The 1990s saw the introduction of a sizeable raft of environmental legislation affecting manufacturers in the UK. During the early part of the decade, most requirements focused on controlling the outputs from the back end of the production process – through emission limits and documentation.
However, over time there was a realisation that the waste from the back end of the process was dictated by the raw materials fed into the front end, coupled with the nature of the process itself. Consequently, in the latter part of the 1990s there was a switch to more proactive legislation and economic instruments designed to encourage the avoidance of waste.
Few sites have successfully come to terms with all relevant legislation and this article considers the most common breaches and the appropriate corrective actions. Problems can be divided into those associated with waste, water and air emissions.
Waste management
Most sites should at least have heard of the duty of care regarding waste – introduced under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA). This regime seeks to ensure that all waste handlers take a responsible attitude throughout the life cycle of a waste – thus preventing fly-tipping and unsuitable disposal.
In reality, four duties are placed on waste producers and handlers:
It can be seen that the duties of a waste producer extend beyond its site boundaries – and liabilities can be incurred if a third party mistreats waste at a later date. In order to comply with the duty, consideration must be given to the following:
Relevant documents must be retained for each waste stream, eg general waste, timber, scrap metal, cardboard, solvents, oils and medical waste. Companies often fail to fulfil their duty of care because of a lack of awareness of the requirements and the absence of a responsible manager.
Waste carriers may need chasing to ensure that all documents are kept up to date. Therefore, one individual should be in charge of all waste issues such as engaging new contractors, checking documentation and retaining records.
In addition to the duty of care, some waste will also be subject to the Special Waste Regulations 1996, eg oils, solvents and interceptor sludges. Due to its difficult nature, special waste should be segregated, stored securely and sent off-site only after the pre-notification of the relevant regulator. Consignment notes must be generated for each batch sent away – with these notes retained for a minimum of three years. It should also be noted that the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions is currently consulting on the potential to revise this regime.
One of the more common problems with special waste is its inclusion in general waste skips, eg an ’empty’ wood coating tin containing a litre of solvent based liquid. Any such container which is classified as special waste will make the skip into which it is placed similarly classified. If the skip is sent as general waste, the site will be contravening the Duty of Care and the Special Waste Regulations. In addition, the company will have put its waste carrier and waste disposal site out of compliance. The typical result will be a fine of several thousand pounds.
The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 have been causing problems over the past four years – especially for the timber industry. The regulations apply to companies that handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging per year and have an annual turnover of more than £2m. Companies exceeding these thresholds incur an obligation to recover or recycle a certain proportion of their packaging waste.
The most common problem involves companies that do not register because they think that they are below the thresholds. While turnover is easy to assess, packaging ‘handled’ is more complicated. In basic terms it will include any packaging imported upon goods where your company is the first UK owner, together with any packaging material which a company uses on its goods-out.
Though the regime is undoubtedly complicated, excuses of ignorance and confusion are not valid in the eyes of the law – and dozens of prosecutions have taken place. Companies are typically prosecuted for failing to register and failing to provide evidence of compliance – for each year in which registration has been missing.
Water management
The most common environmental prosecutions involve the pollution of ‘controlled waters’ – basically any streams, ditches, rivers, territorial seas and groundwater. The Water Resources Act 1991 makes it an offence to discharge anything other than rainwater into controlled waters without a written consent. Frequent areas of contravention are the discharge to surface water drains of air compressor condensate, vehicle washdown water, veneer press washdown and other liquid effluents.
Much more damaging are incidents resulting in the spillage of liquids, eg overflow from a diesel storage tank during filling. Consultation has been undertaken regarding the proposed Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) Regulations which would apply to anyone storing more than 200 litres of oil. Key requirements will include the provision of a containment wall for tanks and drip trays for drums.
It remains to be seen whether the Contaminated Land Regulations 2000 become a problem area for the timber and furniture industry. The regime is currently being implemented and will require regulators to identify land which is likely to be contaminated. Landowners and/or the causers of the pollution will be required to pay for the clean-up, a process which will normally involve significant cost.
When it comes to air emissions, Part I of the EPA makes it an offence to operate a prescribed process without an authorisation – however, these are missing on some sites. Relevant processes include:
Missing authorisations frequently occur where company production levels have increased, the product mix has changed or new processes have been introduced. Each missing authorisation can potentially incur a fine of £20,000 and/or three months’ imprisonment.
Problems also occur where sites are not complying with the conditions specified in their authorisation. Such companies are vulnerable to regulatory action, especially if there is a change of regulator – with a more officious individual taking control.
The most commonly contravened piece of air legislation is Part III of the EPA – which deals with statutory nuisance. This can be defined as anything that interferes with a neighbour’s enjoyment of their own land. For timber and furniture sites, the main problems are noise, dust and odour. Complaints are particularly common in summer (when doors and windows are open) and during unusual operating periods, eg a periodic night shift.
The above sections have highlighted some of the more common environmental problems affecting the sector. However, it should be remembered that the situation is far from static. For example, the existing requirements of the process guidance notes are being updated.
