Chemical company Esterchem Ltd was ordered to to pay a financial penalty of £25,000 at Stoke-on-Trent Magistrates’ Court after pleading guilty to one charge of polluting the Leek Brook and two charges of failing to comply with the conditions of their environmental permit last Friday.

The court also ordered Staffordshire-based Esterchem Ltd to pay £7,428.76 in costs, along with a £15 victim surcharge. The charges against Esterchem Ltd were brought by the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010.

Esterchem Ltd was responsible for the release of Sodium Hydroxide into the Leek Brook, resulting in the complete wipe out of fish stocks along a three quarter mile stretch of the brook. Company Director, Adam Bray has accepted a caution (in his personal capacity) for his involvement in the pollution incident.

On Sunday 11 July 2010, Mr Bray reported to the Environment Agency, that a half full, 1000 litre capacity industrial bulk container (IBC) had been opened by vandals and sodium hydroxide had escaped into road drains outside the site.  The next morning, Environment Agency officers observed dead fish in the Leek Brook, and measured high pH readings of 10 – 11, indicating an increase of alkali concentration.

On Tuesday 13 July 2010, water samples were taken from Leek Brook and from the River Churnet.  A number of dead fish were seen and the bed of the Brook was a fawn yellow colour for approximately 1000 metres.  That same day, two Fisheries Technical Officers from the Environment Agency carried out a fish survey on the Leek Brook.  High pH levels of 10.29 – 12.5 were recorded along the Leek Brook downstream of the surface water sewer discharge pipe near the end of Brooklands Way.  Above the discharge pipe the pH was recorded as 8.25.  A total of 1728 dead fish were counted although it is believed that the number killed as a result of the pollution was significantly higher than this.

Environment Agency officers were informed that the incident was discovered at 18:45 hours on 11 July 2010 and the area had been thoroughly cleaned with large volumes of water to remove and dilute the residue.  The IBC was one of four that had been used as a security barrier behind the entrance gates, following another break in on the evening of Saturday 10 July 2010.  It was stated that the valves of the IBCs had been locked.  The containers were placed on a downward slope, with no provision for containment of leaks or spillages.  Failure to provide a secondary containment was in breach of the company’s environmental permit. There was a white coloured stain on the roadway and around the road drain covers outside the site.

The nearest road drain outside the site had a small, dark puddle of liquid immediately in front of the drain which was pH 10, indicating an alkali.

On Monday 19 July 2010, the Environment Agency carried out biological sampling of Leek Brook, and concluded that the discharge had had a significant impact on the insects and bugs in the brook.

By Friday 30 July 2010, further water samples were taken from the brook and the River Churnet.  It was noted that the fawn-yellow colour previously noticed on the bed was no longer visible.  Officers also dye traced the road drain outside Esterchem’s premises  and traced it to the surface water sewer discharge pipe near the end of Brooklands Way.

On Tuesday 12 October 2010, Mr Bray, representing Esterchem Ltd was interviewed under caution by the Environment Agency.  He explained that he had used the IBCs of sodium hydroxide as an emergency security barrier behind the entrance gates, due to the site being broken into the previous night. However he admitted that it was unsuitable as a barrier, and should not have been used for this purpose.  He stated that in storing it without any form of secondary containment, Esterchem Ltd had not followed their own procedures.  He was aware the road drain outside the premises connects to the Leak Brook, but had not fully considered the consequences of flushing water through the drainage system.  No attempt had been made to contain the wash water, as advised in the Safety Data Sheet for the chemical.

In mitigation, the court was told that this was a unusual case of a company being prosecuted for something which had been brought about by the actions of vandals.  It was the act of a decent man in the heat of the moment.

Speaking after the case at Newcastle-under-Lyme Magistrates Court,  an Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Control Officer said:

“Environmental permits are in place to protect the environment and prevent harm to human health.  In this case, the consequences of not following the permit conditions has caused significant harm to the environment.  We will not hesitate to take action if it means preventing future pollution incidents.”