07/10/2005 - The Environment
Agency is reminding businesses that they could
face fines if they are found to be illegally
polluting controlled waters.
This follows the successful prosecution of
AE Yates Trenchless Solutions Limited, of
Cranfield Road, Lostock Industrial Estate,
Lostock, Bolton, which was fined £2,1000
at Wirral Magistrates Court on Friday September
30 and also ordered to pay £2,496.88
costs to the Agency.
The company pleaded guilty to allowing silty
water to enter a ditch, which connects with
Clatter Brook near Raby Mere, Wirral. The
point of discharge was upstream of Foxes Wood
Nature Reserve, a designated Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI) on account of its
flora and fauna. The brook is a tributary
of Dibbensdale Brook, which flows through
Spital Road Country Park, also designated
as SSSI.
In sentencing the fine was reduced from £4,000
for giving a prompt guilty plea for the offence.
The Court was told that on 22 September 2004
an Environment Officer investigated two reports
from the public that Clatter Brook was flowing
red/orange/brown. The officer inspected the
brook where it flows under Poulton Hall Road
Bridge and saw that the brook was bright orange.
He began to trace the brook upstream and confirmed
it was a cloudy orange colour for its whole
length.
Further investigation of AE Yates Trenchless
Solutions discovered that they were digging
a tunnel under the M53 motorway as part of
improvement works on behalf of United Utilities.
The problem occurred because a soakaway area
surrounding the works had overflowed. This
meant groundwater, which had entered into
the excavations and become contaminated with
silt entered a ditch and contaminated the
brook through an outfall pipe, rather than
being drained off.
The company took action to block off the
route to the brook and suspended work until
measures were in place to deal with the silty
water arising from its excavation.
The silty water affected two miles of the
watercourse. Water samples confirmed that
the discharge from the site contained high
levels of suspended solids, which can blanket
out light and oxygen to bed-living plants
and aquatic life. Sedimentation can also affect
the make-up of the stream bed and reduce habitats.
The company asked for a second similar offence
to be taken into consideration. The court
heard that on 6 October the Agency’s officer
returned to site to carry out dye testing
as part of the ongoing investigation of the
first incident. Whilst on site the officer
observed another outfall pipe discharging
cloudy orange water, similar in colour to
that observed on 22 September 2004.
Further investigation established that following
the first incident the company had been collecting
the silty water in a series of settlement
lagoons and then carrying it by tanker to
the other side of the motorway for disposal
on a larger area of land. However, one tanker
load was deposited in an area not previously
used for spreading and entered a recently
installed land drain connecting to the brook.
Environment Officer Simon Oldfield said:
"The company started the activities on
site in the knowledge that it would have to
deal with groundwater infiltration into its
excavations. The site is bounded by two local
watercourse, Clatter brook and Thornton Brook.
It was the company’s responsibility to investigate
the proximity of local watercourses and whether
there was a possibility that its works could
affect them.
"The company could have asked the Agency
for advice. If they had consulted with the
Agency prior to starting the works, the proximity
of the watercourses would have been highlighted
and the Agency would have recommended the
company carry out a thorough investigation
of the site drainage and the suitability of
the ground to cope with the large volumes
of pumped silty water. The company could then
have made adequate arrangements in advance
for the disposal of the silty water arising
on site and the pollution incidents could
have been avoided."
Following the incidents the company carried
out its own investigation. It concluded that
the pumping of water to land required constant
monitoring to make sure the land did not become
saturated allowing water to run off into areas
that could cause pollution. It also recognised
that careful examination of the proposed soakaway
area was necessary to make sure there was
no direct access to any land drainage.
