Water and Effluent Treatment Magazine
Issue link: https://fhpublishing.uberflip.com/i/721218
The pollution prosecution pinch • Fines for pollution incidents are increasing, and the EPA is seeking zero serious events by 2020. As a result, more resilience needs to be built into systems, says Siltbuster's Rich Matthews. W hile large parts of the water industry have been focused on getting the current AMP6 spending cycle off the ground and understanding the implications of total expenditure (totex) decisions, many in the industry have remained largely oblivious to a subtle change to the way fines for pollution incidents are imposed. However, it is a change that has the potential for the biggest shake-up in the industry's outlook and approach towards Environmental Permitting. Although the Environmental Protection legislation has not changed, and the maximum fine remains £3M for a major pollution incident, the way the size of these fines is established has fundamentally changed. Under the old system, fines were imposed on a somewhat ad-hoc basis without considering the ability to pay. This has been replaced with a new framework that takes into account not only the magnitude of the incident, but also the size of the company and its culpability. Sentencing rationale As a result, companies are now facing the possibility of fines several orders of magnitude greater than those previously experienced, along with a ratcheting up of fines for repeat offences. So what has changed? In 2014, the Sentencing Council set out a clear sentencing rationale whereby culpability, harm and the size of the responsible organisation will be used to determine the magnitude of the fine imposed on companies polluting the environment. In essence, the courts now have a clear framework within which to set fines. Potential fines vary from a minimum of between £100 and £700 for a near-miss incident caused by a micro company, through to between £450,000 and £3M for deliberately causing a major pollution incident. As virtually all the utility companies have a turnover in excess of £50M, they are classified as large companies – automatically exposing them to the highest penalty band irrespective of the cause of the pollution event. Unfortunately, the risk of receiving a he–y fine does not stop there, as the magnitude of the fine imposed is also determined by the degree of culpability and it is this additional factor that must eventually lead to a fundamental change in attitude. For example, a decision not to upgrade a works could well be deemed by the courts to be an act of deliberate negligence, for which the maximum penalties apply. Negligence Likewise, the repetition of similar events albeit of differing severity or location could, depending on the background News+ SEPTEMBER 2016 WET NEWS 7 circumstances, also be considered to be a deliberate act of negligence. The latest Environmental Performance Assessment (EPA) report reveals that there has been a step change in the visibility of incident reporting and it is recognised that there is a need to develop best practice. Since the Sentencing Council guidelines were introduced, several companies have received fines of more than £1M, and fines of this magnitude are increasingly becoming the norm rather than the exception. Furthermore, the published EPA is seeking a goal of zero serious incidents by 2020. So what can the industry do about it? To date the industry has been largely focused on meeting the objectives agreed with Ofwat, with managing the cost of pollution fines being of somewhat secondary importance. However, given the size of the fines now being imposed, the industry is starting to recognise that equal priority has to be given to both. To do this, the industry needs a change of approach and to focus on building more resilience into its systems, be that pipelines, pumping stations or at wastewater treatment works (WwTW). Most large WwTW have sufficient built-in redundancy to provide the necessary resilience and it is therefore the smaller, o–en rural works which are lacking. Given the magnitude of the fines, it is arguable that having a single stream, conventionally- built plant at these locations does not offer sufficient resilience. Totex savings Therefore, a change in design philosophy is required to, for example, install a dual stream treatment system using modular components fabricated offsite, rather than a single stream, conventional site-specific bespoke design. This approach will also facilitate risk management for seasonal or peak load scenarios for small to medium works. By using a standardised, offsite fabricated, modular approach, construction costs can be reduced and spares costs minimised – thereby delivering the totex savings that have preoccupied most of the industry for the past couple of years. But more importantly, such an approach offers the increased level of resilience required to minimise the magnitude of the fines set following any pollution incident. Potentially this is a win-win situation. The only real question is will the industry recognise and act upon this need for change in time to at least partially implement it during this AMP cycle? Rich Matthews is general manager at Siltbuster Process Solutions Companies can be fined between £450,000 and £3M for deliberately causing a major pollution incident