Utility Week

UTILITY Week 26th February 2016

Utility Week - authoritative, impartial and essential reading for senior people within utilities, regulators and government

Issue link: https://fhpublishing.uberflip.com/i/644289

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 14 of 31

UTILITY WEEK | 26Th FEbrUarY - 3rd march 2016 | 15 Policy & Regulation Analysis T hames Water was hit with the indus- try's first seven-figure fine last month, for polluting a canal in Hertfordshire with sewage. Explaining why the fine was so large, Judge Bright said: "The time has now come for the courts to make clear that very large organisations such as [Thames Water] really must bring about the reforms and improve- ments for which they say they are striving, because if they do not the sentences passed upon them for environmental offences will be sufficiently severe to have a significant impact on their finances." Increasingly the way fines are set are determined by the ability of the company to pay and, with water and sewerage com- panies all considered large firms, they are more likely to be hit with bigger penalties. South West Water, Severn Trent and South- ern Water, for example, have all received six- figure fines in the past six months alone. Aer the most recent court case, Thames Water said it took its responsibility to the environment "extremely seriously" and "very much regrets the incident". It had reviewed procedures to "reduce the chance of anything like this happening again". But is this enough? Only last year the Court of Appeal ruled against Thames and upheld a £250,000 fine for polluting a nature reserve. The Environment Agency's deputy direc- tor of legal services Anne Brosnan (chief Seven-figure fines for polluters This year the water sector has been confronted with the largest ever penalty after a prosecution by the Environment Agency. Lois Vallely asks if this is a glimpse of things to come. prosecutor in the case) said Appeal Court's decision to uphold the prosecution demon- strated that businesses "need to prevent pol- lution or their profits could take a hit". She said Thames had "not acted swily enough". Environmental groups have long been calling for tougher penalties for those who pollute, and in 2014 the Sentencing Court obliged, introducing stricter guidelines and setting out a step-by-step process on how the level of a fine is worked out. The Financial Times reported that High Court Judge John Mitting said this could result in fines of millions of pounds. • "Sentencing guidelines start to bite" – read Simon Colvin's legal blog at: utilityweek. co.uk/blog Thames Water, £1m In January 2016, Thames Water was fined a record £1 million by St Albans Crown Court for polluting the Grand Union Canal in Hertfordshire with sewage. The Environment Agency (EA) brought the prosecution aer sew- age from the Tring treatment plant leaked into the canal's Wendover Arm between July 2012 and April 2013. The court heard that poorly performing inlet screens blocked equipment at the works, and sewage debris and sewage sludge was discharged into the canal. Yorkshire Water, £600k Also in January, Yorkshire Water was hit with a £600,000 fine aer an ageing sewage pipe burst, polluting a fishing lake in Wakefield. The com- pany was sentenced at Leeds Crown Court aer pleading guilty to causing a water discharge that was not authorised by an environmental permit. In October 2013, a rising main sewage pipe from Shay Lane pumping station burst, and raw sewage flowed into a fishing lake in Walton Park, which flows into the Barnsley Canal. Southern Water, £187k In September last year, Southern Water was labelled "negligent" and ordered to pay £187,000 in fines and costs aer a major pollution inci- dent at its East Worthing treatment works. The failure of three pumps at the wastewater treatment works resulted in 40 million litres of untreated sewage being discharged into the sea for two days in September 2012, resulting in the closure of beaches in East Sussex for six days. Judge Christopher Parker handed down the fine to the water company at Chichester Crown Court aer a previous court hearing in August at which Southern Water pleaded guilty. Severn Trent Water, £480k In September last year, Severn Trent Water was slapped with what was then the third largest pollution fine for a UK water company, aer an incident at Kingsforth Brook near Rotherham in February 2014. The incident stemmed from a rupture in a Severn Trent raw sewage pipeline in Wickersley, which spilled raw sewage into a farmer's field, a pond in a private fishery and Kingsforth Brook. Severn Trent had previously been issued with two formal warnings from the EA for similar incidents at the same location. South West Water, £214k South West Water (SWW) was fined £214,000 by Plymouth Crown Court in November last year for breaching environmental controls at the Camels Head sewage treatment works in Plymouth and failing to stop sew- age pouring into the River Tamar. At the time, this was the highest fine handed out to SWW for a case brought by the agency. Between March and September 2013, SWW failed to operate and maintain the works in accordance with good operational practice and to treat effluent to mini- mise the risk of pollution. SWW, £300k Just weeks later, SWW was ordered by Plymouth Crown Court to pay a £300,000 fine and costs of £14,421 aer polluting a Devon watercourse. The EA said it found pollution in the stream in September 2013 and again in December 2013, which affected a 400-metre stretch of water and the river life. The court heard that equipment failure and poor management on the part of SWW led to poorly treated sewage entering the Craddock stream near its Ashill Sewage Treatment Works. Getting bigger? Some of the water company fines over the past year

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Utility Week - UTILITY Week 26th February 2016