CLAIMS by the environmental watchdog group Greenpeace that the
Scottish Office has allowed Scotland's rivers and coastal waters to
become an industrial sewer were dismissed last night as selective,
distorted, and out of date.
A report is published today alleging that the Scottish Office has been
sanctioning ''legal pollution'' by companies such as British Petroleum
and ICI, and that the river purification boards responsible for policing
the discharge of toxic waste have failed to halt industrial abuse.
Calling for an end to the ''consents'' system which grants Government
licences to companies to pump chemicals into Scotland's waterways,
Greenpeace says that river purification boards have ''an appalling
record of enforcing already weak pollution laws'', and that firms have
been allowed to break their legal pollution levels ''over 30% of the
time''.
The report lists BP Chemicals, BP Oil and ICI at Grangemouth,
Glaxochem, Lothian Chemical Company, BA Chemicals, British Alcan at
Lochaber, the UK Atomic Energy Authority at Dounreay, Beecham
Pharmaceuticals, Bardyke Chemicals, and ICI Nobels Explosives as
''Scotland's top toxic polluters''.
According to Greenpeace, Scottish industry is ''attempting to hide its
toxic waste crisis'' by a policy of building longer outfall pipes or by
diverting industrial waste into the sewage system.
Of a total of 1440 listed industrial discharges, 524 are linked to
sewage to evade public scrutiny, it claims. Information about waste
dumped in sewage is confidential.
A Scottish Office spokesman said last night: ''The Greenpeace
statement provides a highly selective and distorted picture of the
effectiveness of Scotland's pollution control regime in protecting the
waters round our coasts.
''In fact, over 90% of Scotland's inshore waters are of excellent or
good quality, and less than 4% of our estuaries are of poor or bad
quality. Significant improvements have been achieved in recent years,
significantly through the operation of our system of strictly-controlled
consents applied by the river purification boards.
''Scotland is playing its full part internationally in implementation
of the commitments made at the Third North Sea Conference at the Hague
to reduce by 50% by 1995 inputs to the maritime environment of certain
dangerous substances via rivers and estuaries. Substantial progress is
already being made towards this target.
''The introduction in April this year of the new system of integrated
pollution control, specificially targeted on improving the operation of
processes giving rise to the most polluting substances, will also make
an important contribution.''
A spokesman for BP said: ''We are spending #4m on a new effluent
treatment plant at Grangemouth. That is a measure of the concern about
pollution.
''Our licence to discharge cadmium and vanadium into the Forth was
withdrawn earlier this year. It was withdrawn because the amount
involved had fallen below the level of environmental concern. A great
deal of the Greenpeace report seems to be based on out-of-date
figures.''
Professor David Mackay, general manager of the North-East River
Purification Board, added: ''The Greenpeace report would be very fair if
it were not for the fact that it is based on 1990 statistics. In the
past two years, we have been pursuing an active policy of tracking down
culprits guilty of pollution.
''In an area where there are major distilleries, the only body we have
taken legal action against this year is Grampian Regional Council. That
says it all. The position is vastly improved since 1990, and we will
continue to enforce a very firm policy.''
A British Alcan spokesman said: ''The Greenpeace report contains
several major inaccuracies and gross distortions which lead us to
question the validity of the entire document, and the competence and
motives of those who issued it.
''We have just spent #4m on environmental improvement projects and
take the issue very seriously indeed. Greenpeace alleges 11 breaches of
the law at our plants in the past year. BA Chemicals admits to just two,
and both were minor infringements involving no dangerous chemicals.''
The Forth River Purification Board said: ''We recognise the need to
reduce persistent toxic substances in the estuary, but it is not helpful
for Greenpeace to overstate the case.
''It is to be regretted that this organisation has focussed on minor
breaches of consent levels. These are deliberately set at over-stringent
levels to protect against such breaches.
''The fact is that the quality of water in the Forth is good and
getting better. The evidence of overall improved quality is that 26 fish
species have established in the estuary, including the salmon and the
pollution-sensitive sparling, absent for decades and now a
well-established breeding population. Seals also thrive in these waters.
''BP Oil and ICI will have invested a total of #70m on biological
treatment plants within the next three years, and all environmental
standards are being met.
''It is the mission of the board further to reduce water pollution in
its catchment area. It recognises that this can be achieved only at a
pace which does not destroy the economic base for employment of the
people in the Forth Valley.''
Mr Tim Birch, Greenpeace's marine pollution spokesman, said: ''The UK
Government committed itself 18 years ago to eliminating pollution of the
marine environment by dangerous chemicals by signing the Paris
Convention. Yet it has completely failed to carry out its promise, and
Scottish industry continues to contribute to the UK's record as the
Dirty Man of Europe.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article