TL: THE FILTHY 50 TOP GOVERNMENT LICENCES TO POLLUTE SO: GREENPEACE UK, TOXICS CAMPAIGN (GP) DT: September 16, 1992 Keywords: toxics multinationals effluent enforcement failures legal problems uk europe greenpeace reports gp / CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY 1.1 The "No Legal Pollution" Tour 1.2 Licence to Kill 1.3 Licenced Pollution is Only Half the Story 1.4 Breaking the Law 1.5 Environmental Consequences 1.6 The Need for Company Waste Audits 1.7 Future Policies will mean less control 1.8 Clean Technologies 1.9 Greenpeace Demands 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 International Political Context 2.2 The Government's Policy to Pollute 2.3 Environmental Consequences 2.4 The Filthy 50 Ranking System 2.5 "Deemed" Consents 2.6 Back Door Dumping 2.7 Conclusion 3. TABLES 4. DATA SHEETS ON INDUSTRIAL PLANTS 5. GREENPEACE ANALYSES 1. SUMMARY 1.1 THE "NO LEGAL POLLUTION" TOUR * Greenpeace's "No Legal Pollution" tour of UK's coastal waters on board the MV SOLO has just been completed. During this tour Greenpeace investigated the extent of pollution around the coast from industrial discharges to rivers and seas. From the evidence gathered during this campaign, it is clear that the Government's system of giving British industry licences to pollute is not protecting the environment. 1.2 LICENCE TO KILL * It is stated Government policy that "rivers have to be used for waste disposal by industry" [1]. This policy is implemented by the National Rivers Authority (NRA) in England and Wales, and by the River Purification Boards (RPBs) in Scotland, through the "consent" system, whereby companies are given licences to discharge toxic waste via pipelines into UK rivers and estuaries. * This report lists the UK's top 50 Government licences to pollute. These are licences given to 50 industrial plants from all around the UK legally permitted to discharge the greatest amounts of toxic chemicals to the water environment. This assessment has been made using the plants' consents to pollute granted by the Regional NRAs and RPBs (see Section 2.4). The companies have been ranked from 1 to 50 according to the type of and amount of chemicals on their Government permits. The toxic chemicals used to identify the Top 50 are internationally recognised as dangerous to the marine environment and consist of the Paris Commissions "Black and Grey Lists". The attached table also illustrates that although these companies are ranked according to Government permits, this is only part of the story as unlicenced chemicals are also discharged and permits are broken. * Between them these plants are legally allowed to emit a total of 1,723 billion tonnes of pollution every year. This includes 16 tonnes of mercury, 34 tonnes of cadmium, 9,660 tonnes of oil, 2,320 tonnes of organohalogens and 2,492 tonnes of zinc. * These top 50 licences show that large quantities of "Black and Grey List" compounds are still licensed to be discharged into the environment 18 years after the UK Government agreed as a matter of urgency to eliminate Black List chemicals and drastically reduce Grey List chemicals. The Government made this commitment by signing the Paris Convention in 1974 (see Section 2). 1.3 LICENCED POLLUTION IS ONLY HALF THE STORY * NRA/RPB monitoring, available on public registers, shows that this legalised pollution is only part of the story, since unlicensed chemicals are routinely discharged from the majority of industrial pipes. Some NRA/RPB's regularly monitor for Black and Grey List substances not on companies' consents, which are therefore not licensed for discharge. For example: Anglian NRA analyses of Dow Chemicals discharge into The Wash shows that it discharges 21 organochlorines which do not even appear on its consent, including chloroform [4] * In addition, Greenpeace monitoring reveals an even greater number of unlicensed chemicals being discharged, which routinely escape detection through the consent & monitoring system implemented by the NRAs/RPBs. For example: Greenpeace analysis of ICI Wilton's discharge pipe on Teeside isolated 174 different compounds, compared to 9 chemicals specified on its consent. The Northumbrian NRA identified 11 unconsented chemicals [2]. * Some NRA/RPB consents are even less controlled, under "deemed" consents, where companies are allowed to discharge a wide variety of chemicals with virtually no limits set on specific chemicals. For example: Greenpeace analysis of Ciba Geigy's effluent in South Humberside isolated 147 different compounds, many of them Black and Grey List substances [3]. The only conditions on its "deemed" consent (see Section 2) are temperature and volume. * The key problem is that most companies have no idea of exactly what they are discharging. While bulk components are analysed, the range of chemicals discharged is unknown; however, this can have a significant effect on the environment. There is no legal requirement for UK industry to carry out detailed waste audits to quantify the amounts of chemicals used in industrial processes and discharged into the water, air and land. Under the current consent system, without the use of waste audits, any assessment of actual polluting inputs to the marine environment is inadequate. 1.4 BREAKING THE LAW * In addition to their legally allowed discharges, the filthy 50 plants have broken their discharge consents on 469 occasions since the beginning of 1991. Consents are regularly broken - British Steel in Port Talbot broke its consent 19 times since the beginning of 1991. Elf Atochem in Widnes, Merseyside has broken its consent 20 times in the past year. Beecham Pharmeceuticals in Scotland has broken its licence 19 times in the last 2 years [4]. * NRA monitoring of industrial effluent is inadequate. Companies may well be breaching their consents regularly without being caught by the NRA's monitoring system. 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES * NRA Chief Scientist, Dr Jan Pentreath, recently admitted that the permit system does not guarantee the protection of the water environment. The consent system presupposes that the "rates of input, fate and behaviour of the different substances are reasonably well known and can be predicted" [5]. In fact, the environmental effects of many of the pollutants are impossible to predict. As Dutch Toxicologist Dr Van Leewum said at a recent conference "there is no information on the ecological effects of 99.9% of all chemicals currently discharged into rivers and seas"[6]. * This means that the full impact of pollution from discharge pipes is not known by either the Government or the companies concerned. Even if the chemicals were characterised it is unlikely that information on their impact would be available. In addition it is recognised that the toxic effects of certain chemicals can be exacerbated by the presence of other chemicals from other pipes. It is impossible to predict the environmental effect of the hundreds of chemicals found by Greenpeace analysis of some effluents. * The true extent of the contamination of UK rivers has not been assessed. Companies can pollute a river or estuary legally up to certain limits and this is not classed as pollution - therefore the pollution is "hidden". The Royal Commission also expressed concern about the limited numbers of chemicals that the NRA monitored in order to assess river quality, stating that "these do not provide an adequate picture of the state of the nations' rivers" [7]. * High levels of synthetic organochlorine chemicals have been detected in seals in the Tees, Liverpool Bay and the Dee estuary [8]. Levels of these toxic compounds in natural ecosystems have reached crisis point. In particular surveys of contaminant levels around Britain have revealed the highest levels of organochlorines in fish from Liverpool and Morecambe Bays [9]. * The latest German research on the Central North Sea shows that there are high levels of pollution in the Dogger Bank and elevated levels of fish disease [10]. The Dogger Bank is a vitally important fishing ground for the UK fishing industry. 1.6 THE NEED FOR COMPANY WASTE AUDITS * Some companies argue that the figures quoted by Greenpeace are misleading because they refer to what is allowed to be discharged and not the levels of pollutants that they actually discharge. Greenpeace's answer to this is twofold: Greenpeace figures are based on NRA data which is the only information which is accessible to the public. Industry should be obliged to disclose exactly what they are discharging by undertaking comprehensive waste audits. If companies have larger consents than they need then the NRA should at least drastically reduce the levels of consents as this will apply pressure on the companies to minimise their wastes. It appears that the main reason why companies have such large consents is to accomodate for leaks, spills and accidents and still ensure that the company is not breaking the law 1.7 FUTURE POLICIES WILL MEAN LESS CONTROL * Although the current system of "pollution control" is inadequate, UK Government proposals will lead to even less monitoring and control of the most dangerous polluting industries. An NRA memo, leaked to Greenpeace, reveals that the Government is now proposing that HMIP should take over policing the most polluting discharges. Industry will in the future be required to monitor its own effluent under the supervision of HMIP [11]. This is going back to the system where the poacher is his own gamekeeper and will inevitably lead to less controls on polluting industries. Greenpeace has had conversations with NRA officers who are particularly concerned about industry being allowed to monitor itself. 1.8 CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES * A recent report on Clean Technology commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry last year stated that current Government legislation encouraged "end of pipe technologies". They reported "study findings indicate only moderate levels of activity in the conscious development and adoption of cleaner technologies by UK companies. This partly results from the fact that forces, such as legislation ....... are permissive of end of pipe technologies" [12]. * Studies on the implementation of clean technologies show that strong legislation and enforcement is essential to force industry to clean up [13]. By licensing British industry to continue to pollute, the Government is encouraging dirty industries at the expense of investing in clean technologies. Only a policy of eliminating the use and discharge of the most dangerous substances will be sufficient to protect the marine environment in the future. 1.9 PARIS COMMISSION On 21/22 September this year Environment Ministers from around the North East Atlantic will meet to agree a new International Convention to protect our seas into the 21st Century. Greenpeace is demanding that the UK Government: * begins to carry out its promise, made in 1974 when it signed the Paris Convention, to eliminate toxic and radioactive pollution of the sea from land based sources. 18 years later this promise remains unfulfilled. * ends the current consent system which legally allows British industy to pollute our waters with poisonous chemicals. * sets a target of zero emissions of toxic chemicals into the environment, with a firm timeline for implementation. * requires companies by law to do full waste audits on their toxic emmissions into the environment and that legislation is implemented to force industry to clean up by adopting clean technologies. * implements the Precautionary Principle as a cornerstone of UK environmental policy. REFERENCES 1. White Paper on the Environment, HMSO London, 1990, p164. 2. Greenpeace Exeter Laboratories, Analytical Results, ICI Wilton, 1/11/91, UK1048. 3. Greenpeace Exeter Laboratories, Analytical Results, Ciba Geigy Humberside, 6/5/92, UK2022. 4. NRA/RPB Regions, Consents and Monitoring data from COPA Public Registers. 5. Controlling the inputs of persistent chemicals to marine waters from land-based sources, Dr R J Pentreath, Chief Scientist, NRA, speech given to British Association. 6. Eco-toxicology Conference, Brussels, Dr C H Van Leewum, 1991. 7. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Report on Freshwater Quality HMSO, London 1992. 8. Baker, JR, 1989, Pollution-associated uterine lesions in grey seals from the Liverpool Bay area of the Irish Sea. Veterinary Record 9: 303 ENDs Report 200, September 1991. Wilson, SC, The Tees Seals Programme, Monitoring report no. 3 June-September 1991, Teeside Development Corporation 9. MAFF Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report no 26. 1991. 10. Draft Quality Status Report of the North Sea, 1993, Sub Regional Report 7A, North Sea Task Force. 11. NRA, memo from Diana Burgess, HMIP Liaison Officer, to All Environemntal Quality Managers, 30th July 1992. 12. Cleaner Technology in the UK, PA Consulting Group, Department of Trade and Industry, HMSO London 1991. 13. Cutting Chemical Waste, INFORM 1986 and 1989. 14. Paris Commission 1990 survey, National Rivers Authority, 1992. 15. Sundermann et al, The North Sea, Water Exchange and Pollution of the North Sea, University of Hamburg, 1989. 16. Newton,I, et al, Organochlorines and mercury in the eggs of British Peregrines, April 1988, IBIS 131: 355-376. 17. Cowan, AA, Organochlorine compounds in mussels from Scottish Coastal Waters, Environ. Pollut. Ser B 0143-148X 18. ENDs, Environmental Data Services, Report no 200, September 1991. 19. Morris et al, Metals and organochlorines in dolphins and porpoises of Cardigan Bay, West Wales, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 10/89. 20. Martin et al, Heavy metal pollution in the Severn Estuary, University of Bristol, 1990. 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL CONTEXT. In the 1980's Britain gained a reputation as the "Dirty Man of Europe." By now, according to international agreements that the UK Government has made over the last 18 years, it should be well on the way to eliminating pollution of the marine environment from direct discharges into rivers, estuaries and the sea. Yet latest figures show that the UK is still by far the biggest polluter of the seas of Northern Europe and that the UK Government has failed to protect adequately the seas around our coasts from pollution [14]. This is because it is the policy of the British Government to allow companies to legally discharge poisonous toxic wastes into our rivers and seas, under the current "consent" system. On 21/22 September this year Environment Ministers from around the North East Atlantic will meet in Paris to agree a new International Convention to protect our seas into the 21st Century. In 1974, when the UK Government signed the Paris Convention, it agreed to eliminate toxic and radioactive pollution of the sea from land based sources. 18 years later this promise remains unfulfilled. 2.2 THE GOVERNMENT'S POLICY TO POLLUTE It is stated Government policy that "rivers have to be used for waste disposal by industry" [1]. This policy is implemented by the National Rivers Authority (NRA) in England and Wales, and by the River Purification Boards (RPBs) in Scotland, through the "consent" system, whereby companies are given licences to discharge toxic waste via pipelines into UK rivers and estuaries. In contrast, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recently recommended that "progressively less reliance should be placed on the environment as a mechanism for processing wastes" [7]. At the third North Sea Conference in 1990 the UK Government also committed itself to the Precautionary Principle, which stated that: "Action should be taken to avoid potentially damaging impacts of substances that are persistent, toxic and liable to bioaccumulate in living organisms, even where there is no evidence to prove a causal link between emissions and effect." The Government's consent system is not based on this principle but on an 'assimilative capacity' approach, which assumes that rivers and seas have the capacity to absorb and dilute pollution. Consents are still granted and set by the NRA/RPBs ignoring the Precautionary Principle. Despite these international commitments, neither the Government nor the NRA/RPBs have a long term goal to eliminate the discharge of toxic discharges into the water environment. 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Greenpeace's "No Legal Pollution" tour of UK's coastal waters on board the MV SOLO has just been completed. During this tour Greenpeace investigated the extent of pollution around the coast from industrial discharges to rivers and seas. From the evidence gathered during this campaign, it is clear that the Government's system of giving British industry licences to pollute is not protecting the environment. There is mounting evidence of damage to marine ecosystems throughout the UK's coastal waters: The Humber - According to international surveys fish and shellfish in the Humber estuary are contaminated with some of the highest levels of organochlorines and copper found anywhere in the North East Atlantic. Heavy metal contamination in the Humber estuary is amongst the highest in the UK. Mercury, copper, zinc and cadmium concentrations in cod, mussels and flounder all give cause for concern [15]. Salt marshes, an important wildlife habitat in the Humber and the Wash are being destroyed as heavy metal pollution inhibits certain salt marsh plants. The Tees : The common seals at Seal Sands in the Tees estuary have consistently failed to breed successfully over the past three years. Only two pups have been born and they both died. In 1991 the 27 seals that used the area gave birth to only one pup which died within a few days. Its' body was found to be very underweight and to contain high levels of zinc and significant levels of PCBs and copper. Scientists studying the seals have linked the chemical contamination to the low birth weight and subsequent death of these pups [8 (Wilson)]. Scotland : A study of contaminants in Peregrine Falcon eggs has found that levels of organochlorines have increased dramatically in certain parts of Britain since the 1980s. The highest levels in the UK were recorded in the Northern and Western highlands and linked to peregrines feeding on contaminated seabirds [16]. The Firth of Forth has been identified as a hotspot for tri and hexachlorobenzene. These organochlorines are toxic to aquatic animals and can build up in the foodchain [17]. The Mersey Estuary : A Government study has found hundreds of known and unknown chemicals in fish in the Mersey Estuary and Liverpool Bay [18]. These pollutants are entering the human food chain. The Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries has advised people that it is dangerous to eat fish caught in the Mersey Estuary. Liverpool Bay is a hotspot in the North East Atlantic for mercury contamination in fish and shellfish [9]. Dee Estuary : Grey seals in the Dee estuary have some of the highest levels of mercury and organochlorines ever found in seals along the UK coast and some seals are now showing reproductive abnormalities [8]. West Wales: High levels of organochlorines have been found in dolphins and porpoises around Cardigan Bay and West Wales. Common Dolphins in Carmarthen Bay have been found to contain very high levels of hexachlorobenzene and other organochlorines [19]. Cardigan Bay: A baby dolphin washed up in Cardigan Bay had the highest levels of organochlorines in it's body which were among the highest found in any dolphin around the world [19]. Severn Estuary : Mussels and Limpets in the Bristol Channel are officially classified as being highly contaminated with cadmium [20]. Solent: Local fishermen have shown diseased fish caught in the Solent to Greenpeace. 2.4 THE GREENPEACE FILTHY 50 RANKING SYSTEM This report lists the UK's top 50 Government licences to pollute. These are 50 plants from all around the UK which are legally discharging the greatest amounts and the highest concentrations of toxic chemicals to the water environment. This assessment has been made using the companies' licences to pollute, granted by the National Rivers Authority and the Scottish River Purification Boards, and available for public inspection through the NRA/RPB Public Registers. The National Rivers Authority and River Purification Boards, under the authority of the Government, grant consents to industry which detail the maximum concentrations of certain polluting substances and volume of waste effluent which may be discharged to rivers, estuaries and seas. Many of these substances are black or grey listed by the Paris Commission which called in 1974 for their elimination or drastic reduction, respectively, in discharges to the North East Atlantic Seas (either direct or via rivers). Greenpeace has used the consents granted by the NRAs/RPBs to calculate the maximum loads per year of each of these listed substances that individual company sites are allowed to discharge by simply multiplying the maximum annual dry weather flow with the maximum allowed concentration of the chemical for each pipe and totalling the loads. In order to rank the site licences Greenpeace has used the Paris Commission definition of Black and Grey List chemicals and allotted points to each category. For substances from the Black List one point has been allocated for each kilogramme which is allowed to be discharged. Black List substances are the most dangerous chemicals including mercury, cadmium and chlorinated organics. For substances from the Grey List, for which drastic reduction was called by the Paris Commission, one point has been allocated for every 100 kilogrammes. The Grey List includes zinc, copper, nickel, chromium, lead and arsenic. For petroleum oils the Paris Commission document states that 'persistent oils and hydrocarbons of petroleum origin' are to be blacklisted while 'non-persistent oils and hydrocarbons of petroleum origin' are grey listed. However, most consents only detail 'oil and grease' or 'hydrocarbon oils' with no indication of the persistence. Therefore, as it is not possible to assess the proportion of each class of oil in a discharge these have all been classified as grey list chemicals and allocated one point per 100 killogrammes. The threat which any chemical represents in the environment is extremely difficult to quantify. The toxicity of chemicals is highly variable and depends on such things as the route of exposure, the species of plant or animal which is exposed to the chemical and the presence of other chemicals. The persistence of a chemical and its route of degradation, if it has one, are crucial to its possible effects. In addition, the almost total absence of data on the possible impacts on natural systems of the majority of chemicals means that a true comparative assessment of discharges is impossible. Therefore, by using this international classification system Greenpeace is only attempting to rank the discharge consents and not to say that Grey List chemicals are one hundred times less toxic than those on the Black List. Because this report is compiled using data from different NRA/RPB regions, it will also reflect inadequacies in the approach of certain regions to unconsented chemicals. For example, it appears that Severn Trent region of the NRA do not regularly monitor for organochlorine discharges, in the same way that the North West region of the NRA sometimes does. Because of these imbalances, the types of chemicals that are consented vary greatly in different NRA/RPB regions. The unconsented chemicals specified in this report therefore represent only a small proportion of the actual chemicals discharged into the environment. Although it is pertinent to rank these licences according to the loads of black and grey listed chemicals they are legally allowed to discharge into the environment, this system does not take into account the thousands of chemicals which industry discharges into the environment on a daily basis with no legal permit. This reports includes a summary for each of these industrial plants, which contains information on the following: - legally allowed loads of chemicals which are specified on the NRA consents; - information on the unconsented chemicals which companies are discharging into the environment; - which Parcom Black and Grey List chemicals, both consented and unconsented, are being discharged. 2.5 DEEMED CONSENTS In addition to the Top 50 polluting licenced plants, Greenpeace is also targetting two plants which hold a "deemed" consent to discharge. A "deemed" consent is one which allows a company to discharge a wide variety of chemicals without having to meet limits on the amounts or concentrations of these chemicals. Normally the only condition which is specified is the volume of effluent which can be discharged so the constituents of the effluent remain unknown. A company cannot be prosecuted for failing to meet the consented limits if it holds this type of consent as there are so few limits. Because of the deemed consent system it is impossible to rank these discharges in comparison with the other polluting companies, so these plants are not included in the Top 50 ranking. However, the amounts and toxicity of their discharges mean they are also significant polluters. Plants holding deemed consents about which Greenpeace is concerned are: ICI - Billingham, Teeside. Ciba Geigy Chemicals - Grimsby, South Humberside. (See also the attached company sheets.) The system of "deemed" consents is the most uncontrolled form of pollution licenced by the Government through its agencies. 2.6 BACK DOOR DUMPING Apart from direct discharges into rivers and seas, many companies are licenced to discharge into the sewer system. Monitoring data on chemicals discharged is commercially confidential information. Sewage works accepting industrial waste are significant point sources of toxic chemicals into the marine environment. Atmospheric emissions also contribute significantly to inputs into rivers and seas. 2.7 CONCLUSION By licensing pollution, through the consent system, with no plans for the elimination of toxic discharges, and calling this pollution control, the Government is deceiving the British public into believing that the marine pollution crisis is under control. In reality, this system of legal pollution means that the real solutions are not being addressed. The marine environment will not be protected as long as this pollution is legalised. ERRATA TO FILTY 50 REPORT CONOCO Ltd, South Killingholme, Grimsby have failed their consent tiwce since mid-1991, when a new consent came into use, not 37 times since the begining of 1991 as stated in the report. PORVAIR Plc, King's Lynn, Norfolk, have failed their consent three times since the begiuning of 1991 not five times as stated in the report. SCM CHEMICALS Ltd, Stallingborough, Humberside, have not failed their consent since the begining of 1991 as stated in the report. GLAXOCHEM PLC, Ulverston, Cumbria, recieved a new consent from the NRA at the begining of September 1992 too late to be included in this report. Greenpeace UK 16th September 1992 ERRATA TO FILTY 50 REPORT CONOCO Ltd, South Killingholme, Grimsby have failed their consent tiwce since mid-1991, when a new consent came into use, not 37 times since the begining of 1991 as stated in the report. PORVAIR Plc, King's Lynn, Norfolk, have failed their consent three times since the begiuning of 1991 not five times as stated in the report. SCM CHEMICALS Ltd, Stallingborough, Humberside, have not failed their consent since the begining of 1991 as stated in the report. GLAXOCHEM PLC, Ulverston, Cumbria, recieved a new consent from the NRA at the begining of September 1992 too late to be included in this report. Greenpeace UK 16th September 1992