United Utilities has been fined for a water quality offence, after it was found guilty of polluting the River Tame.
Earlier this week, Tameside Magistrates' Court heard how the company contaminated the waterway near Mossley with bleach, which resulted in the hundreds of fish dying.
It pleaded guilty to the offence and was charged £24,000 after residents reported a large number of deaths in the river to the Environment Agency in June 2009.
The group led an investigation into the drop in water quality and found that there was an overflow of sodium hypochlorite (bleach) at United Utilities' site in the area.
David Orr, environment officer for the agency, said the Environment Agency works hard to improve water quality in rivers across the UK.
"United Utilities use sodium hypochlorite on site as part of the treatment process and is fully aware of the risk of harm if it discharges into drains and watercourses," he said.
This breach of green regulations comes despite the water firm's commitment to "protect and enhance the environment" that it operates in. Enviro-Techonline
On June 14th 2010 the BBC reported this:The death of hundreds of fish in a Greater Manchester river is being investigated by the Environment Agency.
Officers were called to the River Tame in Mossley on Saturday after a member of the public saw about 250 dead and distressed fish in the water.
Simon Oldfield from the agency said the trout, pike and chubb died when a pollutant went into the water.
He said the pollution was short-lived and was confident that the wildlife in the river would recover.
Water samples have been taken from the river and the results will be analysed later this week.
"Incidents of this nature are usually the result of a spillage or a business using the wrong drain," he said.
"It is likely that a pollutant has entered the river which has been toxic to the fish."
Mr Oldfield added that although the incident came to light on Saturday afternoon, the pollution may have already been present in the drainage system for some time.
The Environment Agency has appealed to members of the public who saw anything suspicious in the area on Saturday to contact them.
13 comments:
So the council offices aren't the only place to smell of rotten fish.
£24,000 is no deterrent whatsoever, an operation the size of United Utilities won't even feel it.
All UU are intrested in is their share holders and they should have been fined a million quid and that million quid should have been spent on the roads, around the reservior in audenshaw ? They look after the enviroment my backside.
They should have been fined a lot more, and then us poor working chaps, and chappess's I might add, could pay more in our utility bills, to cover the cost of the fine.
Yours sincerely,
Muggins.
United Utilities have no obligation to maintain roads in Audenshaw. Their duty is to provide water and waste treatment for Tameside.
Muggins, by your argument they should have been fined nothing. Perhaps you think leaking large amounts of bleach into a river doesn't warrant any punishment.
Morning Len,
In my opinion, hefty fines are not the answer if the cost is going to be passed on to Mr & Mrs average taxpayer, which, as sure as eggs is eggs, will mean higher utility bills, before The Shareholders lose out on their yearly dividend.
How about naming and shaming the person responsible after he/she has been found that their services are no longer required. ie sacked.
This way 'lessons will be learnt' and seen to be learnt by Joe Public, or are people not allowed to be responsible for their own actions in this age of enlightenment.
That fine won't make a difference to United Utilities!
Muggins, perhaps one person wasn't responsible, it could have been a systematic failure.
When it comes to actual crime I'm against fines. For so called 'lesser' offences. I'd rather see the reintroduction of corporal punishment for thieves, yobs etc, to beat some contrition and humility into them.
As for United Utilities and corporate responsibility offences a fine would sometimes appear to be the only option.
Anonymous ? So you think a reservior complex is just a hole in the ground do you ? Silly me coz i know that it takes a lot more than that to have clean water ? Thay should have no responsibities for the wild life either in your eyes a pal ? Ho i forgot when they privatize the water company they had a debate in the house of commons to decide weather the share holders should have responsibilities for the public footpaths, wildlife, and land,and weather it should be written uplike conditions that you have on deeds when you buy a property and it was voted 350 against, 200 and summat infavour, and this is why they feel know responsibilite for the fish, and as far as i,m concerned know fucking share holders own our water industry until they pay me and my family for my share of it, which incidently is,nt for sale and never as been its ancestral wealth and it was never for sale, i suggest you read the building of englands water inferstuture
Aluman, why do you not use a spell checker before you post? I agree with what you say, but your spelling and punctuation leaves a lot to be desired.
United Utils have been found guilty for years for polluting waterways,and landing big fines in the process.
They are in the top league for offences,but these fines are petty cash to such organisations,and even their petty cash can be increased by your Water Rates.
Not that long the United Utils previous Chief Executive had the bloody cheek to sit on the Royal Commission on Environment Issues
panel.
Scruples is a word not known to these parasites.
My student book is but this pic from this site omg :') i found it from my student book's Visual Bibliography part :')
Love you, love everyone from Turkey! :')
Oh
Post a Comment