Vegetable wash water grossly polluted a stream near Attleborough leading to a fine of £3,500 and costs of £6,473 for Watton Produce Company Limited.
Miss Claire Bentley, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, told Swaffham Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday 12th January 2010 that investigations by environment officers and biologists had shown that the pollution had been ongoing for some time.
She said that on 12 December 2008 an Environment Agency officer reported seeing sewage fungus in the River Thet. A month later a member of the public also reported seeing a ‘white growth’ in the river.
Sewage fungus is a complex community of fungi, bacteria and protozoa. It usually forms slimy, furry growths on solid surfaces such as in-river vegetation. It is normally localised to the discharge, but in some severe cases can extend for several hundred metres. It is indicative of long-term organic pollution.
Miss Bentley told magistrates that on 14 January 2009 an Agency officer visited Watton Produce at Hargham Road, Shropham, Attleborough and found that downstream of the company’s consented discharge point from their treatment plant the presence of sewage fungus indicated prolonged and severe organic pollution.
She explained to the magistrates that when the officer returned a couple of days later he discovered sewage fungus in the water as far as 2.6 kilometres downstream at South End Ford.
Talks with the company at the end of January 2009 identified where pollution prevention could be improved and where in-house sampling was needed but subsequent water quality samples taken in January, February and March showed that the treatment plant was still discharging polluting waste water.
In a letter to the Environment Agency explaining why there had been incidents of pollution, the company’s engineering manager blamed both below zero temperatures for killing bacteria in the treatment plant leading to a sequence of chemical changes in the process and surplus sludge in the tank due to problems with tanker collection.
Company representatives admitted in interview that they did not react as quickly as they should have done and should have informed the Agency that they were having problems. Their own sample data revealed seven consent failures between February and April, even though the company had tried to alleviate the situation by reducing discharge from its treatment plant and using tankers to take away the waste water.
Miss Bentley said the pollution had a severe effect on invertebrate numbers and diversity in the river. "The pollution was foreseeable, their own sample data revealed seven consecutive consent failures, yet the plant continued to discharge polluting effluent. There appears to have been a lack of focus in the management of the site."
In mitigation for the defence, barrister Mr Mark Beard said that the offence was not deliberate and that the company had taken measures to prevent future pollution incidents.
After the hearing Environment Agency officer Euan Simpson said: ‘Complex waste water treatment plants such as this require careful management to ensure that final effluent is maintained within consented limits. In this case it appears that close monitoring and management of the treatment plant was lacking, allowing highly polluting discharges to enter the environment causing significant damage to the river ecosystem.
"The severity of the breaches of consented limits and impact on the River Thet downstream from the treatment plant meant that we had no choice but to take formal action against the company."
