per cent last year to 130 (Figure 10). Almost a fifth                          some areas.57 As a result we know that pesticides are
involved pollutants that are hazardous, mainly diesel,                            being used more effectively overall, which means farmers
pesticides and sheep dip. The farming sector is                                   need less which saves them money.
responsible for 23 per cent of all serious pollution
incidents caused by industry. We can advise farmers on                            Table 6
how they can prevent pollution and in some cases help                             Cumulative company fines of £5,000 and above for the farming sector
farmers identify funding to support this, for example
for farms in Catchment Sensitive Farming areas.                                   Offender                             Total fine          Events     Reason for
                                                                                                                                £        leading to   prosecution
Last year six farm businesses were fined large amounts                                                                                  prosecution
for environmental offences, four more than in 2004                                Paul Rackham Ltd                       25,000             1         Illegal waste
(Table 6). Most were for water pollution but one was for                                                                                              activities
serious illegal waste offences (see case study).                                  Higgins Agriculture Ltd                20,000             1         Breach of
                                                                                                                                                      licence (waste)
We will support farmers by promoting voluntary
measures where they can be shown to work. We have                                 Spalding Potatoes Ltda                  17,000            1         Water pollution

been working with farming organisations to produce an                             Kingsplay Farming                      12,000             1         Water pollution
                                                                                  Company Ltd
environmental plan for the dairy industry. The plan is
voluntary and may reduce the need for future regulation.                          Pendock Estates Ltd                    10,000             1         Water pollution
It may also serve as a model for other agricultural                               Attwells Ltd                             5,000            1         Water pollution
sectors. We've also been working with farmers and                                 Repeat offender year of previous prosecution: a2000

 Case studies
  Beating the drought on the western River Rother, West Sussex
  Ma i n ta i n i ng sufficient f l ows in our rive rs is important in provi d i ng wa ter for the public, agricul tu re, and the
  environment. This can often be difficult, particularly over the summer months. Over the last 30 years the
  majority of farms along the Western Rother have moved from livestock to arable farming, increasing the
  need to abstract water from the river for use in spray irrigation of their crops. In addition, Southern Water
  abstracts water at Hardham for public water supply. Working with the Environment Agency, the farmers
  have been able to reconcile these conflicting demands by dividing up the river into two roughly equal
  sections. Farmers agreed to abstract water from the river on different days, those upstream of Ambersham
  Bridge alternating with those downstream. This co-operative approach to water abstraction is still helping
  to preserve the flow in the river and allowed Southern Water to continue to abstract water for public
  consumption without compromising the environment. We would like to see more schemes like this.

  Illegal dumping on farmland
  Syringes with needles, bottles of pills, batteries, metals knives and an inhaler were among items of waste
  spread on agricultural land in Norfolk. Paul Rackham Ltd is an agricultural business that covers about 445
  hectares in Norfolk. The spreading of the waste on the farmland was carried out as part of a commercial
  arrangement between Paul Rackham Ltd and a waste company Antiwaste Ltd. About 20,000 tonnes of
  this waste mixture was spread on 175 hectares. The field was later used for cereal crops. Although the
  companies said that this was part of a trial they had not sought our permission, nor had they asked for an
  exemption from the need to have a waste management licence to carry out the trial. At the time one of the
  directors of the farm business was also a director of Waste Recycling Group. It is important that where
  treated waste is spread onto farmland that a full risk assessment is carried out to ensure that it does not
  harm the environment or human health and that there is an agricultural benefit. Paul Rackham Ltd was
  fined £25,000 and Anti-Waste Ltd £21,000. Both companies were ordered to pay £78,122 costs each.

16   Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                       T H E SEC TO R S

  The polluter pays
  Following a number of complaints from the public about waste being burnt at a farm near Leeds, our
  officers carried out six months of surve illance of the si te. They discove red a number of susp i ci o usactivi t i es
  being carried out at the farm, including large piles of garden waste that increased in size when vehicles
  containing waste entered the site and left again empty. The farm did not have a waste management
  licence. When we searched the site we found piles of waste including asbestos piping, plastics, metals
  and tree cuttings. Despite claims by the farmers that they did not receive any payment for the deposit of
  waste, and that the majority of waste had been fly-tipped without their knowledge, they were jointly fined
  £15,100 and ordered to pay costs of £10,000.

Food and drink
Number of enterprises: 7,047
Our regulato ry activity: 305 PPC permits, 3 IPC permits, also abstraction licences and consents
to discharge to water
GVA: £21.5 billion
Energy use: 4.3 million to n n esof oil equivalent
The food and drink sector uses large amounts of                   We are pleased to report big improvements in
energy and water and produces large amounts of                    environmental management at Westbury Dairies Ltd,
waste. Its releases to air and water are low. Where               that are reflected in a shift from band D to band B last
we directly regulate the industry, for example the                year (see case study).
305 sites now covered by the PPC regulations                      The sector’s CCS58 performance shows that sites we
(many for the first time in 2005), we can help drive              regulate breached permits 30 times last year. These
through resource, waste and energy efficiencies.                  breaches had the potential to cause serious environmental
We also very much welcome Defra's Food Industry
Sustainability Strategy as a means of achieving
                                                                  Fig. 11
improved environmental performance in England
and in Wales.
We now regulate about five times more sites than in
2004 through the introduction of PPC to the sector. Only
30 per cent of food and drink sites rated in the top band
A for operator environmental performance (Figure 11).
However, we are very pleased that this is an increase of
17 per cent on 2004.
Ten sites were rated as poor environmental performers in
the lowest band E last year, but this is only three per cent
of all food and drink sites. The sector’s poorest performers
include: MPP Holdings Ltd’s Bury St Edmunds site, two of
2 Sisters Food Products Ltd’s poultry processing sites in
Suffolk and in Nottinghamshire (the latter now closed),
Cott Beverages’ Citrus Grove and Bondgate sites, Princes
Ltd’s Princes Soft Drinks Division (UK) in Manchester,
and NuPetra Ltd’s Ascot Pet Ingredients site.

                                                               Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   17

harm. The sector caused five per cent of all serious                              into the wider area of resource efficiency and sound
industrial pollution incidents in 2005 (actual harm).                             environmental management. As well as this we want to
We were disappointed to see a 29 per cent rise in the                             produce a voluntary sector plan with the British Retail
number of incidents (Figure 12). Only seven serious                               Consortium. Linking these plans together will create
incidents were from sites we regulate.                                            real opportunities to work with both these important
                                                                                  industries to influence the types and volumes of waste
The food and drink sector produces 14 per cent of the
                                                                                  that are eventually disposed of as household waste.
waste from all the sectors we regulate, the second biggest
producer after fuel and power. It produced about two                              Thirteen businesses received large fines for
and a half million tonnes in 2005, almost all of which                            environmental offences last year (Table 7).
was non-hazardous. The sector recovers 70 per cent of
                                                                                  Table 7
its waste, above average for all the sectors we regulate.
                                                                                  Cumulative company fines of £5,000 and above for the food
We are planning to develop a sector plan with the                                 and drink sector
food and drink industry in 2006/07 to help take its
environmental performance beyond compliance and                                   Offender                   Total fine      Events     Reason for
                                                                                                                      £    leading to   prosecution
Fig. 12                                                                           Carlsberg UK Ltd             25,000         2         Illegal waste
                                                                                  Solway Foods Ltd             20,000         2         Water pollution
                                                                                  Meadow Foods Ltd             18,000         9         Water pollution,
                                                                                                                                        breach of
                                                                                                                                        consent (water)
                                                                                  Doug Clark Produce Ltd       16,000         2         Water pollution
                                                                                  Coors Brewers Ltd            15,000         1         Water pollution
                                                                                  Frank Bird (Poultry) Ltd     10,000         1         Illegal waste
                                                                                  Abna Ltd                     10,000         1         Water pollution
                                                                                  J G Pears (Newark) Ltd       10,000         1         Water pollution
                                                                                  Moy Park Ltd                 10,000         1         Water pollution
                                                                                  Allied Bakeries Ltd          10,000         1         Water pollution
                                                                                  Robert Wiseman                7,000         3         Water pollution,
                                                                                  & Sons Ltd                                            breach of permit
                                                                                  Apetito Ltd                   5,000         1         Water pollution
                                                                                  Garden Isle Frozen            5,000         1         Water pollution
                                                                                  Foods Ltd

  Case studies
  Benefiting from reducing waste
  Coca-Cola Enterprises’ Milton Keynes site in Buckinghamshire has been working to reduce the amount of
  waste it sends to landfill. The site, which produces more than a third of all canned Coca-Cola products in
  Great Britain, has invested £100,000 in infrastructure and equipment to support segregation, processing
  and containment of waste for recycling. As a result the site saves more than £2,000 each month through
  sales of recyclable materials and the much lower amounts of waste sent to landfill. Coca-Cola Enterprises
  has made these changes as part of its ISO 14001 certification. We helped the company identify
  opportunities for improvement as part of its PPC permit application process.

  Investment in the environment and in people
  Westbury Dairies Ltd in Wiltshire sought our advice on how to improve its environmental performance at
  its Westbury site (formerly run by United Milk PLC) after we found the site didn’t have any environmental
  policies and its staff had no environmental management training. The dairy also had problems with
  emissions of milk powder, causing complaints from neighbours, and had polluted a nearby stream. The
  company implemented an environmental management system, including training for its staff. It also
  invested in better filters and new emissions monitoring equipment. Emissions of fine particles dropped
  by 58 per cent between 2003 and 2005. Operator performance at the site has improved from a poor band
  E in 2003 to a band D in 2004, followed last year by a large improvement to a band B.

18   Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                  T H E SEC TO R S

  Beer, waste and pollution
  Coors Brewers Ltd in Alton, Hampshire, that produces Carling and Grolsch, failed to upgrade a faulty
  drainage system on our order and continued to allow sugars and yeast to drain into the local river. This
  forced us to prosecute. The company was fined £15,000 with £4,000 costs for polluting the River Wey with
  brewery effluent, which can harm wildlife.
  Carlsberg UK in Leeds failed to follow its own procedures and breached its duty of care when it used
  another company to dispose of its waste without checking the company held a waste management
  licence. We found 650 Carlsberg drums containing hazardous waste at an unlicensed site in Whitley,
  North Yorkshire. Carlsberg UK was fined £25,000 and ordered to pay £2,001 costs. We also successfully
  prosecuted the company that received the Carlsberg waste along with two of its directors. Since the
  incident, Carlsberg has trained its staff in waste disposal procedures to make sure it doesn’t happen
  again. The company has also invested in environmental improvements that reduce waste and water use,
  and has installed alarms on oil tanks and better drains.

  Illegal slaughter house targeted
  A joint investigation involving our officers and St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council’s Environmental
  Health department uncovered an illegal slaughterhouse in Merseyside. We found six people killing
  chickens in filthy conditions. Dirty water, contaminated with blood, was draining from the makeshift
  slaughterhouse into a ditch that feeds the Windle Brook. Water samples revealed that the discharge
  could have harmed wildlife. Environmental health officers seized the dead birds, apparently destined
  for restaurants in Liverpool. Last year five men were each given a 180-hour community punishment order
  and a sixth man fined £500 for running an illegal chicken-slaughtering operation that polluted a local
  stream in Rainford near St Helens, Merseyside.

Fuel and power
Number of enterprises: 508
Our regulato ry activity: 48 PPC permits, 233 IPC permits, also abstraction licences and consents
to discharge to water
GVA: £17.5 billion
Energy use: 70.9 m illion tonnes of oil equivalent
The fuel and power industry has always been the              There was a very small increase in the number of poorly
most resource-intensive sector, utilising huge               managed, E-rated sites (four per cent in 2005 compared
quantities of water and fuel, and releasing about            with two per cent 2004).
three-quarters of industrial greenhouse gas                  The sector’s CCS59 performance, or potential for
emissions in England and Wales. The industry has             environmental harm, is relatively good. There were
made substantial investment to reduce emissions              five serious non-compliance events in 2005. The sector
and address climate change. There is still much              caused one serious pollution incident, compared to
work to be done to break the link between levels of          six in 2004.
environmental impact and economic growth.
                                                             Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) is a key
Operator environmental performance in the fuel and
                                                             challenge. Of all the industry that we regulate, the fuel
power sector remained generally good last year, with 48
                                                             and power sector contributes the largest percentage
per cent of sites achieving band A status (Figure 13).

                                                          Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   19

(74 per cent) to global warming potential. GHG                                    came into effect in 2005. This objective means that from
emissions from the sector increased very slightly in                              last year power stations must manage their operations
2005 (Figure 14).                                                                 and control emissions with an Air Quality Management
                                                                                  Plan (see case study).
We are pleased that emissions of sulphur dioxide
continued to fall in 2005, despite high demand for                                The industry produces more waste than any other sector
electricity from the 14 large coal-fired power stations                           and most is generated by the power sub-sector. In 2005
that release most of it.60 There are several factors that                         the amount of waste produced by the sector increased by
have contributed to this reduction. Our framework to                              14 per cent to 8.27 million tonnes but two-thirds of this
cut sulphur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power                               was recovered, an increase of 10 per cent on 2004
stations requires operators to either install flue gas                            (Figure 15).
desulphurisation (FGD) equipment at plants with a long
                                                                                  The power sub-sector discharges substantial volumes of
life expectancy, or use low sulphur coals at sites that are
                                                                                  HCB, PAHs, HCH and cadmium to water. Most of these
expected to close soon. Three quarters of coal-fired
                                                                                  are produced during combustion and many can cause
power station capacity is now committed to having full
                                                                                  cancer. We are encouraged that there has been no
or partial FGD by 2008.61 And a new target to protect
                                                                                  substantial increase since 2004.
vegetation and ecosystems from harmful air pollution
                                                                                  Three companies were fined large amounts for serious
                                                                                  environmental offences last year. Monckton Coke and
Fig. 13
                                                                                  Chemical Company Ltd was fined £13,500 for breaching
                                                                                  its permit (see case study), and Total Lindsey Oil
                                                                                  Refinery Ltd (£12,500) and Transco Ltd (£8,000) were
                                                                                  both fined for water pollution.

                                                                                  Overall, radioactive discharges to both air and water from
                                                                                  the entire nuclear sector fell in 2005, continuing the trend
                                                                                  in recent years (Figure 16). However, discharges to air
                                                                                  from nuclear power plants rose slightly since 2004 due to
                                                                                  increased output from the older Magnox power stations.
                                                                                  Most radioactive discharges to water are from nuclear
                                                                                  fuel reprocessing at Sellafield. These discharges have
                                                                                  halved since 2004, largely because of a shutdown of
                                                                                  the THORP reprocessing plant since April 2005 due to
                                                                                  an incident, and prolonged shutdown of the Magnox
                                                                                  reprocessing plant for routine maintenance.

Fig. 14

20   Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                       T H E SEC TO R S

The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) at Aldermaston,            Atomic Weapons Establishment. The small amount that
Berkshire has discharged radioactive liquid effluent to the       is still produced at the site will be treated by evaporation
River Thames at Pangbourne for 50 years. This pipeline            and the residual radioactive concentrate will be solidified
was finally closed on 16 March 2005. The closing of this          and stored for eventual disposal.
pipeline was an important step in our mission to improve
                                                                  Last year we worked with the nuclear industry on a
water quality in the River Thames, and our chairman
                                                                  sector plan that sets out environmental objectives and
attended the closing ceremony to turn the valve that closed
                                                                  performance indicators. We will report on the sector’s
the pipeline. The prospect of the pipeline closure has also
                                                                  performance in meeting these objectives.
driven a large reduction in liquid waste produced at

Fig. 15                                                           Fig. 16

  Case studies
  Working together for cleaner air
  All coal and oil-fired power stations are required to have an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) under
  their permits. 2005 was the first year when the 15-minute air quality objective for sulphur dioxide was in
  effect. Given the significant emissions of sulphur dioxide from stations without FGD, 2005 would be a
  tough test of operators’ AQMP.
  In January 2005, high winds blew emissions from RWE's npower site near Aberthaw in South Wales and
  E.ON UK's site at Ironbridge near Telford down to ground level. The limit for sulphur dioxide was exceeded
  several times at both sites and there was a high risk of breaching the yearly maximum of 35 allowed
  exceedences. Our staff worked closely with both companies to help strengthen their AQMPs. The
  companies improved short-term weather forecasting and, at significant expense, modified the way they
  operate the stations under high-risk weather conditions. As a result both stations avoided exceeding the
  yearly limit for sulphur dioxide, a significant achievement given the events at the start of the year.
  Air pollution error
  A breach in permit conditions at Monckton Coke and Chemical Company Ltd in South Yorkshire led to
  several p e o ple in the local community co m pla i n i ng about s m e lls and brea t h i ng difficul t i esa fter excessi ve
  sulphur dioxide was released from the works. As well as being bad for human health sulphur dioxide is
  known to co n t r i bu teto the production of acid rain. The co m pany had been using coa l with a higher sul p h u r
  content than normal due to problems with their suppl i es of l ow -sulphur coa l. We gra n ted a va r iation in the
  company’s permit that would allow coal with a higher level of sulphur to be used in the mixing process.
  However, errors in the company’s calculations of the mixture of new and old coal meant that actual
  emissions were higher than allowed in its permit. Although other factors could have been involved, air
  pollution in the area rose above the indicative air quality standards on four occasions during the time the
  company was exceeding its emissions limits. We prosecuted the company for the permit breach and it was
  fined £13,500 and ordered to pay costs of £2,400.

                                                               Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   21

Number of enterprises: 29,543
Our regulato ry activity: 228 PPC permits, 3 IPC permits, also abstraction licences and
consents to discharge to water
GVA: £15.2 billion
Energy use: 9.6 million tonnes of oil equivalent
The metals sector is a major user of energy and                                   72 per cent (Figure 19). PAHs are a group of compounds
water and produces a lot of hazardous waste.                                      that are generally produced during combustion and some
It also releases substantial quantities of some                                   of which can cause cancer.
potentially harmful pollutants into the environment.                              Two metals companies were fined a large amount last
Operator environmental performance within the metals                              year: Istil (UK) PLC was fined £20,000 for PPC permit
sector was generally good last year, with 55 per cent of                          breaches and Braintree Electroplaters Ltd was fined
the sites ranked in the highest band A (Figure 17). Three                         £5,000 for water pollution.
sites improved: Anochrome Ltd’s Walsall site and BG
                                                                                  We have asked the ferrous sub-sector to reduce its
Plating Ltd’s Abberley Street site both improved one
                                                                                  emissions of sulphur dioxide and dioxins as a matter
band to an A, and Bob's Plating Ltd moved from band
                                                                                  of urgency. We are working with operators to review
E to band D. However, six sites were rated in the lowest
                                                                                  possible plant improvements and modifications and
band for operator performance band E, including
                                                                                  use of alternative feedstocks.64 From 2006 we will be
Johnson Matthey PLC at Royston, Weardale Castings
                                                                                  working with the industry to produce sector plans
and Engineering Ltd, Decorpart Ltd’s Edward Street                                for the ferrous and non-ferrous sub-sectors. This will
Anodising Plant and Woodmet Anodising Ltd (this site                              improve the environmental management of the sector
has now closed).                                                                  and include resource efficiency.
The industry had 22 CCS62 breaches in 2005 that had the
potential to cause serious environmental harm. The
                                                                                  Fig. 17
sector caused just two serious pollution incidents (actual
harm), a fall of 80 per cent. Neither was caused by sites
we regulate.
The metals industry produced 12 per cent of the total
waste and just over a fifth (23 per cent) of the hazardous
waste routinely reported to us last year. It generated 18
per cent more waste than in 2004 and recovered less,
only 46 per cent of the total (Figure 18). We would like
to see waste recovery improve and for industry to seek
positive uses for these waste materials as disposal costs
start to rise. The National Industrial Symbiosis
Programme (NISP)63 is actively working to link
companies in this sector to find positive uses for waste
Last year, the sector released relatively large amounts of
pollutants to air and water. Levels of most were about
the same as 2004 but releases of PAHs have fallen by

22   Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                             T H E SEC TO R S
Fig. 18

Fig. 19

  Case studies
  Profiting from good performance
  We were concerned about the environmental impacts of emptying dross pans at the Swansea site run by
  Alcoa. Dross is the oxidised ‘scum’ on the top of molten aluminium when it is removed from the melting
  furnace. The main issues that we wanted the company to address were pollution of local river waters and
  the noise nuisance from hammering the dross pans to release the aluminium solids. Alcoa spent
  £300,000 fitting a new dross press last year, resulting in benefits for the environment, for local people
  and in lower costs. Water pollution is reduced as the water from this area of the plant is now diverted
  through an effluent treatment plant before discharge into local river. The company has saved money and
  improved its resource efficiency as it can return the recovered molten aluminium to the furnaces. The
  company is so pleased with the results it is planning to invest in another press so that all aluminium
  dross produced at the site can be processed in this way.

                                                     Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   23

Number of enterprises: 6,210
Our regulato ry activity: 49 PPC permits, 9 IPC permits, also abstraction licences and consents
to discharge to water
GVA: £25.2 billion
Energy use: 10.8 million to n n esof oil equivalent
The minerals sector produces little waste and                                     The minerals industry releases 11 per cent of all fine
doesn’t discharge pollutants to water. However,                                   particles, a lot for such a small sector and emissions are
it does use large amounts of energy and water                                     up by a fifth from 2004 caused by poor performance at
and emits substantial amounts of pollutants to air.                               one site. Carbon monoxide emissions also increased last
The cement sub-sector recovers over one million                                   year. Other emissions, such as sulphur oxides and
tonnes of waste to replace five per cent of its raw                               nitrogen oxides are slightly down.
materials and 12 per cent of its fossil fuels.65                                  Two minerals companies were fined more than £5,000
Burning this waste as fuel means these sites must                                 in 2005. Brett Lafarge Ltd, was fined £5,000 in 2005 for
comply with the Waste Incineration Directive. The                                 polluting the River Rom in Essex with silt from its gravel
industry has spent about £500,000 on older plants,                                quarry. Imerys Minerals Ltd was fined a total of £6,200
to install new monitoring and pollution control                                   for five water pollution events; during one incident
equipment to meet new rules that applied from                                     Polgooth Stream near St. Austell was polluted with an
December 2005. We have worked with the cement                                     estimated 50 tonnes of liquid clay. Imerys is a repeat
industry on a sector plan that sets outenvironmental                              offender, it was fined more than £5,000 in 2000.
performance indicators and targets.
The mineral industry’s operator environmental
                                                                                  Fig. 20
performance is good with 59 per cent of sites achieving
band A and no sites getting Es. However, we would like
to see even better performance, as the results for 2005
are slightly worse than 2004 when 60 per cent of sites
were in the top band (Figure 20).
The sector’s CCS66 performance could be better as
this is such a small sector. It caused 29 non-compliance
events that had the potential to cause serious
environmental harm.
We are pleased that the minerals industry reduced
the number of pollution incidents by almost half since
2004. It caused six serious pollution incidents in 2005
(actual harm).
The mineral industry generates just three per cent of
all waste from the industries we regulate. The sector
recovers 76 per cent of its waste, much more than the
average for all sectors. The sector produces very little
hazardous waste. It uses waste materials from other
sectors, including waste tyres, as fuel to displace fossil
fuels. Not only does it use these materials for fuel but
the ash is also incorporated into the final product.

24   Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                     T H E SEC TO R S

Paper and pulp
Number of enterprises: 2,24 8
Our regulato ry activity: 63 PPC permits, 1 IPC permits, also abstraction licences and consents
to discharge to water
GVA: £3.3 billion
Energy use: 1.6 million tonnes of oil equivalent
Paper and pulp is a relatively small sector involved            The sector’s CCS67 performance, or potential for
in manufacturing paper and board products.                      environmental harm, is relatively good. It caused six
The sector has a major role in the recovery of                  serious breaches last year. There were six serious
used paper, packaging and newsprint and the                     pollution incidents last year (actual environmental
diversion of this waste from landfill. Its releases             harm), one more than in 2004.
to air and water are low. We’d like to see reductions           Overall, waste production has stayed about the same and
in water use.                                                   is eight per cent of all waste produced by the industry we
Environmental management and the industry’s ability to          regulate. The sector recovers almost three-quarters of the
comply with environmental requirements continue to              waste it produces (Figure 22), second highest of all the
improve. Last year, 46 per cent of sites were rated A for       sectors we regulate and a slight improvement on 2004.
operator environmental performance, up by five per cent
                                                                Two companies were fined large amounts in 2005.
on 2004 (Figure 21). Operator performance at St Regis
                                                                Hollingsworth and Vose Company Ltd was fined
Paper Co Ltd’s Cullompton site was the biggest improver
                                                                £10,000 for breaching its discharge consent (case study),
in the sector moving up to an A band in 2005 from a D           and James Cropper PLC was fined £5,000 for breaching
in 2004 (see case study). Three sites in the sector had Es      Pollution Prevention and Control regulations.
for poor performance last year including Leicester Paper
Mill (LPC Group PLC).

Fig. 21                                                         Fig. 22

                                                             Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   25

 Case studies
 Profiting from good environmental performance
 At St Regis Paper Company’s site in Cullompton, Devon we had been concerned it hadn’t been able to find
 the root cause of several pollution incidents. Last year the site implemented an accredited Environment
 Management System, a condition of its PPC permit. Our officer carried out an audit of its environmental
 accident prevention procedures and was very pleased to find its system was very specific to the site and
 involved a great deal of emphasis on staff training and awareness. We found that the site managers had
 put a significant amount of effort into trying to create a system that worked for everyone, from the
 Managing Director to the production staff, and most importantly the environment. As a result the site’s
 operator performance improved by four bands last year to an excellent band A.

 Less water, fewer costs
 Georgia Pacific GB Ltd has invested large amounts of money in reducing water requirements at its
 Sheffield site. The company has invested £250,000 to improve its fibre recovery, causing less fibre to end
 up at the on-site effluent treatment plant and allowing more water to be recycled back into the paper-
 making process. This has reduced the quantity of effluent released into the adjacent River Don. Water
 consumption has dropped from 45 cubic meters to around 29 cubic meters per tonne of finished product.
 Its water consumption target is 25 cubic metres per saleable tonne of paper by the end of 2007.
 We hope that the company extends this approach to all of its sites so these environmental and financial
 benefits can be seen across all of England and Wales.

 The cost of poor performance
 Hollings wo rth and Vose Company Ltd, a paper manufacturer at Winchcombe, Gloucestershire, caused over 30
 licensed abstracto rsover 2km of the River Isbourne to cease taking water after inadequate information on a
 fungicide treatment led to a massive pollution incident. The paper company miscalculated the safe level of
 toxicity of the fungicide, which was discha rged into the river with treated process water killing more than 300
 fish incl u d i ng62 brown tro u t. Licensed abstractors taki ng water from the Isbourne and Avon had to be notified
 and informed to stop abstractions. The pollution incident required a large number of staff to dea l with its
 impact and investigation. The company was given a £10,000 fine and ordered to pay costs of over £13,5 0 0.

26   Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                     T H E SEC TO R S

Number of enterprises: 2,906
Our regulato ry activity: 353 PPC permits, 42 IPC permits, 7030 waste management licences,
also abstraction licences and consents to discharge to water
GVA: £3.1 billion
Energy use: 0.9 million tonnes of oil equivalent
There was some good news from the waste sector                  Without this, sites can not achieve an operator environmental
last year: environmental management standards for               ability band A and may be rated E. As a result, sites holding
PPC-regulated sites were up and pollution incidents             WMLs have the lowest proportion of band A for operator
were down. Waste, and what society does with it,                performance (24 per cent) and the highest proportion of
is one of our biggest priorities, so this improvement           band E (40 per cent) of all sectors.
is extremely welcome. But it’s not all good: we                 Across both regimes, 26 per cent of sites achieve a band
prosecuted more legitimate businesses last year                 A (excellent) for operator performance and 38 per cent
and unlicensed businesses continued to damage                   rated in the lowest band E.
the environment.
                                                                The waste industry has the highest CCS non-compliance,
We regulate waste sites under PPC and waste
                                                                with 1057 sites breaching licences to such an extent that
management licensing (WML). Both are assessed under
                                                                there is a serious potential for harm.
the same operator environmental performance scheme.
The sites we regulate under PPC, which strongly                 Serious pollution incidents by the waste sector are the
encourages a formal, written environmental management           lowest on record and have decreased significantly and by
system, have the highest percentage of sites rated band A       about a quarter since 2004 (Figure 24). While we
(61 percent) for operator performance of any PPC-               welcome this, it needs to be sustainable. The sector still
regulated sector (Figure 23).                                   causes 27 per cent of all serious industrial incidents, and
                                                                the licensed waste industry caused 56 per cent of the
Many sites holding waste management licences (WMLs)
                                                                waste sector’s pollution incidents.
are SMEs engaged in less potentially environmentally
damaging waste activities than the waste sites we regulate      The regulated waste sector releases substantial pollutants
under PPC. For these reasons, WMLs do not require               to air and water. It reduced some of these last year. It is
formal, written environmental management systems.68             rising to the challenge of climate change and has reduced

Fig. 23                                                         Fig. 24

                                                             Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   27

its greenhouse gas releases by 10 per cent. Changes                                A further 39 individuals were prosecuted for illegal
in legislation mean the sector will invest up to £10                               waste activities, with resultant fines of almost £466,000
billion in new waste treatment technologies to divert                              (see case studies).
biodegradable waste from landfill sites to help reduce
emissions of methane (an important greenhouse gas)                                 Fig. 25
from landfill sites.
The waste industry itself produces fairly large quantities
of waste, mostly ash from incinerators. Last year this
increased for the first time since 2001, but 42 per cent of
this waste was recovered (Figure 25). The incineration
sector invested millions of pounds in 2005 to comply
with the Waste Incineration Directive.
In 2005 we prosecuted a total of 38 licensed waste
companies (case studies) and 21 senior waste business
staff, more than in 2004 and more than for any other
sector (Table 8). Total large fines for companies were
also the highest, coming to over three-quarters of a
million pounds. And fines against senior staff totalled
£47,750. One director received a two year combined
community service and probation order.

Table 8

Cumulative company fines of £5,000 and above for the waste sector

Company                                                Total fine                  Events leading         Reason for prosecution
                                                                £                  to prosecution
Sundorne Products (Llanidloes) Ltd c                     97,750                              7            Water pollution, Illegal waste activity
Easco (Midlands) Ltd    a
                                                         45,500                              5            Illegal waste activity
Wellings Ltd (trading as Pink Skips)                     39,000                              3            Illegal waste activity
Midlands Recycling Ltd                                   39,000                              4            Illegal waste activity
All Away Skip Hire Ltd                                   35,000                              1            Illegal waste activity
Shanks Chemical Services Ltd                             30,000                              2            Breach of licence (waste)
Warren Waste Management Ltd                              30,000                              1            Illegal waste activity
South East Recycling Ltd                                 30,000                              1            Illegal waste activity
Durston Waste Management Ltd *                           26,300                              4            Illegal waste activity
Reynolds Excavations Ltd *                               26,000                              5            Illegal waste activity
Will Jones Skip Hire Ltd                                 25,500                              6            Illegal waste activity
Allbins Skip Hire Ltd *                                  25,000                              7            Illegal waste activity
McFletch Waste Management Ltd                            25,000                              1            Illegal waste activity
Antiwaste Ltd (see case study in ‘Farming’)              21,000                              1            Illegal waste activity
European Metal Recycling Ltd                             20,000                              3            Illegal waste activity
Van Dalen UK Ltd                                         20,000                              1            Illegal waste activity
South Herts Waste Management Ltd                         20,000                              4            Breach of licence (waste)
Materials Recovery Ltd                                   20,000                          10               Illegal shipment of waste
Caerphilly Waste Disposal Ltd                            18,000                              2            Illegal waste activity
RMC Environmental Services Ltd                           15,000                              1            Illegal waste activity
B & K Metals Ltd *                                       12,000                              6            Illegal waste activity
Eurotech Waste Ltd                                       12,000                              1            Illegal waste activity
North Butte Metal Company Ltd *                          12,000                              6            Illegal waste activity
Chemcycle Environmental Management Ltd                   10,000                              1            Illegal waste activity
Laney's Skip Hire Ltd                                    10,000                              1            Illegal waste activity
Sita Southern Ltd   c
                                                         10,000                              1            Breach of permit
Neal Soil Suppliers Ltd                                    9,000                             6            Illegal waste activity, breach of licence (waste )
Interwaste Ltd                                             9,000                             1            Illegal waste activity
C & J Marine Services Ltd                                  8,500                             2            Illegal waste activity

28    Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                                           T H E SEC TO R S

Company                                                            Total fine      Events leading                 Reason for prosecution
                                                                            £      to prosecution
WRG Waste Services Ltd a, b, c                                        8,500               2                       Illegal waste activity, water pollution
Bradford Moor Iron & Steel Co. Ltd                                    8,500               2                       Breach of licence (waste)
Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd                                       8,000               1                       Illegal waste activity
Enfield Skips Ltd                                                     8,000               8                       Illegal waste activity (fly-tipping)
Overton Recycling Ltd                                                 7,500               1                       Illegal waste activity
CG Waste Services Ltd                                                 7,000               1                       Illegal waste activity
RTK Grab and Skip Hire Ltd *                                          6,000               2                       Illegal waste activity
Theaker Recycling Ltd                                                 5,000               3                       Illegal waste activity
                       a, b
E Harper (York) Ltd                                                   5,000               1                       Water pollution
                                          a       b      c
Repeat offender, year of previous prosecution: 2002; 2003; 2004.
* Director also prosecuted

  Case studies
   Two companies profiting from good performance
   Ron Hull Ltd, a waste management company in Rotherham took over and completely turned around
   a metal recycling business that had no environmental protection measures. The site, which had no
   surfacing or drainage systems, was soaked in oil and frequently contaminated rainwater run off. When
   it took over the site Ron Hull dug out and replaced the oil-soaked soil, surfaced the site with concrete,
   placed bunds across the site to prevent water run off and installed new drainage. These improvements
   successfully reduced the site's environmental impact.
   Woodhorn Farms Ltd’s Tangmere compost site near Chichester composts green waste from collections
   in West Sussex and supplies organic compost to the public and to garden centres in the area. Local
   residents had complained about foul smells coming from the site, which were preventing them from
   opening their windows and enjoying their gardens. The site started using an odour suppressant on waste
   as it came in, as the compost was shredded and in its lagoon water. This reduced smells coming from the
   site, but also reduced the amount of water needed to process the compost and how much the compost
   needed to be turned. This in turn reduced the use of machinery on the site, saving on fuel. We provided
   advice to the site and took part in meetings between the site owner and the local community.
   Licensed waste companies behaving badly
   Wellings Ltd, trading as Pink Skips in Telford is a busy skip hire business that advertises and supplies
   what it describes as screened soil as a product to consumers. In 2002 we became aware that this
   company was actually supplying contaminated waste material to landowners in the Telford area, who
   believed they were receiving topsoil for their land. Surveys of the waste revealed the presence of
   asbestos, glass, plastics, wood and household waste. The company was fined a total of £39,000 and
   ordered to pay costs of just under £31,000.
   We brought three cases against Sundorne Products (Llanidloes) Ltd in 2005, resulting in a £97,750
   fine. The company operated the Bryn Posteg recycling centre and landfill facility in mid-Wales. On two
   occasions the company allowed contaminated water to run off the site, polluting a neighbouring stream.
   It also failed to process its waste correctly and caused bad smells to bother people living nearby.
   The company has a history of bad environmental management and was also fined £25,000 in 2004.
   Totally illegal and unlicensed
   We began investigating a site near Reading following complaints of dust, odour and acrid smoke
   affecting residents and users of the nearby Kennet and Avon canal and the three lakes that border
   the site. Our fifteen-month investigation revealed that the site had over 6,000 cubic meters of waste,
   equivalent to the contents of around 350 skips covering an area the size of four football pitches. With
   no measures in place to prevent pollutants seeping into the soil, contamination of the nearby lakes and
   canal, which feed into the internationally important chalk stream the River Kennet, was a very real risk.
   Three members of one family (husband, wife and son) were fined £62,000 after being found guilty of
   seventeen illegal waste offences.

                                                                                Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   29

Number of enterprises: 1,147 (26 water companies)
Our regulato ry activity: Not regula ted under PPC, bu t sector holds over 34,000 discharge
consents and 2,000 abstraction licences
GVA: £6.6 billion
Energy use: 0.7 million tonnes of oil equivalent
Water companies provide a reliable supply of                                      Almost three-quarters (73 per cent) of these incidents
clean water and treat sewage. We expect excellent                                 were associated with the sewerage network. Thames
environmental performance from such an                                            Water caused the most incidents (Table 9, case study)
environmentally important and mature sector.                                      while United Utilities and Dwr Cymru both more than
But last year we were disappointed because the                                    doubled the number of serious incidents they caused.
sector had not maintained its impressive performance                              There is some good news though; nearly a third (32 per
of 2004. We are working closely with the water                                    cent) of pollution incidents are reported to us by the
industry to improve its environmental performance                                 water companies themselves, up from 28 per cent in
by establishing a water industry sector plan.                                     2004. Yorkshire Water, Southern Water, Northumbrian
                                                                                  Water and Anglian Water all reduced the number of
For the first time this year, we are reporting the
                                                                                  incidents they caused.
performance of the water industry as a whole; that is,
those companies that only supply water as well as those                           Fig. 26
that supply water and treat sewage.
We require all water companies to minimise both
pollution from their assets and wasted water, an
increasingly valuable resource. Last year water
companies began to work on the first of a new round of
schemes to improve the environment (‘AMP4’). Eight out
of the ten biggest water companies have finished all the
schemes planned for last year, with only South West
Water and United Utilities falling short. United Utilities
still has not completed part of its AMP3 programme.
Five have exceeded expectations, including Southern
Water, which finished five times more schemes than
were programmed. We are pleased to see that water
companies are completing some schemes early because
targets peak in future years.
We measure compliance with all permits and licences.
This may include non-compliances and exceedences of
discharge consents, and breaches of other conditions
such as abstraction volumes or management systems.
Last year, the water sector had a disappointing 205                               Water and sewerage companies inevitably discharge
CCS69 events that had the potential to cause serious                              a complex mix of chemicals into water, reflecting the
environmental harm, the second highest number of                                  variety of pollutants that other businesses and households
any industrial sector. ‘Look-up table’ compliance                                 pay to put down the sewer. As one remit of the water and
with discharge consents (the measure we have used in                              sewerage companies is to clean up this sewage, we are
previous Spotlights) was down slightly in 2005 to 98.9                            pleased to see that the release of most priority hazardous
percent (Table 9), compared to 99.3 per cent in 2004.70                           substances declined last year (Figure 27).
In 2005 the water sector was the most polluting sector,                           All water companies have a duty to promote water
causing over a quarter of all serious industrial pollution                        efficiency, an increasingly important role, as water
incidents. The water and sewerage companies caused                                becomes more scarce in some areas. But in 2004/05,
152 serious incidents, up 17 per cent on 2004 (Figure 26).                        3.6 billion litres of treated water were lost every day

30   Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                              T H E SEC TO R S

through leakage73 (Table 9). This is about 23.5 per cent                both public water supplies and the water-related
of the water that water companies take from the                         environment during this year’s drought.75
environment.74 We are particularly unhappy that Thames
                                                                        Nine of the 10 big water and sewerage companies were
Water heads the leakage table because this company
                                                                        fined large amounts last year (Table 10). Most of these
supplies London – an area in which we are concerned for
                                                                        were for water pollution. Thames Water again had the
Table 9.
Water company performance

Water company                                       Leakage71            Compliance                 Pollution incidents            Category 1 & 2
                                                                      with discharge                                                 incidents for
                                                                            contents                                                     adjusted
                                              (litres per property                 (%)              category 1   category 2           population72
                                                         per day)

Water and sewerage companies
Anglian Water Services Ltd                                  110                  98.0                       2          17                         3.3
Dwr Cymru Welsh Water                                       170                  98.8                       4          13                         5.5
Northumbrian Water Ltd                                      116                  99.4                       0           6                         2.3
Severn Trent Water Ltd                                      151                  99.9                       1          14                         1.7
South West Water Ltd                                        112                  98.8                       0           6                         3.9
Southern Water Services Ltd                                  89                  99.6                       4           9                         3.1
Thames Water Utilities Ltd                                  261                  96.7                       4          27                         2.4
United Utilities Water PLC                                  159                  99.4                       1          22                         3.3
Wessex Water Services Ltd                                   132                  99.6                       0           6                         2.3
Yorkshire Water Services Ltd                                137                  98.3                       2          14                         3.4

Water only companies
Bournemouth and West Hampshire Water                      116                     n/a                      0           0                          n/a
Bristol Water PLC                                         109                     n/a                      0           0                          n/a
Cambridge Water PLC                                       115                     n/a                      0           0                          n/a
Dee Valley Water PLC                                       90                     n/a                      0           0                          n/a
Folkestone & Dover Water Services                         114                     n/a                      0           0                          n/a
Mid Kent Water Ltd                                        116                     n/a                      0           0                          n/a
Portsmouth Water Ltd                                      102                     n/a                      0           0                          n/a
South East Water Ltd                                      116                     n/a                      0           0                          n/a
South Staffordshire Water                                 134                     n/a                      0           0                          n/a
Sutton and East Surrey Water PLC                           90                     n/a                      0           0                          n/a
Tendring Hundred Water Services Ltd                        71                     n/a                      0           0                          n/a
Three Valleys Water PLC                                   120                     n/a                      0           1                          n/a
Total                                  3.6 billion litres/day                    98.9                     18         135

Fig. 27

                                                                     Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005    31

highest cumulative fines in 2005, and these were the                                works in order to target our effort where it is most needed.
highest fines of all businesses, not just water companies.                          We are also working to reduce administrative burdens. Our
Thames Water, Southern Water, Anglian Water, South                                  proposals include operator self monitoring and extending
West Water and United Utilities were fined more than                                EP OPRA to include water companies.
£10,000 for the seventh year running. United Utilities was
                                                                                    We are developing a sector plan for the water industry
fined £12,000 for breaching abstraction licence conditions
                                                                                    that aims to improve the industry’s performance to
three times. Severn Trent was also prosecuted for a breach
                                                                                    further improve the environment. We will discuss this
of abstraction conditions but was fined just £1,250.
                                                                                    draft plan with the industry and other interested
In 2006 we will consult on introducing more risk-based                              organisations in the next few months.
approaches to regulating discharges from sewage treatment

Table 10
Cumulative company fines of £5,000 and above for the water sector

Offender                                                     Total fine             Events leading          Reason for prosecution
                                                                      £             to prosecution
Thames Water Utilities Ltd a, b, c, d, e                         128,000                  4                 Water pollution
                             a, c, d, e
Severn Trent Water Ltd                                            52,750                  7                 Water pollution, breach of consent (water)
Southern Water Services Ltd a, b, c, d, e                         53,000                  8                 Water pollution, breach of licence
United Utilities Water PLC a, b, c, d, e                          47,500                  8                 Water pollution, breach of licence
Anglian Water Services Ltd a, b, c, d, e                          21,500                  4                 Water pollution
Northumbrian Water Ltd b, d                                       20,500                  7                 Water pollution
South West Water Ltd       a, b, c, d, e
                                                                  17,800                  6                 Water pollution, breach of consent (water),
                                                                                                            illegal land drainage
Wessex Water Services Ltd a, b, c, d, e                            6,000                  4                 Water pollution
Yorkshire Water Services Ltd a, b, c, e                            6,000                  1                 Breach of consent (water)
TOTAL                                                            353,050                 49
                                            a   b     c      d      e
Repeat offender, year of previous prosecution: 2000; 2001; 2002 2003 2004.

  Case studies
   Caring for the environment and for people
   Rivercare is a community-based project run by Anglian Water, the Environment Agency and Environmental
   Campaigns (ENCAMS), which engages people with their local waterside areas. In 2005 there were 25
   Rivercare groups with more than 500 regular volunteers spread across the Anglian region. The groups
   clear litter from riverbanks and channels, monitor biodiversity and manage habitats. Rivercare engages
   with many different parts of the community including students, sports clubs, youth organisations and
   residents' groups. The project is continuing to expand, with more groups being created and an increased
   focus on enhancing local environmental quality as well as tackling anti-social behaviour.

   The polluter pays
   Tha m esWater was fined £50,000 and ord e red to pay £ 8 , 270 in costs for polluting the River Ray in Swindon
   with undiluted sewa ge in June 2003. The incident killed more than 8,000 fish. The sewage came from an
   ove rf l owing blocked tank and conditionswere made wo rse by the hot, dry wea t h e r. Tha m es Water’s
   resp o nse to this event was sl ow and inad e q u a teand the blockage wasn’t removed un t il several h o u rsla te r.
   A similar event resulted in another serious incident in an Oxfordshire brook in September 2003. The
   brook was polluted with raw sewage killing about 12,000 fish. The company was slow in responding
   to a blockage at Cholsey sewage treatment works near Wallingford, despite a series of alarms at its
   control centre. Again, the problem was made worse by the dry weather so the company’s failure to
   respond immediately to its own system warnings was even more disappointing. Last year Thames Water
   was fined £60,000 and ordered to pay £4,350 costs.

32     Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                                   T H E SEC TO R S

Other sectors
In this section we look at other sectors including                          342 serious non-compliance events last year. Businesses
the smaller sectors we regulate such as textiles and                        in these sectors were responsible for seven per cent of
businesses that we regulate indirectly, or not at all.                      all business-related serious pollution incidents (actual
                                                                            environmental harm). Only 12 per cent of these incidents
Last year we assessed the operator environmental
                                                                            were caused by companies we regulate.
performance at 66 sites we regulate in these sectors,
mainly textiles. Only 26 per cent of these sites were rated                 Fifty-eight companies were fined large amounts for
in the highest band A. Three companies improved last                        environmental offences in 2005. Nineteen of these
year including: Buckfast Spinning Co Ltd in Devon and                       companies were prosecuted for waste producer
Autofil Yarns Ltd in Nottingham which improved from a                       responsibility offences.
band D to a band A (see case study).
                                                                            We’re going to work more closely with the retail and
Nine per cent of these sites were rated band E including:                   wholesale sectors. We prosecuted 30 wholesale and retail
PW Greenhalgh and Co Ltd in Rochdale, Daleside Dyers                        companies in 2005, 16 were fined £5,000 or more and
Ltd’s sites in Nottingham, and Colours Dyer and                             most of these were for producer responsibility waste
Finishers Ltd, Farago Fabrics Ltd, Premier Dyers Ltd and                    offences. We are discussing a voluntary sector plan with
Spring Shades Ltd all in Leicester.                                         the retail and wholesale sectors to improve their
                                                                            environmental performance.
The CCS76 performance, or potential for environmental
harm, across ‘other’ sectors is disappointing. There were

Table 11
Cumulative company fines of £5,000 and above for ‘other’ sectors

Offender                             Sector                        Total fine      Events leading         Reason for prosecution
                                                                            £      to prosecution
Jewson Ltd                           Wholesale and retail            40,000               3               Illegal waste activity
Purbeck Plant Hire (Andover) Ltd     Equipment rental                35,900               1               Illegal waste activity
Kronospan Ltd a, c                   Manufacturing – wood            25,000               4               Water pollution, breach of consent (water)
The Codemasters Software             Other                           25,000               2               Breach of consent (water)
Company Ltd
T W Frizell (Haulage and             Transport                       20,000               4               Illegal waste activity
Plant Hire) Ltd
Plastic Ominum Automotive Ltd        Manufacturing – plastic         19,500               1               Water pollution
Lesta Packaging Ltd                  Wholesale                       18,000               6               Waste (producer responsibility)
Michael Pavis Ltd                    Wholesale                       18,000               7               Waste (producer responsibility)
Preferred Investments Ltd            Other                           17,000               2               Breach of consent (water)
Scania (Great Britain) Ltd           Wholesale and retail            15,000               1               Waste (producer responsibility)
Metrow Foods (Grays) Ltd             Wholesale                       15,000               1               Water pollution
L.E.L. (Properties) Ltd              Property                        15,000               1               Breach of consent (water)
Park Resorts Ltd                     Tourism and leisure             14,500               2               Breach of consent (water)
Ford Motor Company Ltd     b
                                     Manufacturing – cars and        14,000               1               Illegal waste activity
                                     car parts
MacDonald Resorts Ltd                Tourism and leisure             14,000               1               Breach of consent (water)
Generator Power Ltd                  Equipment rental                13,000               1               Water pollution
Watts Industrial Group PLC           Holding company                 12,000               8               Waste (producer responsibility)
Eurilait Ltd                         Wholesale                       12,000               6               Waste (producer responsibility)
Johnsons Apparelmaster Ltd           Other                           12,000               1               Water pollution

                                                                        Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   33

Offender                                           Sector                      Total fine   Events leading   Reason for prosecution
                                                                                        £   to prosecution
GKN Offhighway Systems Ltd                         Manufacturing – transport     11,000           1           Illegal waste activity

Realty Estates Ltd                                 Letting and property          10,800           1           Illegal waste activity
George Tancocks Garage (Exeter) Ltd Other                                        10,500           1           Illegal waste activity
Panini UK Ltd                                      Printing and publishing       10,500           2           Waste (producer responsibility)
Thermoseal Group Ltd                               Other manufacturing           10,000           3           Waste (producer responsibility)
Vectair Systems Ltd                                Other manufacturing           10,000           1           Water pollution
Colt Industrial Services Ltd                       Industrial services           10,000           1           Illegal waste activity
Trelleborg Fillite Ltd                             Other                         10,000           1           Water pollution
Salvesen Logistics Ltd                             Transport and storage         10,000           1           Water pollution
Alphacraft (Hire Services) Ltd                     Equipment rental               9,500           1           Water pollution
Premier Brands Ltd                                 Holding company                9,000           1           Water pollution
Clifford Packaging Ltd                             Wholesale                      9,000           1           Waste (producer responsibility)
Minor, Weir & Willis Ltd                           Wholesale                      8,100           2           Waste (producer responsibility)
Odyssey Knebworth Ltd                              Tourism and leisure            8,000           2           Breach of consent (water)
Greene King Neighbourhood                          Tourism and leisure            8,000           1           Breach of consent (water)
Estate Pubs Ltd
Lansdowne Distribution Ltd                         Transport                      8,000           1           Illegal waste activity
Wahl (UK) Ltd                                      Wholesale                      8,000           1           Waste (producer responsibility)
Punch Taverns (PML) Ltd c                          Tourism and leisure             7,500          1           Breach of consent (water)
The Potter Group Ltd                               Transport and storage           7,500          1           Water pollution
Ingram Foods Ltd                                   Wholesale                       7,200          8           Waste (producer responsibility)
Northdown Estates Ltd                              Other                          6,500           1           Breach of consent (water)
Spirit Group Retail Ltd       c
                                                   Tourism and leisure            6,000           1           Water pollution
Howard Hunt (City) Ltd                             Printing and publishing        6,000           1           Waste (producer responsibility)
Peak Promotions Ltd                                Tourism and leisure            6,000           3           Breach of consent (water)
Wykeham Estates (Northern) Ltd                     Other                          6,000           2           Illegal waste activity
Brady Corporation Ltd                              Other                          6,000           1           Waste (producer responsibility)
Bath Wholesale Fruiterers Ltd                      Wholesale                      6,000           6           Waste (producer responsibility)
C W Fields & Son Ltd                               Manufacturing – joinery        5,500           1           Illegal waste activity
Grant and Stone Ltd                                Wholesale                      5,250           3           Waste (producer responsibility)
Maritime Sales Ltd                                 Other                          5,000           1           Waste (producer responsibility)
Cummins Engine Company Ltd                         Manufacturing – engines        5,000           1           Water pollution
Quiltex Ltd                                        Textiles                       5,000           1           Water pollution
Thos Storey Fabrications Ltd                       Manufacturing – metal          5,000           1           Water pollution
Asda Stores Ltd                                    Retail                         5,000           1           Water pollution
Miyano Ltd                                         Other                          5,000           1           Breach of consent (water)
TCL Packaging Ltd                                  Wholesale                      5,000           2           Waste (producer responsibility)
Cine-UK Ltd                                        Tourism and leisure            5,000           2           Waste (producer responsibility)
Henry Aizlewood & Sons Ltd                         Wholesale                      5,000           1           Water pollution
Design Objectives Ltd                              Wholesale                      5,000           6           Waste (producer responsibility)
Total                                                                           640,750
Repeat offender, year of previous prosecution: a 2002 b 2003 c 2004.

34      Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                   T H E SEC TO R S

Case studies
Working together for the environment
In 2004 Autofil Yarns Ltd in Nottingham had a band D operator performance score, but from November
that year the site began to improve with our help. The managers at the site have given a lot of support to
environmental protection on site, and they have completed the improvement programme we agreed with
them. Last year the company was awarded ISO 14001 for its environmental management system. This is
an internationally recognised, externally accredited, standard. These improvements resulted in an
operator performance score of band A in 2005.

No eggstra packaging needed
Last year J S a i nsbu ry PLC re d u ced its own-label Easter egg packa g i ng by 40 per cent compared to 2004.
The pa ckaging was d esigned to be either easil y re c yclable or re usa ble in the form of r i b b o ns, gift boxes or
toys. Easter egg sa les we re the best e ve r, proving that la rger boxes we re not needed to increase sa les .

The cost of non-compliance
Lesta Packaging PLC was fined £18,000 when we fo und that they we re not co m pl yi ng with the Packa g i ng
Waste Reg ulations. The fa il u re of co m pa n i esto comply with this leg islation underminesthe UK’s ability to
meet re c ycl i ng ta rgets. The co m pa ny co-opera ted with our investigation and is keen to ensu re that they
meet their obligations in the fu tu re. It has implemented a monito r i ng pro g ramme to collect data and set
up pro ce d u res to ca l cula te the amoun t of pa cka g i ng handled from now on.

The polluter pays
A warehouse re - o rga n isation blunder caused a Hampshire st ream to turn a vi b rant shade of blue, kill i ng
several hundred fish. Vectair Systems’ empl oyees p o u re 125 litres of blue drain cleaner fluid down the
su rface wa ter drain believi ng this was a safe method of d isp osal. The toxic chemical polluted st re tches of
Lo ng Copse Ditch and Petty’s Brook in Basingsto ke. The company was fined £10,000 with £1,126 costs.
This was in addition to payi ng £2,138 towa rds our clean-up costs.
An oil lea k from Al p hacra ft (Hire S e rvices) Ltd’s oil sto re caused an oil slick in the marina at the River Yare at
Brundall, pa rt of the Norfolk B roads, the largest protected we t land in Grea t Britain. Unfo rtunately, although
initially successful, the inflatable boom that the compa ny used to try and contain the oil slick did not wo r k
because it had been tied to the bank in such a way that when the tide went out, the boom was above the water
le ve l and the oil pollution passed beneath. This incident had the potential to be extremely harmful to wild l i fe
and wa ter quality in this internationally re co g n ised we t land. The company had failed to take our advice
following a pollution prevention visit and follow-up letter and visits. Following this pollution incident it was fined
£9,500 and ordered to pay £1,878 costs for water pollution and for breaching oil storage regulations.

                                                           Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   35
Company structures and the regulatory interface
Many companies are multinational and operate                                      considerable amount of time and money aiming to
subsidiary companies in different sectors. This creates                           maintain environmental standards throughout its
challenges both for them, for regulators and for investors                        subsidiary companies.
in assessing overall environmental performance.
                                                                                  By working with the structures and processes already
However, it is also an opportunity to build high
                                                                                  established within companies we can work with them to
environmental standards throughout their subsidiary
                                                                                  drive positive environmental action down through the
companies across the various regulatory regimes.
                                                                                  company hierarchy.
For example, Veolia UK Ltd (below) spends a

Veolia UK Ltd company structure. The areas we regulate are labelled in orange

36   Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                                A P P E N D I CES

Company tables
Large stock market listed companies in Spotlight

Company name                          Spotlight industry      Reason included       Publicly quoted                    Main stock
                                      sector                  in Spotlight          parent company                     exchange stock
Air Products PLC                      Chemicals               Good (Improver)       Air Products &                     New York - Dow Jones
                                                                                    Chemicals Inc
Alberto Culver Company (UK) Ltd       Chemicals               Prosecuted            Alberto-Culver Company             New York - Dow Jones
Rhodia Organique Fine Ltd             Chemicals               Prosecuted            Rhodia                             Paris - Euronext
Balfour Beatty Utilities Ltd          Construction            Prosecuted            Balfour Beatty PLC                 London - FTSE250
Barratt Homes Ltd                     Construction            Prosecuted            Barrat Developments PLC            London - FTSE250
Edmund Nuttall Ltd                    Construction            Prosecuted            Koninklijke Bam Groep              Amsterdam - Euronext
Galliford Try Construction Ltd        Construction            Prosecuted            Galliford Try PLC                  London - FTSE
George Wimpey North Yorkshire Ltd     Construction            Prosecuted            George Wimpey PLC                  London - FTSE250
George Wimpey South Yorkshire Ltd     Construction            Prosecuted            George Wimpey PLC                  London - FTSE250
Gleeson Construction Services Ltd     Construction            Prosecuted            Gleeson Group PLC                  London - FTSE
ABNA Ltd                              Food and drink          Prosecuted            Associated British Foods PLC       London - FTSE100
Allied Bakeries Ltd                   Food and drink          Prosecuted            Associated British Foods PLC       London - FTSE100
Carlsberg UK Ltd                      Food and drink          Prosecuted            Carlsberg                          Denmark - CSE
                                                              (Case study)
Coca-Cola Enterprises Ltd             Food and drink          Good (Case study)     Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.         New York - Dow Jones
Coors Brewers Ltd                     Food and drink          Prosecuted            Molson Coors Brewing               New York - Dow Jones
                                                              (Case study)          Company
Cott Beverages Ltd                    Food and drink          Poor                  Cott Corporation                   New York - Dow Jones
Moy Park Ltd                          Food and drink          Prosecuted            OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc.      New York - Dow Jones
Princes Ltd                           Food and drink          Poor                  Mitsubishi Corporation             Japan - Nikkei
Robert Wiseman and Sons Ltd           Food and drink          Prosecuted            Robert Wiseman Dairies PLC         London - FTSE
Solway Foods Ltd                      Food and drink          Prosecuted            Northern Foods PLC                 London - FTSE250
AWE PLC                               Fuel and power          Good                  Serco Group PLC                    London - FTSE250
E. ON UK PLC                          Fuel and power          Good (Case study)     E. ON AG                           Germany - XETRA
RWE nPower PLC                        Fuel and power          Good (Case study)     RWE AG                             Germany - XETRA
Total Lindsey Oil Refinery Ltd        Fuel and power          Prosecuted            Total S.A.                         Paris - Euronext
Transco Ltd                           Fuel and power          Prosecuted            National Grid PLC                  London - FTSE100
Alcoa Manufacturing (GB) Ltd          Metals                  Good (Case study)     Alcoa Inc                          New York - Dow Jones
Johnson Matthey PLC                   Metals                  Poor                  Johnson Matthey PLC                London - FTSE100
Imerys Minerals Ltd                   Minerals                Prosecuted            Imerys                             Paris - Euronext
Brady Corporation Ltd                 Other                   Prosecuted            Brady Corporation                  New York - Dow Jones
Johnsons Apparelmaster Ltd            Other                   Prosecuted            Johnson Service Group PLC          London - FTSE
Trelleborg Fillite Ltd                Other                   Prosecuted            Trelleborg                         Sweden - Stockholmsbörsen
Cummins Engine Company Ltd            Other - manufacturing   Prosecuted            Cummings Inc                       New York - Dow Jones
Ford Motor Company Ltd                Other - manufacturing   Prosecuted            Ford Motor Company                 New York - Dow Jones
GKN Offhighway Systems Ltd            Other - manufacturing   Prosecuted            GKN PLC                            London - FTSE250
Plastic Omnium Automotive Ltd         Other - manufacturing   Prosecuted            Plastic Omnium                     Paris - Euronext
Asda Stores Ltd                       Other - retail          Prosecuted            Wall Mart Stores Inc               New York - Dow Jones
J Sainsburys PLC                      Other - retail          Good (Case study)     J Sainsburys PLC                   London - FTSE100
Greene King Neighbourhood             Other - tourism         Prosecuted            Greene King PLC                    London - FTSE250
Estate Pubs Ltd                        and leisure
Punch Taverns (PML) Ltd               Other - tourism         Prosecuted            Punch Taverns PLC                  London - FTSE250
                                      and leisure
Spirit Group Retail Ltd               Other - tourism         Prosecuted            Punch Taverns PLC                  London - FTSE250
                                      and leisure
Salvesen Logistics Ltd                Other - transport       Prosecuted            Christian Salvesen PLC             London - FTSE
Jewson Ltd                            Other – wholesale       Prosecuted            Compagnie De Saint                 Paris - Euronext
                                      and retail                                    Gobain SA
Scania (Great Britain) Ltd            Other – wholesale       Prosecuted            Volkswagen AG                      Germany - XETRA
                                      and retail
James Cropper PLC                     Paper and pulp          Prosecuted            James Cropper PLC                  London - FTSE
St Regis Paper Company Ltd            Paper and pulp          Good (Improver        DS Smith PLC                       London - FTSE
                                                              and case study)
RMC Environmental Services Ltd        Waste                   Prosecuted            Cemex SA DE CV                     Mexican Stock Exchange
Shanks Chemical Services Ltd          Waste                   Prosecuted            Shanks Group PLC                   London- FTSE250
SITA Southern Ltd                     Waste                   Prosecuted            Suez S.A.                          Paris - Euronext
Anglian Water Services Ltd            Water                   Mixed (Case study)    AWG PLC                            London - FTSE250
Bristol Water PLC                     Water                   Mixed                 Bristol Water Group PLC            London - FTSE
Northumbrian Water Ltd                Water                   Mixed                 Northumbrian Water Group           London - FTSE250
Severn Trent Water Ltd                Water                   Mixed                 Severn Trent PLC                   London - FTSE100

                                                                      Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   37

Company name                            Spotlight industry        Reason included       Publicly quoted             Main stock
                                        sector                    in Spotlight          parent company              exchange stock
South East Water Ltd                    Water                     Mixed                 Macquarie Bank              Australian Stock Exchange
South West Water Ltd                    Water                     Mixed                 Pennon Group PLC            London - FTSE250
Sutton and East Surrey Water PLC        Water                     Mixed                 Deutsche Bank AG            Germany - XETRA
Thames Water Utilities Ltd              Water                     Mixed (Case study)    RWE AG                      Germany - XETRA
Three Valleys Water PLC                 Water                     Mixed                 Veolia Environnement        Paris - Euronext
United Utilities Water PLC              Water                     Mixed                 United Utilites PLC         London - FTSE100
Wessex Water Services Ltd               Water                     Mixed                 YTL Corporation BHD         Ku a la Lumpur S tock Excha nge
Yorkshire Water Services Ltd            Water                     Mixed                 Kelda Group PLC             London - FTSE100

Large private companies named in Spotlight

Company name                                        Spotlight industry                  Reason included           Parent company
                                                    sector                              in Spotlight
J S Bloor (Sudbury) Ltd                             Construction                        Prosecuted                -
Lindum Waste Recovery                               Construction                        Good (Case study)         Lindum Group Ltd
(part of Lindum Construction Group)
Miller Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd                        Construction                        Prosecuted                The Miller Group Ltd
Rialto Homes Ltd                                    Construction                        Prosecuted                Fairview Holdings Ltd
2 Sisters Food Group Ltd                            Food and drink                      Poor                      -
Apetito Ltd                                         Food and drink                      Prosecuted                Apetito AG
MPP Holdings Ltd                                    Food and drink                      Poor                      OSI Group LLC
Meadow Foods Ltd                                    Food and drink                      Prosecuted                Meadow Foods Holdings Ltd
Decorpart Ltd                                       Metals                              Poor                      PD Group Ltd
The Codemasters Software Company Ltd                Other                               Prosecuted                Benchmark Europe II LP
Premier Brands Ltd                                  Other - holding company             Prosecuted                JP Morgan Chase Bank NA
Kronospan Ltd                                       Other - manufacturing               Prosecuted                A.G. Fuer Holzindustrie Triesen FL
Howard Hunt (City) Ltd                              Other – printing and publishing     Prosecuted                -
Cine-UK Ltd                                         Other - tourism and leisure         Prosecuted                Blackstone Capital Partners
MacDonald Resorts Ltd                               Other - tourism and leisure         Prosecuted                MacDonald Hotels Ltd
Michael Pavis Ltd                                   Other - wholesale                   Prosecuted                R B C Trustees Guernsey Ltd
Georgia Pacific GB Ltd                              Paper and pulp                      Good (Case study)         Koch Industries
LPC Group PLC                                       Paper and pulp                      Poor                      -
European Metal Recycling Ltd                        Waste                               Prosecuted                -
WRG Waste Services Ltd                              Waste                               Prosecuted                Monterey Capital
Bournemouth and West Hampshire Water                Water                               Mixed                     NV Nuon
Dwr Cymru Welsh Water                               Water                               Mixed                     Glas Cymru
Mid Kent Water Ltd                                  Water                               Mixed                     MKW Holdco 1 Ltd
Portsmouth Water Ltd                                Water                               Mixed                     South Downs Capital Ltd
South Staffordshire Water PLC                       Water                               Mixed                     Aquainvest Investments Ltd
Southern Water Services Ltd                         Water                               Mixed                     Southern Water Capital Ltd

SMEs named in Spotlight

Company name                            Spotlight industry          Reason included          Parent company /             Main stock exchange
                                        sector                      in Spotlight             publicly quoted              listing (if listed)
                                                                                             parent company
Almetron Ltd                            Chemicals                   Good (Case study)        -
AP Chemicals Ltd                        Chemicals                   Good (Improver)          Chemial S.P.A
Darcy Industries Ltd                    Chemicals                   Prosecuted               -
Global Commodities (UK) Ltd             Chemicals                   Prosecuted               -
McIntyre (UK) Ltd                       Chemicals                   Prosecuted               -
Potter and Moore Innovations Ltd        Chemicals                   Prosecuted               -
Robinson Brothers Ltd                   Chemicals                   Prosecuted               Robinson Brothers
                                                                    (Case study)             (Ryders Green) Ltd
Baram Ltd                               Construction                Prosecuted               -
Capital Demolition Ltd                  Construction                Prosecuted               -
                                                                    (Case study)
Corbuild Ltd                            Construction                Prosecuted               -
Enderby Construction Ltd                Construction                Prosecuted               -
Leominster Demolition Ltd               Construction                Prosecuted               -
Porthmadog Services Ltd                 Construction                Prosecuted               -

38   Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                               A P P E N D I CES

Company name                          Spotlight industry      Reason included            Parent company                    Main stock exchange
                                      sector                  in Spotlight                                                 listing (if listed)
Raynsway Estates Ltd                  Construction            Prosecuted                 -
Westshield Ltd                        Construction            Prosecuted                 -
William Hargreaves Ltd                Construction            Prosecuted                 McInerney Holdings PLC            Ireland - ISE
Wyman Ltd                             Construction            Prosecuted                 -
Attwells Ltd                          Farming                 Prosecuted                 -
Higgins Agriculture Ltd               Farming                 Prosecuted                 -
Kingsplay Farming Company Ltd         Farming                 Prosecuted                 -
Paul Rackham Ltd                      Farming                 Prosecuted                 Rackham Group Ltd
                                                              (Case study)
Pendock Estates Ltd                   Farming                 Prosecuted                 -
Spalding Potatoes Ltd                 Farming                 Prosecuted                 -
Doug Clark Produce Ltd                Food and drink          Prosecuted                 -
Frank Bird (Poultry) Ltd              Food and drink          Prosecuted                 -
Garden Isle Frozen Foods Ltd          Food and drink          Prosecuted                 Meijer Spuds N. V.
J G Pears (Newark) Ltd                Food and drink          Prosecuted                 -
NuPetra Ltd                           Food and drink          Poor                       Mitsui & Co Ltd                   Japan Nikkei
Westbury Dairies Ltd                  Food and drink          Good (Improver             -
                                                              and case study)
Monckton Coke and Chemical            Fuel and power          Prosecuted                 Hargreaves Services PLC           London - AIM
Company Ltd                                                   (Case study)
Anochrome Ltd                         Metals                  Good (Improver)            Anochrome Group Ltd
BG Plating Ltd                        Metals                  Good (Improver)            Anochrome Group Ltd
Bob's Plating Ltd                     Metals                  Good (Improver)            -
Braintree Electro Platers Ltd         Metals                  Prosecuted                 -
Istil (UK) PLC                        Metals                  Prosecuted                 International Steel and Tube
                                                                                         Industries Ltd
Weardale Castings and                 Metals                  Poor                       -
Engineering Ltd
Brett Lafarge Ltd                     Minerals                Prosecuted                 Brett Aggregates Ltd
George Tancocks Garage (Exeter) Ltd   Other                   Prosecuted                 -
Maritime Sales Ltd                    Other                   Prosecuted                 -
Miyano Ltd                            Other                   Prosecuted                 -
Northdown Estates Ltd                 Other                   Prosecuted                 -
Wykeham Estates (Northern) Ltd        Other                   Prosecuted                 -
Alphacraft (Hire Services) Ltd        Other - equipment       Prosecuted                 -
                                      rental                  (Case study)
Generator Power Ltd                   Other – equipment       Prosecuted                 -
Purbeck Plant Hire (Andover) Ltd      Other – equipment       Prosecuted                 -
Watts Industrial Group PLC            Other - holding         Prosecuted                 Watts of Lydney Group Ltd
Colt Industrial Services Ltd          Other – industrial      Prosecuted                 Colt Holdings Ltd
Realty Estates Ltd                    Other – letting and     Prosecuted                 -
C W Fields and Son Ltd                Other - manufacturing   Prosecuted                 -
Thermoseal Group Ltd                  Other - manufacturing   Prosecuted                 -
Thos Storey Fabrications Ltd          Other - manufacturing   Prosecuted                 -
Vectair Systems Ltd                   Other - manufacturing   Prosecuted                 -
                                                              (Case study)
Panini UK Ltd                         Other – printing and    Prosecuted                 Panini
L.E.L. (Properties) Ltd               Other – property        Prosecuted                 -
Autofil Yarns Ltd                     Other – textiles        Good (Improver and         Sinterama
                                                              case study)
Buckfast Spinning Company Ltd         Other – textiles        Good (Improver)            -
Colours Dyers and Finishers Ltd       Other – textiles        Poor                       -
Daleside Dyers Ltd                    Other – textiles        Poor                       Basic Thinking Ltd
                                                                                         Bow Bridge Dyeworks Ltd
P W Greenhalgh and Company Ltd        Other – textiles        Poor                       -
Spring Shades Ltd                     Other – textiles        Poor                       -
Quiltex Ltd                           Other – textiles        Prosecuted                 -
Odyssey Knebworth Ltd                 Other – tourism and     Prosecuted                 Odyssey Group Holdings Ltd

                                                                     Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005   39

Company name                            Spotlight industry           Reason included    Parent company /            Main stock exchange
                                        sector                       in Spotlight       publicly quoted             listing (if listed)
                                                                                        parent company
Park Resorts Ltd                        Other – tourism and
                                        leisure                     Prosecuted          -
Peak Promotions Ltd                     Other – tourism and         Prosecuted          -
Lansdowne Distribution Ltd              Other – transport           Prosecuted          -
T W Frizell (Haulage and                Other – transport           Prosecuted          -
Plant Hire) Ltd
The Potter Group Ltd                    Other – transport           Prosecuted          -
Bath Wholesale Fruiterers Ltd           Other – wholesale           Prosecuted          -
Clifford Packaging Ltd                  Other – wholesale           Prosecuted          -
Design Objective Ltd                    Other – wholesale           Prosecuted          -
Eurilait Ltd                            Other – wholesale           Prosecuted          Coopagri Bretagne
Grant And Stone Ltd                     Other – wholesale           Prosecuted          -
Henry Aizlewood and Sons Ltd            Other – wholesale           Prosecuted          Grafton Group PLC           Ireland - ISE
Ingram Foods Ltd                        Other – wholesale           Prosecuted          -
Lesta Packaging PLC                     Other – wholesale           Prosecuted          -
                                                                    (Case study)
Metrow Foods (Grays) Ltd                Other – wholesale           Prosecuted          -
Minor, Weir and Willis Ltd              Other – wholesale           Prosecuted          -
TCL Packaging Ltd                       Other – wholesale           Prosecuted          -
Wahl (UK) Ltd                           Other – wholesale           Prosecuted          Wahl Clipper Corporation
Hollingsworth and Vose Company Ltd      Paper and pulp              Prosecuted          Hollingsworth and Vose
                                                                                        Company UK Ltd
Cambridge Water PLC                     Water                       Mixed               CKI Holdings Ltd            Hong Kong – Hang Seng
Dee Valley Water PLC                    Water                       Mixed               Dee Valley Water PLC        London - FTSE
Folkstone and Dover Water Services      Water                       Mixed               Veolia Environnement        Paris - Euronext
Tendring Hundred Water Services Ltd     Water                       Mixed               Veolia Environnement        Paris - Euronext
All Away Skip Hire Ltd                  Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Allbins Skip Hire Ltd                   Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Antiwaste Ltd                           Waste                       Prosecuted          Monterey Capital
                                                                    (Case study)
Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd         Waste                       Prosecuted          -
B and K Metals Ltd                      Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Bradford Moor Iron and                  Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Steel Company Ltd
C and J Marine Services Ltd             Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Caerphilly Waste Disposal Ltd           Waste                       Prosecuted          -
CG Waste Services Ltd                   Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Chemcycle Environmental                 Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Management Ltd
E Harper (York) Ltd                     Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Easco (Midlands) Ltd                    Waste                       Prosecuted          SPC Holdings Ltd
Enfield Skips Ltd                       Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Interwaste Ltd                          Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Materials Recovery Ltd                  Waste                       Prosecuted
McFletch Waste Management Ltd           Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Midlands Recycling Ltd                  Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Neal Soil Suppliers Ltd                 Waste                       Prosecuted          -
North Butte Metal Company Ltd           Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Overton Recycling Ltd                   Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Reynolds Excavations Ltd                Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Ron Hull Ltd                            Waste                       Good (Case study)   -
RTK Grab and Skip Hire Ltd              Waste                       Prosecuted          -
Sundorne Products (Llanidloes) Ltd      Waste                       Prosecuted          -
                                                                    (Case study)
Theaker Recycling Ltd                   Waste                       Prosecuted          -

Van Dalen UK Ltd                        Waste                       Prosecuted          Stichting Administratiek-
                                                                                        antoor Aandelen Van Dalen
Wellings Ltd                            Waste                       Prosecuted          -
                                                                    (Case study)
Woodhorn Farms Ltd                      Waste                       Good (Case study)   -

40   Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                                                             A P P E N D I CES

Companies named in Spotlight that are no longer trading

Company name                                                    Spotlight industry                       Reason included                        Status
                                                                sector                                   in Spotlight
G and K Roofing Contractors Ltd                                 Construction                             Prosecuted                             Dissolved
Woodmet Anodising Ltd                                           Metals                                   Poor                                   In receivership
Preferred Investments Ltd                                       Other                                    Prosecuted                             Dissolved
Farago Fabrics Ltd                                              Other – textiles                         Poor                                   Live but non-trading
Premier Dyers Ltd                                               Other – textiles                         Poor                                   In liquidation
Durston Waste Management Ltd                                    Waste                                    Prosecuted                             In receivership
Eurotech Waste Ltd                                              Waste                                    Prosecuted                             In liquidation
Laney's Skip Hire Ltd                                           Waste                                    Prosecuted                             Currently showing as dormant
South East Recycling Ltd                                        Waste                                    Prosecuted                             In liquidation
South Herts Waste Management Ltd                                Waste                                    Prosecuted                             In receivership
Warren Waste Management Ltd                                     Waste                                    Prosecuted                             Dissolved
Will Jones Skip Hire Ltd                                        Waste                                    Prosecuted                             In liquidation
Source: (c) MINT database, Bureau van Dijk Electronic Publishing Ltd 2006 and Environment Agency.

AQS (Air Quality Strategy) A government                          EU ETS (European Union Emissions Trading                    history (i.e. number of polluting incidents, number of
strategy that sets targets for levels in the air of eight        Scheme) aims to reduce emissions of CO2 in the EU           legal prosecutions and so on). It does NOT include the
pollutants that can adversely affect human health.               in a cost-effective way to meet the emissions reduction     Operator's compliance with the permit requirements,
                                                                 target set by the Kyoto Protocol. The scheme is             which is reported separately here. Sectors with
Business Used here to include companies,
                                                                 designed to work on a 'Cap and Trade' basis, which          operator performance data are chemicals, food and
partnerships, individuals engaged in business activities,
                                                                 provides market incentives for CO2 reductions. The          drink, fuel and power, metals, minerals, paper and
and sites we regulate. It does not include other legal
                                                                 overall 'Cap' for each country is divided into an annual    pulp, waste and some other sectors (e.g. textiles).
entities such as local authorities and public institutions
unless we regulate them (e.g. local authorities holding          allocation for every participating site, one allowance =    Pollution incidents In Spotlight we report on
waste management licences)                                       one tonne of CO2. Operators of installations who emit       ‘serious’ pollution incidents, those that cause serious
                                                                 more than their free allocation will have to judge          environmental harm and are described as category 1
Carbon dioxide (CO2) A greenhouse gas produced                   whether it will be cheaper to invest in reducing            or category 2. ‘Major’ incidents are the worst, category
by various natural and man-made sources, such as                 emissions than to buy allowances. Operators may sell        1 incidents.
burning coal, oil and gas.                                       any surplus allowances if they emit less carbon dioxide
CCS (Compliance Classification Scheme)                           than the allocation given to them. There is more            PPC (Pollution Prevention and Control) This
                                                                 information on our website: www.environment-                regime is replacing the IPC regime. It looks at whole
records the number of times any condition of any
                                                                                            sites as installations rather than a series of processes.
permit is breached. So, if for example one unusual
                                                                                                                             PPC takes a wider range of issues into account, such as
discharge contained more copper, nickel and lead than            Events leading to prosecution A single occurrence           energy use and site conditions, and more activities will
we allow, this would be three exceedences. In Spotlight          of pollution (or an ‘incident’) or a single breach of the   require permits under PPC, e.g. intensive pig and
we have simplified this by looking at exceedence                 conditions of a licence/ authorisation/permit/consent to    poultry units and the food and drink industry.
events, so the above example would count as just one             carry out the activity we regulate.
(if all exceedences were either a category 1 or 2) or two                                                                    Regulated We use the term here to refer to sites we
events (if exceedences for some pollutants were rated            Greenhouse gases (GHG) Here we use the basket               regulate under IPC, PPC, WML or (for the water
category 1 and others category 2).                               of six GHGs – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,       industry only) those that hold consents to discharge
                                                                 HFCs, PFCs and sulphur hexafluoride. All GHG data           to water.
Discharges to water This year we are reporting on                in this report are presented in terms of global warming
the release to water of chemicals that have been                 potential (GWP).                                            Releases to air Only those AQS substances, dioxins
identified as definite priority hazardous substances                                                                         and greenhouse gases to which a sector contributes
by the EU as part of the Water Framework Directive               GVA (gross value added) An accepted measure of              more than five per cent to the total from industry
(WFD). These substances ultimately need to be                    economic activity.                                          we regulate are included as a matter of course here.
eliminated or reduced to natural background levels in            GWP (global warming potential) The relative                 SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises).
order to protect the environment and human health.               contribution of a unit mass of a gas to the greenhouse      We have used the same definition as DTI:
EMS (Environmental Management System) All                        effect, as measured by the cumulative radiative force
                                                                 of a unit mass relative to carbon dioxide, over a           • small firm: 0 - 49 employees (includes micro)
businesses must comply with environmental
regulation. Consistent management of environmental               specified time.                                             • medium firm: 50 - 249 employees
impacts requires businesses to take a structured                 IPC (Integrated Pollution Control) We use                   Sulphur dioxide (SO2) A gas released mainly from
approach. An EMS provides a way for businesses to                this regime to control pollution from industrial            the consumption of sulphur-containing fossil fuels that
do this. The Government believes that a robust and               processes. It integrates the control of emissions to        is toxic and contributes to acid rain.
effective EMS should be externally audited and                   air, land and water to seek the best option. IPC is         VOCs (volatile organic compounds) A large
accredited. There is more information on our website:            being replaced by PPC.                                      range of carbon compounds that vaporise readily at                          NVZ (Nitrate Vulnerable Zone) An area of land               normal temperatures and pressures. They are
Enterprise is defined here as the smallest combination           that drains into nitrate polluted waters as identified      precursors of ozone and some are toxic. We refined the
of legal units, which have a certain degree of autonomy          under the Nitrates Directive. Farmers in these areas        way we asked for VOC data in 2002 to non-methane
within an enterprise group. An enterprise group is simply        have to follow a programme of measures to reduce            VOCs (NM VOCs).
a number of enterprises under common ownership.                  the amount of nitrate lost from their land to the           Water Framework Directive (WFD) A piece
EP OPRA (Environment Protection Operator                         polluted waters.                                            of European Legislation designed to standardise and
and Pollution Risk Appraisal) our approach to                    NOx (nitrogen oxides) Oxidised forms of                     improve management of waterbodies across Europe.
risk assessment of sites across our regulatory regimes.          nitrogen, including nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen          The aim of the WFD is to achieve its objectives within
Here we report only on operator environmental                    dioxide (NO2), which are produced by combustion in          20 years from when the daughter directive is agreed.
performance component of the total EP OPRA                       air, for example from power stations and motor vehicles.    WML (Waste Management Licence) Our
score. See ‘our sources of data and how they fit                 Operator Performance is a combined measure of               regulatory regime that covers landfill sites, treatment
together.’ There is more information on our website:             an Operator's ability to comply with permit conditions      stations and transfer facilities.                          (i.e. status of maintenance procedures, emergency
                                                                 planning and so on) AND the Operator's enforcement

                                                                                             Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005             41

Sources of information
In Spotlight this year we are reporting on five main        those non-compliance events that have a potential           Of course, any release to air or water can be higher
datasets. They are available on our website:                to cause serious environmental harm.77                      than we allow and ultimately lead to environmental                     While CCS looks at the potential for harm at sites we       damage. These will be reflected in CCS and ultimately
Our Environment Protection Operator and                     regulate, pollution incidents describe actual               registered as a pollution incident.
Pollution Risk Appraisal (EP OPRA) looks at                 environmental harm caused by all industry. They are         We report prosecutions that led to cumulative fines
the hazards associated with a business activity and         similarly rated as category 1 to 4 and again we report      of £5,000 or more here. We might prosecute if, for
how the operator manages the site (operator                 the most serious – category 1 and 2 – here.                 example, a site has caused a serious pollution incident
performance). The site’s total EP OPRA score                A category 1 or 2 CCS breach can therefore cause a          and/or seriously breached its licence or permit
determines how closely we regulate it and this is           category 1 or 2 pollution incident. If a site causes a      conditions. It is therefore possible that a single event
reflected by the charges we set. We only report on          pollution incident, its EP OPRA score will be affected.     will register in the pollution inventory, CCS, pollution
operator performance here.                                  Our pollution inventory reports on each site’s              incidents and prosecutions. If we have prosecuted a
Our regulatory system expanded the components of            releases to air and water, and its production and           site, it will affect its operator performance score. As
operator performance in 2005 to cover both the ability      management of waste. The pollution inventory                prosecutions take time to reach court, cases may not be
to comply – the measure we have traditionally               describes over 170 chemical substances and 65               heard in the same year as the events that led to them.
reported as operator performance in Spotlight - and,        radioactive substances. We have prioritised the list here   The number of enterprises, GVA and energy use data
new for 2005, the actual compliance.                        by choosing                                                 for each industry sector are 2004 UK data.
We have separated these parts out here so you can see       •   Releases to air: air quality strategy pollutants,
trends. ‘Operator [environmental] performance’                  greenhouse gases and dioxins
refers to the ability to comply and is the same measure
as reported in previous years. We rate this from A          •   Releases to water: those substances that have
(good) to E (poor). We report actual compliance                 already been identified as priority hazardous
separately here because this describes the potential for        substances under the Water Framework
environmental damage: this is our compliance                    Directive. The Directive requires that these
classification scheme (CCS). CCS events are rated from          releases be phased out. This will happen at the
category 1 to 4. Here, we report on category 1 and 2 –          earliest by 2026.

1 Figures taken from latest data supplied by the            20 Our position on corporate environmental                  32 See glossary: operator performance.
Ethical Investment Research Services (EIRis),               governance and our consultation responses to the DTI        33 Sectors regulated under PPC started transferring to
1994 – 2004.                                                are available on our website www.environment-               EP OPRA in 2003. Sites regulated under WML were
2 See:                                                                    EP OPRA-rated for the first time in 2005.
cid=1077610044424&pagename=CoopBank%2FPag                   21 Defra, 2006. Environment protection expenditure          34 CCS records the number of times any condition of
e%2FtplPageStandard&c=Page                                  by industry: 2004 UK survey. Note that farming, the         any permit is breached. So if for example one unusual
                                                            waste industry, and sewage treatment are not included
3 The contribution of good environmental regulation                                                                     discharge contained more copper, nickel and lead than
                                                            in the total.                                               we allow, this is three exceedences. In Spotlight we
to competitiveness. Paper by the network of heads of
European Environment Protection Agencies,                   22 An Evaluation of the Air Quality Strategy, Report        have simplified this by looking at exceedence events,
November 2005.                                              to Defra by AEA Technology. December 2004 Report            so the above example would count as just one (if all
                                                            ED50252.                                                    exceedences were either a category 1 or 2) or two
4 Cambridge Econometrics and AEA Technology
                                                            23 The European Commission estimates that it can cut        events (if exceedences for some pollutants were rated
2003. The Benefits of Greener Business.
                                                            the health costs of air pollution by between ¤42 and        category 1 and others category 2).
5 Envirowise, UK’s ‘Desert State’ (Aug 2005),
                                                            ¤135 billion a year by 2020 at an annual cost of ¤7.1       35 Remas newsletter final issue 2006.
                                                            billion by 2020. See:                   36 Data for ISO14001 and EMAS from
6 PPC (Pollution Prevention and Control) regime looks       environment/air/cafe/pdf/strat_com_en.pdf         
at whole sites as installations. It takes a wide range of
                                                            24 The 2005 results for carbon dioxide releases in          37 Acorn is designed to appeal to businesses of any
issues into account such as energy use and site
                                                            the scheme show that the EU over allocated about            size including small and medium sized enterprises
                                                            65 million tonnes of carbon dioxide allowances. This        (SMEs). It is specifically targeted at organisations that
7 Office for National Statistics 2006. Environmental        over allocation caused a 60 per cent fall in the price of   want to use environmental performance indicator
Accounts: energy use by economic sector, source and         carbon. While further analysis is required, these results   reporting as part of their procurement process.
fuel, 1990-2004.            suggest that European countries could have set lower        Data for Acorn, pers comm IEMA and from
Product.asp?vlnk=3698                                       targets for the first phase of the scheme. We believe
8 Office for National Statistics 2006. Annual Business      that the EC must scrutinise the allowances
                                                            that countries propose for Phase II to prevent this         38 SME-environment 2005 Surveys for England and
                                                            happening again and ensure the scheme’s aim of              for Wales. Note these are separate surveys both
9 See endnote 7.                                                                                                        available from:
                                                            reducing emissions of carbon dioxide is met. The next
10 Environment Agency and [GVA] data. Efficiency            phase of the scheme will coincide with the Kyoto            39 See:
refers to directly abstracted water only and is             Protocol deadline in 2012.                                  40 Tel. 0845 603 3113
calculated as number of megalitres per day per million
                                                            25 This assumes price of carbon dioxide was ¤15 per         41 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Seventh
pound GVA. Data is for 2003.
                                                            tonne. Exchange rate of £1 = ¤1.6.                          Report. The Environment Agency, May 2006 from
11 Environment Agency data.
                                                            26 Not all these substances were released and/or  
12 Assumes all waste is active and disposed of              reported by industry we regulate in 2005. Here, we          ct/cmenvfru/780/78002.htm
in landfill. In 2005, landfill tax was £18/tonne.           report on only: cadmium, hexachlorobenzene (HCB),           42 See:
13 Excludes the waste sector but includes incineration.     hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), hexachlorocyclohexane
                                                            (HCH), mercury, nonylphenols, polycyclic aromatic           43 Available from: www.environment
14 Wales data includes bilge water.                         hydrocarbons (PAH) and tributyltin compounds (TBT).
15 Refers to companies within the forestry and paper                                                                    site_right_1262949.pdf
                                                            27 ‘Serious’ pollution incidents are all category
products sector. Other sectors we looked at include oil     one and two incidents. ‘Major’ pollution incidents          44 Hampton Review
and gas (11.8%) and EU electric utilities (39%). From:                                                        
                                                            are category one incidents. See also glossary:
Corporate environmental governance - a study into the       pollution incident                                          bud_bud05_hampton.cfm (not Wales).
influence of environmental governance and financial
                                                            28 See endnote 27.                                          45 Here:
performance, Environment Agency 2004.
16 See endnote 2.                                           29 See:
                                                                                                                        46 See:
17 ‘How ethical shopping is making business go green’       30 Only certain categories of waste can legally be          444217/444661/1311810/
(Independent, 29/05/06, p2)                                 exported from the UK.
                                                                                                                        47 To get involved visit: www.environment-
18 See endnote 1.                                           31 Note that a single prosecuted event can involve
                                                            both waste activities and pollution – a waste activity      1311810/ For more information see:
19 Environmental Disclosures - In the Annual Report         can cause pollution. See glossary for definition of
& Accounts of companies in the FTSE All-Share,                                                                
                                                            ‘pollution incident’.
Environment Agency 2004.                                                                                                48 See endnote 34.

42    Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005
                                                                                                                                                  A P P E N D I CES

49 Environment Agency SWaT data for 2004, not            61 The remaining coal fired power stations will           69 See endnote 34.
comparable to other sectors.                             eventually have to close under the Large Combustion       70 A look-up table non-compliance may or may not be
50 Environment Agency data.                              Plants Directive.                                         a CCS non-compliance, depending on the severity.
51 Total number of farms we regulate.                    62 See endnote 34.                                        71 Ofwat 2005 Security of supply, leakage and the
52 Note, not all farms inspected are located in NVZs.    63 NISP is about identifying and using synergies and      efficient use of water: 2004-05 report. Office of Water
                                                         linkages between co-operating industries to improve       Services, 71pp.
53 Farm cross-compliance visits made by us and other     resource efficiency and to minimise waste.
agencies.                                                                                                          72 Number of pollution incidents per million
                                                                                          population receiving sewerage services. Population
54 Includes NVZ non-compliance.                          64 Coal used by a steel maker as a raw material to        data taken from: Ofwat 2006: June Return, Table 13,
55 Wales: Tir Cynnal, data from Welsh Assembly           produce coal coke.                                        Non-financial measures, sewerage properties and
Government for 25 May 2005. England: Entry Level         65 2004 data. British Cement Association 2005             population, total connected population.
Stewardship data from Defra for 28 May 2006.             Performance: a corporate responsibility report from the   73 See endnote 71.
56 See endnote 34.                                       UK cement industry.                                       74 See endnote 71: data from table 9, leakage of
57 Environment Agency (in prep) Underground, under       66 See endnote 34.                                        3608Ml/d compared with water supply of 15,378 Ml/d.
threat: the state of groundwater in England and Wales.   67 See endnote 34.                                        75 Most other water companies are operating at their
58 See endnote 34.                                       68 This does not affect our expectations of actual        economic level of leakage, agreed with Ofwat, the
59 See endnote 34.                                       environmental performance. We expect all businesses       industry’s economic regulator.

60 DTI website, 2006 Digest of energy statistics,        from the largest multi-national company to the            76 See endnote 34.
Table 5.2 Supply and consumption of electricity,         individual operator to work in a way that does not        77 See endnote 34.                   damage the environment.

   How we can help you:
   The business pa ges of our website give comprehensive ad vi ce and guidance to the busi n ess es we reg ula te.
   It gives sector specific technical guidance and information on how and why we reg ula te your busi n ess.
   Netregs helps small and medium sized businesses in the UK understand the environmental regulations
   that can affect them. The site provides guidance on how to comply with environmental law as well as
   advice on good environmental practice.
   Business environmental news. This free monthly newsletter rounds up the most important environmental
   stories and developments for all areas of business. Subscribe by sending an email to

   What you can do:
   Prevent pollution - Is your site right? Use our 10-point checklist to help you make sure your business
   has the essential environmental management practices in place.
   Businesses in England –
   Businesses in Wales –
   Be more resource efficient – waste costs money, whether it’s water, energy or materials
   Envirowise –
   Arena (in Wales) –
   Turn your waste into cash – help for industries to create commercial opportunities from better waste
   and resource management practices
   National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP) -
   Reduce your carbon emissions
   The Carbon Trust –
   Use less water
   Check that your waste contractors are registered – unregistered carriers are criminals who make money
   by charging people to remove their waste illegally - they expect that no questions will be asked and that
   their registration will not be checked - and then dump the rubbish.

                                                                                   Environment Agency Spotlight on business environmental performance in 2005          43
Would you like to find out more about us,
or about your environment?

Then call us on
08708 506 506 (Mon-Fri 8-6)
or visit our website

incident hotline 0800 80 70 60 (24hrs)
floodline 0845 988 1188

      Environment first: This report is printed on paper made from 100
      per cent previously used waste. By-products from making the pulp
and paper manufacture are used for composting and fertiliser, for cement
making and for heat conversion.


VIP Doc VIP Doc Vip Doc http://
About Thanks to everywho rates or reviews. I Want to Make a Better Life For Myself. I believe that anything is possible with God. Some of Those documents come from internet for research purpose,if you have the copyrights of one of them ,tell me by mail and i will delete it on the first time. It is nice sharing docs with you. I just want more peo learn more knowledge. Thank you ! ~♥