19-May-2006 - A local company
realised the cost of ignoring environmental legislation
on Thursday when it was fined £4,000 by
South Durham Magistrate’s Court.
Weardale Castings and Engineering
Limited, of Stanners Close Works, Durham Road,
Wolsingham, County Durham, pleaded guilty to six
charges, all relating to failing to comply with
conditions in the company’s operating permit.
The company was fined £1,000
on each of four offences and ordered to pay costs
of £3,396.50 to the Environment Agency,
which brought the case. The company was conditionally
discharged for 12 months for the remaining two
offences.
Jill Fogg, prosecuting for the
government’s environmental regulator, told the
court that Weardale Castings had a pollution prevention
and control (PPC) permit issued by the Environment
Agency. These permits are designed so that no
harm is caused to the environment or human health,
and to ensure that the best available techniques
are used by the companies which have them.
Weardale Castings and Engineering
needed a PPC permit because it operated a large
furnace. The permit contained a number of improvement
conditions which were designed to ensure that
the company was meeting the most up to date environmental
standards.
Despite numerous discussions
with Environment Agency officers, the company
failed to meet timescales set for it. This included
failing to supply monitoring data for the company’s
emissions to air and failing to provide reports
for the improvement of procedures at the site.
In mitigation, the company apologised
for its failure to meet the conditions, and said
that it had been sourcing new equipment, which
it perceived to be more important at the time.
Speaking after the case, Environment
Agency officer Stuart Page said: “We try to work
with companies to help them with their responsibilities,
but there comes a point where a complete lack
of co-operation will lead to us taking the harshest
form of action. That is where we find ourselves
today.
“We hope this case marks a line
in the sand and that we can see an improvement
in the way this site is run.
“When people take on a business
they must factor in the regulation it is subject
to and work this into their plans. It is no excuse
to enter into an industry and then complain about
the rules and regulations that need adhering to.
“Environmental legislation exists
to protect our health and the health of our environment
and we will not tolerate people who think they
can ignore it.”
Ends
Notes to Editors
1. In the district of Durham
on 1 May 2005, at Durham Road, Wolsingham did
fail to comply with Condition 1.4.1 of Permit
RP3633BD, as varied by Variation Notices YP3835SM,
GP3234SD, AP3932SP in that the improvement programme
requirement reference 9.2 was not completed by
1 May 2005
Contrary to Regulation 32(1)(b) and 32(2) of the
Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations 2000.
2. In the district of Durham
on 1 June 2005, at Durham Road, Wolsingham did
fail to comply with Condition 1.4.1 of Permit
RP3633BD, as varied by Variation Notices YP3835SM,
GP3234SD, AP3932SP in that the improvement programme
requirement reference 9.5 was not completed by
1 June 2005
Contrary to Regulation 32(1)(b) and 32(2) of the
Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations 2000.
3. In the district of Durham
on 1 July 2005, at Durham Road, Wolsingham did
fail to comply with Condition 1.4.1 of Permit
RP3633BD, as varied by Variation Notices YP3835SM,
GP3234SD, AP3932SP in that the improvement programme
requirement reference 9.7 was not completed by
1 July 2005
Contrary to Regulation 32(1)(b) and 32(2) of the
Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations 2000.
4. In the district of Durham
on 31 March 2005, at Durham Road, Wolsingham did
fail to comply with Condition 2.10.1 of Permit
RP3633BD, as varied by Variation Notices YP3835SM,
GP3234SD,AP3932SP in that, monitoring for emissions
to air from the permitted installation was not
carried out in the twelve month period 1 April
2004 and 31 March 2005.
Contrary to Regulation 32(1)(b) and 32(2) of the
Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations 2000
Conditionally discharged for
12 months:
5. In the district of Durham
on or before 18 July 2005, at Durham Road, Wolsingham
did fail to comply with Condition 2.2.2.8 of Permit
RP3633BD, as varied by Variation Notices YP3835SM,
GP3234SD, AP3932SPin that, the measured pH in
emissions to sewer from release point S1 was outside
the specified limiting range.
Contrary to Regulation 32(1)(b) and 32(2) of the
Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations 2000
6. In the district of Durham
on or before 18 July 2005, at Durham Road, Wolsingham
did fail to comply with Condition 5.1.1.1 of Permit
RP3633BD, as varied by Variation Notices YP3835SM,
GP3234SD, AP3932SP in that, operator failed to
notify the Agency without delay of the detection
of an emission of pH outside the limits specified
in the permit
Contrary to Regulation 32(1)(b) and 32(2) of the
Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations 2000
