Please be advised that the course material is regularly reviewed and updated on the elearning platform. SHEilds would like to inform students downloading these printable notes and using these from which to study that we cannot ensure the accuracy subsequent to the date of printing. It is therefore important to access the elearning environment regularly to ensure we can track your progress and to ensure you have the most up to date materials. Version 1.1c

Element 1 - Principles of Environmental Risk Management.

Overall Aims

On completion of this unit, candidates will have knowledge and understanding of:

reasons for managing environmental risk; environmental hazard identification; assessment of environmental risks; control strategies for environmental risks; awareness of the relationships between source, pathway and receptor when

assessing environmental risk and developing control strategies; appreciation of environmental issues and their relevance to business.

Specific intended learning outcomes:

The intended learning outcomes are that candidates will be able to:

understand the principles of environmental hazard identification and risk assessment and control;

advise management on the environmental hazards that may be associated with an organisation's activities and the reasons for addressing them.

Hours of tuition and private study:

9 hours of tuition

3 hours of private study.

1.1 Introduction.

There are three main reasons for managing environmental risk. These reasons may already be familiar to those who have studied health and safety. These reasons are moral, legal and financial but there can be a substantial degree of overlap between them.

1.2 Reasons for Managing Environmental Risk.

Moral.

In general, the term 'environment' covers the physical surroundings that are common to everybody including air, water, land, plants and wildlife. The definition used in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is that the environment '... consists of all, or any, of the following media, namely the air, water and land'.

Because these media are common to all, the environment is everyones responsibility and we all have a moral duty to protect it and our neighbours from environmental damage. Over recent decades, we have become more informed and knowledgeable about our environment and environmental issues have been championed by pressure groups.

Information about the environment has become readily available and easily accessible though the internet and television. Government bodies conduct regular polls to gauge our opinions on the environment and our environmental concerns (DEFRA website). Commercial and industrial organisations have also had to adopt strategies to protect the environment, not just for legal reasons but for moral ones too, so that they may attract more investment. There has been a huge emphasis on the ways manufacturers use valuable raw resources in production.

1.2.1 Legal.

Legal.

The environment is protected by legislation. It is important that organisations take responsibility for ensuring that they are aware of all existing legislation and the arrival and implications of new laws. They also need to understand how to comply with that legislation in their day-to-day operations. As we shall discover in Unit B, environmental legislation covers the principal areas of environmental protection including emissions to air, water and land.

The main purpose of environmental legislation is to prevent damage to the environment. Enforcement agencies can issue enforcement, prohibition or stop notices. It is through environmental statutes that fines can be issued and imprisonment ordered. These last two are known as punitive functions.

The legal reason for environmental management also interlinks with the financial reason here in that the law can also have financial impact; for example, legislative requirements for permits and consents have cost implications and clean-up costs may also be incurred.

1.2.2 Economic.

As we have learned from section 1.2, the legal and financial reasons for environmental management interconnect. The company has to consider its shareholders to whom the managers are responsible for running the company. Financial performance may be the main focus of managers; however, equally important are the company image, eco-efficiency and cost.

The direct costs of managing environmental risk are those incurred when complying with legislation, the costs of non-compliance and the cost of permits.

Indirect costs would include the loss of company image, loss of customers and loss of reputation both with stakeholders and regulatory bodies. Stakeholders may include the media, the general public, customers, banks, employees, community groups and environmental protection groups and insurers. Financial organisations have also shown interest in the environmental performance of organisations.

Many are reluctant to invest in companies without an environmental policy or in companies that have not been accredited by ISO 14001 (an environmental standard that was first published in 1996 and specifies the requirements for an environmental management system. It applies to those environmental aspects which the organisation has control and over which it can be expected to have an influence. It can be employed by an organisation to measure and document their environmental impact.)

Question 1.

Direct costs of managing environmental risks are those incurred when complying with legislation and the costs of non-compliance

True/False (HP)

Answer 1: True

Response 1:

Jump 1: Next page

Answer 2: False

Response 2:

Jump 2: This page

2.0 Definitions.

Environmental Aspects and Impacts. Hazard. Risk. Danger. Sustainability.

Here we will outline some of the definitions used in Environmental Risk and Risk Management.

2.1 Environmental Aspects and Impacts.

Aspects

ISO 14001 defines environmental aspects as elements of an organisations activities, products and services which can interact with the environment.

Environmental Aspects include the following:

Emissions to air of particulates (smoke and dusts), carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, volatile organics, benzene, lead.

Discharges to water of solvents, heavy metals, pesticides, organic matter, litter, oil, hazardous substances.

Waste disposal with the generation of volume of contaminated solid and liquid wastes and the disposal of wastes that could be used as material inputs, hazardous wastes and radioactive wastes.

An organisation can have a large number of actual and potential aspects. Effluent

discharges, leaks and spills resulting from an organisation's activity can enter rivers, lakes, seas and oceans, as well as the land (through ground water) and therefore result in a number of impacts. It is important that significant environmental aspects and impacts are identified and prioritised. Significant environmental aspects are generally defined as those which have a demonstrable impact on the environment, are of particular concern to stakeholders and are subject to regulatory control or a code of practice to which the organisation is a signatory.

Impacts

The term 'Environmental Impact' is used in management standards such as BS EN ISO 14001:2004, and legislation such as the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (EIA) 1999. It is used In order to assess the environmental significance of a process or substance.

ISO 14001 defines an `environmental impact` as

any change to the environment, whether adverse or beneficial, wholly or partially resulting from an organisations environmental aspects

Therefore the term 'environmental impact' essentially refers to significance. Environmental impacts can be positive or adverse and be identified and assessed on a local, regional or global level.

Environmental changes due to an aspect impacting on the environment

Examples of environmental impacts

1.People living near airports have to contend with the immediate effects of aircraft noise, air quality problems and increased congestion on local roads. Urbanisation sometimes associated with airport development such as new hotels, retail outlets and transport infrastructure can also have adverse impacts on landscape and habitat.

2.Climate change poses the most serious long-term threat to wildlife in the UK and globally. The UK government have set a target to source 15% of electricity from renewable sources such as solar and wind energy, by 2015. However, evidence from the US and Spain confirms that poorly-sited wind farms can cause adverse impacts and severe problems for birds through disturbance, habitat loss/damage or collision with turbines.

3.Consumption of non-renewable resources can also impact the environment.

4.Damage to buildings can occur through the emission of acidic gases.

5.Pollution of water by poor storage of wastes, chemical or oils.

6.Damage to and depletion of forests and vegetation can be caused by the formation of ozone and other reactive chemicals as a result of emissions from organic compounds and unsustainable forestry practice.

7.Changes to the landscape by quarrying or mineral extraction.

8.Damages to lakes and coastal waters as the result of excessive deposition of airborne substances containing nitrogen or phosphorus.

At the global level, the greenhouse gases emitted from aircraft engines into the atmosphere make a significant, and growing, contribution to climate change. In general, emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride can contribute to global warming and climate change.

The Kyoto Protocol (1997) is an international treaty which brings together many of the world's developed nations (with the notable exception of the United States) in an effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the effects of global warming.

To eliminate or minimise risks that may occur from an organisations interaction with its environment, it is important that risks are identified, prioritised and reduced.

Question 2.

Environmental aspects are the elements of an organisations activities, products and services which can interact with the environment and include ...

Multiple Choice (HP)

Answer 1: Discharges to water

Response 1:

Jump 1: This page

Answer 2: Waste disposal

Response 2:

Jump 2: This page

Answer 3: Emissions to air

Response 3:

Jump 3: This page

Answer 4: All of the above

Response 4:

Jump 4: Next page

Question 3.

Environmental impacts are any change to the environment whether adverse of beneficial, wholly or partially resulting from an organisation's environmental aspects

True/False (HP)

Answer 1: True

Response 1:

Jump 1: Next page

Answer 2: False

Response 2:

Jump 2: This page

2.2 Hazard, Risk and Danger.

Hazard

This is defined as the property or ability of a substance or activity to cause harm.

Risk

Risk is the probability or likelihood of the hazard actually causing harm or damage and the severity or consequence of it. Some definitions add a time component. One definition states that risk is 'the probability that a hazard may be realised at any specified level in a given span of time'.

Harm

So, what do we mean by the term 'harm'?

Harm is defined by the UK Environmental Protection Act (1990) as meaning:

'harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form part and, in the case of man, includes offence caused to any of his senses or harm to his property`.

Danger

Danger is defined as:

Exposure or vulnerability to harm, injury or loss or `imminent contact with a hazard`.

2.3 Sustainability.

The most commonly-accepted definition of sustainable development was published in the

report Our Common Future by the WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), chaired by the then prime minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland in 1987.

Members from the Brundtland Commission came from 21 nations, more than half of those in the developing world. The Bruntdland Commission called for an international conference to be convened within an appropriate period after the presentation of its report to review progress and create a follow-up structure (the United Nations on Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED or the Earth Summit) was held in Rio de Janeiro Brazil in 1992).

The definition published in the report Our Common Future came to be known also as the 'Brundtland definition'; sustainable development is:

`development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.`

A UK definition appeared later in `This Common Inheritance' in 1990, namely:

living on the Earths income rather than eroding its capital. It means keeping the consumption of renewable resources within the limits of replenishment. It means handling down to successive generations not only man-made wealth, but also natural wealth.

As these definitions clearly show, sustainability is a goal but sustainable development is a process. This consists of three main environmental components which we need to maintain:

1. Biodiversity: the variety of species, populations, habitats and ecosystems. 2. Ecological integrity: the general health and resilience of natural life support

systems, including their ability to assimilate wastes and withstand stresses such as climate change and ozone depletion.

3. Natural capital: the stock of productive soil, fresh water, forests, clean air, oceans and other renewable resources that underpin the survival, health and prosperity of human communities.

A prime example of a sustainable system is the earth, and is highly relevant in understanding what sustainability means for humanity.

Earths ecosystems have evolved over billions of years to maintain physical resources through the use of solar energy. The biosphere consists of links of complex and intertwined food chains and the waste products of each link form the food for subsequent links in those chains. The earth must not be viewed solely as an inheritance from the past to be enjoyed in our lifetime, but regarded as something that is passed on to future generations.

The growth in the human population is one of the major drivers of todays environmental concerns, and the number of inhabitants has mushroomed in the past century from 1,750,000,000 in 1910 to somewhere in the region of 6,800,000,000 today. This figure is predicted to rise to over 9,000,000,000 by the middle of the 21st century. This increases the demands they make on the planets resources.

The link below provides a useful interactive map which shows the impact of human society on the ecosystems of the world.

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/

2.3.1 Sustainability (Cont.).

Different countries held different ideas on sustainable development depending upon the type of resources that they used, whether or not these were renewable or non-renewable. A global North-South divide developed, with the North concerned about climate change and the depletion of the ozone layer and the South concerned with poverty and food supplies.

The United Nations commissioned a global agenda for change in 1983 in the face of a looming environmental crisis, for which the evidence was by then abundantly clear. Under the title of 'Our Common Future' (see section 2.3, above), the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) reported in 1987. As a direct result there have been worldwide initiatives to deal with environmental problems.

The targets of 'Our Common Future' were multilateralism and interdependence of nations in the search for a sustainable development path. The report sought to recapture the spirit of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment - the Stockholm Conference 1972 - which had introduced environmental concerns to the formal political development sphere and established The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) . 'Our Common Future' placed environmental issues firmly on the political agenda; it aimed to discuss the environment and development as one single issue.

The publication of 'Our Common Future' and the work of the WCED laid the groundwork for the convening of the 1992 Earth Summit and the adoption of Agenda 21 , the Rio Declaration and to the establishment of the Commission on Sustainable Development .

The Montreal Protocol 1987 dealt with depletion of the ozone layer by setting a timetable for phasing out the use of ozone-depleting chemicals, notably the CFCS (chlorofluorocarbons). At the United Nations Millennium Summit, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan emphasised to delegates the basic services that the natural environment affords us, including protection from the suns ultraviolet rays provided by the ozone layer in the earths atmosphere. He warned that, in many cases, people are degrading the ability of the environment to provide these life-sustaining services, but went on to praise the Montreal Protocol as perhaps the most successful environmental agreement to date. Since the 1970s, scientists began to see evidence that certain man-made chemicals - including those used in common products such as refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosol cans, cushions, packaging materials, insulation and cleaning solvents - were rising into the stratosphere and damaging the earths natural shield against ultraviolet radiation.

Increased ultraviolet radiation levels lead to higher rates of skin cancer, cataracts and damage to peoples immune systems. Even small increases in ultraviolet radiation can diminish the productivity of important food crops and adversely affect levels of plankton in the ocean.

After the adoption of the Montreal Protocol, industrialised countries discontinued the use of the most damaging ozone-depleting substances; developing countries were given more time to phase out their use of these chemicals.

Agenda 21 was a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organisations of the United Nations System, Governments and major groups in every area in which humans impact on the environment. The programme highlighted the pressures on the natural environment from population growth and associated poverty in the developing world and unsustainable patterns of consumption in the industrialised world.

Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of

principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (The Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3rd to 14th June 1992.

A global plan of action entitled `Local Agenda 21` (referring to the 21st Century) was aimed at local government with the urgent and evocative message to `think global, act local`. Local Agenda 21 has subsequently served to unlock creativity at the local scale in addressing specific sustainability challenges.

The Earth Summit resulted in 27 principles for sustainable development which were not legally binding but prompted further treaties and declarations such as A Framework Convention on the Atmosphere (Climate Treaty).

The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED and to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five-year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session. These included ratification of several international agreements such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that deals with global climate change, assigning mandatory emission limitations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the signatory nations, as well as integrating and setting specific time targets for plans to deal with issues such as health, children, water and poverty.

2.3.2 Sustainability (Cont.).

The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio Principles were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26th August to 4th September 2002.

This was in fact a ten-year follow up to the original Rio Earth Summit and the goals were to

strengthen global commitment on sustainable development.

The UK published its strategy for sustainable development in 1999 'A Better Quality of Life'. It meant meeting four objectives at the same time, in the UK and the world as a whole:

social progress which recognises the needs of everyone; effective protection of the environment; prudent use of natural resources; and maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/

The UK Government launched its new strategy for sustainable development, 'Securing The Future', in conjunction with a Strategic Framework on 7th March, 2005. This updates and builds on the strategy published in 1999. It takes account of new policies since 1999 and it highlights the renewed international push for sustainable development from the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. The lead Department, DEFRA, chairs a Programme Board to oversee delivery of the Strategy, but all UK Departments share responsibility for making sustainable development a reality.

Key trends in the UK environment can be found on the DEFRA website. The trends include all the environmental indicators from the set of headline indicators of sustainable development in the UK and various case studies.

To get a general feel of environmental statistics, see http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/index.htm

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was created on 3rd October 2008 to take over some of the functions of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (energy) and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (climate change). It was retained by the new government after the May 2010 elections. In its initial year, it published a Low Carbon Transition plan (large file) and a Renewable Energy Strategy.

For sustainable development to work, the issues of environmental, economic and social performance need to be addressed.

Organisations also need to ensure that their activities and production do not undermine their ability to function in the future. In environmental terms, if the consumption of natural capital (resource depletion and degradation by waste and pollution) exceeds the ability to renew, then this condition is not sustainable.

There are many approaches to sustainable development which can be placed in hierarchical order. Firstly, an organisation could choose solutions at the end of a production process (end of pipe solutions). Secondly, cleaner technologies could be adopted in order to minimise pollution and waste. Thirdly, a cradle-to-grave analysis could consider the total of disparate elements that make up the process and their costs to the environment.

The importance of sustainability has been highlighted by the introduction in Jund 2002 of a sustainability matrix produced by Morley Fund Management. This ranked the UKs 100 largest companies from A to E for business sustainability on environmental and social issues and from one to five for management vision and practices on sustainable development and corporate responsibility. The companies scoring the highest rankings on the Morley Fund

Management sustainability matrix in 2002, with their scores, were:

AstraZeneca (A2) GlaxoSmithKline (A2) Pearson (A3) Smith& Nephew (A3) Reed International (A4)

Companies with the lowest rankings, with their scores, were:

BAT (E3) Enterprise Oil (E3) Rolls-Royce (E3) BAE Systems (E3) Gallaher (E4) Imperial Tobacco (E4)

Low-scoring companies attacked the exercise, accusing the fund manager of carrying out insufficient research and overly simplifying a complex issue. Others, while supportive of the process, criticised Morleys approach in that it excluded certain activities. Regardless of the truth of the matter, this clearly demonstrates that the perception of a company's environmental credentials has now become very important, both to outside stakeholders and to those companies themselves.

3.0 Environmental Hazard Identification.

The UK has a very long history of industry and commerce. It also has the longest established history of industrial regulation. However, its knowledge of the environment is historically poor; in the past, there were few controls and legislation tended to be in response to a particular issue (as opposed to the anticipatory and preventative legislation we have today). The country also has a legacy of industrial pollution, caused for a large part by lack of understanding and the nave opinion that somehow nature would deal with waste and emissions, etc. Some industries have a greater effect than others; in the table below are some examples of how industries can affect the environment.

Industry/Process Potential Environmental Impact

Agriculture Use of pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, wastes.

Brick manufacture Quarrying (landscape changes, noise, dust, transport, water run-off, visual effects, loss of natural resources, etc.), manufacture, noise, dust, energy use, transport, gaseous emissions.

Construction Dust nuisance, noise nuisance, use of raw materials, contaminated water run-off.

Food production Effluent containing food solids and fats, cleaning chemicals, solid food waste, combustion gases, packaging, transport, etc.

Metal finishing Acids, alkalis, effluent containing toxic metals, energy use, fumes, VOCs, detergents, toxic metals, waste water, cakes or sludges contaminated with toxic metals, combustion gases from boilers, etc.

Offices Use of energy including air conditioning systems, hardwood furniture, paper use.

Timber Sustainability of raw materials, noise, dust, transport.

Environmental Hazards and Industrial Processes - how different industries can affect the environment.

Industries such as agriculture have potential impacts on the environment through the use of pesticides and fertilisers. The impacts from construction are also well-documented. The activities of the construction industry cause nuisance, in particular noise and dust. The use of raw materials on site can easily lead to contaminated water run-off causing the contamination of nearby water courses.

Asbestos was also used in common industrial activities such as domestic appliances, storage heaters, gas warm air heaters and in catalytic converters, as well as sprayed in applications or insulating boards in buildings, and as lagging for boilers and pipework and in the production of fire blankets, ropes, yarns and friction products. It can cause air pollution and - as a class 1 carcinogen - it is harmful to health. 25% of those who die from asbestos-related diseases each year are workers in the building trade. Health and safety disasters such as Bhopal and Chernobyl also caused harm to the environment, people and the food chain.

3.1 Direct Effects on the Health & Safety of People Outside the Workplace.

We have seen previously that health and safety and the environment share some strong correlations, and as such it makes sense for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Environment Agency to work together. This is so in the case in the Control of Major Accident and Hazards (Amendment) Regulations (COMAH) 2005.

The environment may be defined as the air, water and land and a hazard is 'harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form part and, in the case of man, includes offence caused to any of his senses or harm to his property'.

There are many different types of environmental hazard including fires and explosions, chemical spills, hazardous substances in land fill sites, low river flows, releases of harmful gases that do adversely affect the air, land and water that can also cause harm to people outside the workplace..

Hazardous Substances

The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) interprets substances hazardous to health as including:

Substances which under The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging) Regulations (CHIP 3) 2002 are in categories of very toxic, toxic, harmful, corrosive or irritant.

Under these regulations, employers are required to carry out a risk assessment (Regulation 6), Control exposure (Regulation 7), maintain control measures (regulation 9) and monitor exposure (regulation 10). However, people are not likely to be exposed to risks from hazardous substances necessarily in the workplace alone, but also outside of the workplace in the environment.

Hazardous substances can affect people outside of the workplace, for example with effluent outfalls from factories, refineries and waste treatment plants directly into watercourses and urban water supplies and the uncontrolled waste which could cause indirect pollution of the land or water.

On the next few pages are examples of environmental incidents which have brought about the introduction of further health and safety legislation to prevent their recurrence.

3.1.1 Minimata Bay Japan 1953-1960.

A severe environmental incident occurred in Minamata city in Kumamoto prefecture, Japan in 1956. It was caused by the release of methyl mercury in the industrial wastewater from the Chisso Corporation 's chemical factory, which continued from 1932 to 1968.

This highly toxic chemical bioaccumulated in shellfish and fish in Minamata Bay and the Shiranui Sea, which - when eaten by the local populace - resulted in mercury poisoning. As of March 2001, 2,265 victims had been officially recognised (1,784 of whom had died) and over 10,000 had received financial compensation from Chisso.

Lawsuits and claims for compensation continue to this day.

Minamata disease, sometimes referred to as Chisso-Minamata disease, is a neurological syndrome caused by severe mercury poisoning. Symptoms include

ataxia, numbness in the hands and feet, general muscle weakness, narrowing of the field of vision and damage to hearing and speech.

In extreme cases, insanity, paralysis, coma and death follow within weeks of the onset of symptoms. A congenital form of the disease can also affect foetuses in the womb.

3.1.2 Flixborough, England 1974.

On 1st June 1974, Flixborough was at the centre of the UK's worst industrial accident when the Nypro Works chemical plant was devastated by an explosion. Twenty-nine people died and more than 100 were injured with around 100 homes in the village itself being destroyed or badly damaged.

The chemical plant, owned by Nypro (UK) (a joint venture between Dutch State Mines and the British National Coal Board ), and in operation since 1967, produced caprolactam, a precursor chemical used in the manufacture of nylon. The process involved oxidation of cyclohexane with air in a series of six reactors to produce a mixture of cyclohexanol and cyclohexanone. Two months prior to the explosion, a crack was discovered in the number 5 reactor. It was decided to install a temporary 50 cm (20 inch) diameter pipe to bypass the leaking reactor to allow continued operation of the plant while repairs were made.

Residents of the village of Flixborough were not keen to have such a large industrial development so close to their homes and had expressed concern when the plant was first proposed. Their prescient concern was well-founded.

At 16:53 on Saturday 1st June 1974, the temporary bypass pipe (containing cyclohexane at 150 C (302F) and 1 M Pa ) ruptured, possibly as a result of a fire on a nearby 8 inch (20 cm) pipe which had been burning for nearly an hour. Within a minute, about 40 tons of the plant's 400 ton store of cyclohexane leaked from the pipe and formed a vapour cloud 100200 metres (320-650 feet) in diameter. The cloud, on coming in contact with an ignition source (probably a furnace at a nearby hydrogen production plant) exploded, completely destroying the plant. Around 1,800 buildings within a mile radius of the site were damaged.

The fuel-air explosion was estimated to be equivalent to 15 tons of TNT (60 gigajoules) and it killed all 18 employees in the nearby control room. Nine other site workers were killed, and a delivery driver died of a heart attack in his cab.

Observers have said that had the explosion occurred on a weekday, more than 500 plant employees would likely have been killed. Resulting fires raged in the area for over 10 days. It was Britain 's biggest ever peacetime explosion until the Buncefield Depot explosion in 2005.

Substantial destruction of property was recorded in Flixborough itself, as well as in the neighbouring villages of Burton-on-Stather and Amcotts. Significant structural damage affected Scunthorpe (eight miles away) and the blast was heard (and felt) twenty-five miles away in Grimsby.

Although the area was quite remote, graphic images of the disaster were soon shown on television due to a film crew who had been covering a Gala in Scunthorpe that afternoon.

The official inquiry into the accident determined that the bypass pipe had failed due to unforeseen lateral stresses during a pressure surge. The bypass had been designed by engineers who were not experienced in high-pressure pipework, no plans had been produced or calculations produced, the pipe was not pressure-tested, and was mounted on temporary scaffolding poles that allowed the pipe to twist under pressure. These shortcomings led to a widespread public outcry over industrial plant safety and significant tightening of the UK government's regulations covering hazardous industrial processes.

Despite protests from the local community the plant was re-built but due to a subsequent collapse in the price of nylon, it closed down a few years later. The site was demolished in 1981 although the administration block still remains. The site today is home to the Flixborough Industrial Estate, occupied by various businesses.

3.1.3 Seveso, Italy 1976.

Seveso made world headlines when, on July 10th, 1976, storage vessels at the ICMESA chemical plant ruptured, releasing several kilogrammes of the dioxin TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) into the atmosphere. Tens of thousands of farm animals and pets died or were later deliberately slaughtered, though it is believed that there was not a single human death directly attributable to the incident. The event came later to be known as the Seveso disaster, so named because Seveso was the community most affected.

The industrial plant was owned by the company ICMESA ( Industrie Chimiche Meda Societ ), a subsidiary of Givaudan which in turn was a subsidiary of Hoffmann-La Roche (Roche Group).

The factory building was many years old and the local population did not perceive it as a potential source of danger. Moreover, although several industrial accidents involving dioxins had occurred before, they were of a more limited scale.

The accident occurred as 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (TCP), a herbicide, was being produced from 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene by the nucleophilic aromatic substitution reaction with sodium hydroxide. It is thought that some 1,2,4,5-tetra chlorobenzene had formed a solid cake on the upper parts of the reaction vessel. As the temperature increased, this melted and entered the sodium hydroxide containing mixture. The addition of more 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene increased the rate of heat production. The 2,4,5-trichlorophenol was intended for use as an intermediate in the production of hexachlorophene, a medical disinfectant. An unintended byproduct of the manufacture of TCP is TCDD in trace amounts, measured in ppm (parts per million). Due to human error, an uncontrolled reaction (thermal runaway) occurred bursting the security disk of the chemical reactor and an aerosol cloud containing sodium hydroxide, ethylene glycol, sodium trichlorophenate, and somewhere between a few hundred grammes and up to a few kilogrammes of TCDD was released over

an 18 km area.

The affected area was split into zones A, B and R in decreasing order of surface soil concentrations of TCDD. Zone A was further split into 7 sub-zones. The local population was advised not to touch or eat locally-grown fruits or vegetables.

Zone A had a TCDD soil concentration of > 50 microgrammes per square metre (g/m). It had 736 residents.

Zone B had a TCDD soil concentration of between 5 and 50 g/m and about 4,700 residents.

Zone R had negligible or a TCDD soil concentration of < 5 g/m and 31,800 residents.

Within days, a total of 3,300 animals were found dead, mostly poultry and rabbits. Emergency slaughtering commenced to prevent TCDD from entering the food chain. By 1978, over 80,000 animals had been slaughtered. 15 children were quickly hospitalised with skin inflammation.

By the end of August, Zone A had been completely evacuated and fenced, 1,600 people of all ages had been examined and 447 were found to suffer from skin lesions or chloracne.

Industrial safety regulations were passed in the European Community in 1982; they were called the Seveso Directive and imposed much harsher industrial regulations. The Seveso Directive was updated in 1999, amended again in 2005 and is currently referred to as the Seveso II Directive (or COMAH Regulations in the United Kingdom).

3.1.4 Love Canal, Niagara, USA.

The roots of the disaster can be traced back to the 1920s when an old canal which had been dug to link the Upper and Lower Niagara rivers was turned into a municipal and industrial chemical dumpsite.

In 1942, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum) expanded use of the site, and, by 1947, acquired the land for its own private use. In the subsequent five year period, the company buried about 22,000 tons of toxic waste in the area. Once the site had been filled to capacity in 1952, Hooker closed the site to further disposal, back-filled the canal and covered it over with 4 feet of impermeable clay. The local authorities, desperate for land, made several attempts to buy the old canal site; Hooker at first refused, citing the presence of toxic waste but eventually gave in and sold it for one dollar, with a seventeen-page caveat detailing the nature of the site.

During the 1950s and 1960s, about 100 homes and a school were built at the site. Continued construction work disturbed the ground, including the clay seal laid down by Hooker. The building of a highway restricted the run-off of rainwater to the Niagra river, causing more potential for pooling.

In early 1977, heavy winter and spring rains caused pools of oily and coloured water in yards and gardens in the area. Surveys in 1978 revealed that 82 different compounds, 11 of them suspected carcinogens had been percolating upward through the soil, their drum containers rotting and leaching their contents into the backyards and basements of homes and a public school. It was estimated that of the children born in the area during the 1974-1978 period, 56% had some kind of birth defect.

The local residents had a long fight on their hands, as neither Occidental nor local government seemed particularly interested in investigating the reports. By 1978, Love Canal had attracted the attetnion of the national media.

On August 7th, 1978, President Jimmy Carter announced a federal health emergency, called for the allocation of federal funds and ordered the Federal Disaster Assistance Agency to assist the City of Niagara Falls to remedy the Love Canal site. This was the first time in American history that emergency funds were used other than for a natural disaster. Carter had trenches built that would transport the wastes to sewers and had home sump pumps sealed off.

At first, scientific studies did not conclusively prove that the chemicals were responsible for the residents' illnesses, and scientists were divided on the issue, even though eleven known or suspected carcinogens had been identified, one of the most prevalent being benzene. There was also dioxin (polychlorinated dibenzodioxins) in the water, a very hazardous substance. Dioxin pollution is usually measured in parts per trillion; at Love Canal, water samples showed dioxin levels of 53 parts per billion.

In 1979, the Environmental Protection Agency announced the result of blood tests that showed high white blood cell counts, a precursor to leukemia, and chromosome damage in Love Canal residents. In fact, 33 percent of the residents had undergone chromosomal damage, while in a normal population, this should be at 1 percent. Other studies were unable to find harm.

Eventually, the government relocated more than 800 families and reimbursed them for their homes, and the United States Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or the Superfund Act, that holds polluters accountable for their damages. In 1994, a judge ruled that Hooker/Occidental had been negligent, but not reckless, in its handling of the waste and sale of the land. Occidental Petroleum was sued by the EPA and in 1995 agreed to pay $129 million in restitution. Residents' lawsuits were also settled in the following years.

3.1.5 Bhopal, India 1984.

The Bhopal Disaster took place in the early hours of the morning of December 3rd, 1984,in the heart of the city of Bhopal, India, in the state of Madhya Pradesh.

It was caused by the release of 40 tons of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas from a Union Carbide India Limited pesticide plant owned by Union Carbide. The International Medical Commission on Bhopal was established in 1993 to respond to the disaster.

The BBC gives the death toll as nearly 3,000 people dead initially, and at least 15,000 from related illnesses since. Greenpeace cites 20,000 total deaths as its conservative estimate. Bhopal is frequently cited as the world's worst industrial disaster.

The Union Carbide plant was established in 1969 and had expanded to produce carbaryl in 1979; MIC is an intermediate in carbaryl manufacture.

In November 1984, most of the safety systems were not functioning. Many valves and lines were in poor condition. Tank 610 contained 42 tons of MIC, much more than safety rules allowed. During the nights of 2nd3rd December, a large amount of water entered tank 610. A runaway reaction started, which was accelerated by contaminants, high temperatures and other factors. The reaction generated a major increase in the temperature inside the tank to over 200 C (400 F). This forced the emergency venting of pressure from the MIC holding

tank, releasing a large volume of toxic gases.

The reaction was sped up by the presence of iron from corroding non-stainless steel pipelines. It is known that workers cleaned pipelines with water. They were not told by the supervisor to add a slip-blind water isolation plate. Because of this, and the bad maintenance, the workers consider it possible for water to have accidentally entered the MIC tank. UCC maintains that a "disgruntled worker" deliberately connected a hose to a pressure gauge.

The timeline of the disaster was as follows:

At the plant

21:00 Water cleaning of pipes starts. 22:00 Water enters tank 610, reaction starts. 22:30 Gases are emitted from the vent gas scrubber tower. 00:30 The large siren sounds and is turned off. 00:50 The siren is heard within the plant area. The workers escape.

Outside

22:30 First sensations due to the gases are felt - suffocation, cough, burning eyes and vomiting. 1:00 Police are alerted. Residents of the area evacuate. Union Carbide director denies any leak. 2:00 The first people reached Hamidia Hospital. Symptoms include visual impairment and blindness, respiratory difficulties, frothing at the mouth, and vomiting. 2:10 The alarm is heard outside the plant. 4:00 The gases are brought under control. 7:00 A police loudspeaker broadcasts: "Everything is normal".

Charges

On 7th June 2010 seven former employees of the Union Carbide subsidiary, all Indian nationals and many in their 70s, were convicted of causing death by negligence and each sentenced to two years imprisonment and fined. All were released on bail shortly after the verdict. The CEO of Union Carbide, Warren Anderson absconded India whilst on bail and fled to the US. He has never faced justice for his part in the incident.

3.1.6 Chernobyl Ukraine 1986.

The Chernobyl disaster was a major accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant on April 26th, 1986 at 01:23 am, consisting of an explosion at the plant and subsequent radioactive contamination of the surrounding geographic area. The power plant is located near Pripyat, Ukraine (which, at the time of the disaster was in the Soviet Union.)

It is regarded as the worst accident ever in the history of nuclear power. A plume of radioactive fallout drifted over parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern and Western Europe, Scandinavia, the UK, Ireland and eastern North America. Large areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were badly contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people.

About 60% of the radioactive fallout landed in Belarus, according to official post-Soviet data.

The accident raised concerns about the safety of the Soviet nuclear power industry, slowing its expansion for a number of years, while forcing the Soviet government to become less secretive. The now-independent countries of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus have been burdened with the continuing and substantial decontamination and health care costs of the Chernobyl accident. It is difficult to tally accurately the number of deaths caused by the events at Chernobyl, as the Soviet-era cover-up made it difficult to track down victims.

Lists were incomplete, and Soviet authorities later forbade doctors to cite "radiation" on death certificates. Most of the expected long-term fatalities, especially those from cancer, have not yet actually occurred, and will be difficult or even impossible to attribute specifically to the accident.

However, estimates and figures vary widely. The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that as many as 9,000 people among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed may die from some form of cancer (one of the induced diseases). Nearly 20 years after the disaster, according to the Chernobyl Forum, no evidence of increases in the solid cancers and, possibly more significantly, none of the widely expected increases in leukaemia have been found in the population.

http://www.chnpp.gov.ua/eng/articles.php?lng=en&pg=28

3.1.7 Camelford, Cornwall 1988.

A contamination incident occurred in Camelford, a small town of about 2,500 people, situated in Cornwall. The incident occurred in July 1988 when a contractor dumped 20 tons of aluminium sulphate into the wrong tank at the Lowermoor treatment plant operated by South West Water. The plant was an unmanned installation and the contractor was a relief driver, unfamiliar with the plant layout and delivery procedures.

The resultant acidic water entered the supply directly, causing public complaints about the taste, skin irritation and corrosive effects on plumbing and fixtures. However, the cause of the problem was not determined for two days. The public were assured by a spokesman for the water authority that the water, while tasting slightly acidic, was safe to drink.

Consumers were exposed for up to three days to water with pH as low as 3.9 to 5.0. An aluminium content of up to 620 milligrammes per litre and a sulphate concentration of up to 4,500 milligrammes per litre were recorded in the water supply. Once the cause of the problem was determined, a programme of flushing reduced levels rapidly to 1 milligramme per litre.

Over the following months, more than 400 of the town's residents complained of a range of symptoms including skin rashes, arthritic pains, sore throats, loss of memory and general exhaustion. These complaints were investigated by health authorities and the government appointed the Lowermoor Incident Health Advisory Group to report on the health effects of the incident. In two reports delivered in 1989 and 1991, the Advisory Group concluded that there was no convincing evidence that harmful accumulation of aluminium had occurred, nor that there was a greater prevalence of ill-health due to the toxic effects of the contaminated water. The report also stated that the Advisory Group recognised that the incident and subsequent events had led to real suffering in the community, but attributed this to anxiety rather than direct health effects; a conclusion which angered many residents.

There were suspicions at the time that the full truth about the incident was being supressed

to avoid derailing the government's planned sell-off of the water industry.

Since the incident, over 700 claims for damages have been paid with individual amounts ranging as high as 10,000. The South West Water Authority was prosecuted for causing a public nuisance, fined 10,000 and ordered to pay 25,000 in costs.

A new group was set up in 2001 to conduct a full inquiry into the incident, and in January 2005, the Lowermoor Sub-group (LSG) published the draft report into the incident. It concluded that it was unlikely that the chemicals involved in the incident would have caused any delayed or persistent health effects.

The Subgroup noted that many individuals locally were concerned and distressed about the possible health consequences of the incident. No conclusive link was found between the incident and the chronic symptoms and diseases reported to the Subgroup. However, the available information led the Subgroup to recommend further work on the following long term health effects:

Effect of contaminants on neurological health. This is due to problems with design of previous studies.

Effects on the development of those under 1 year old at the time of the incident. The incidence of diseased joints in the affected area.

The Subgroup was chaired by Professor Frank Woods and included experts in toxicology, epidemiology, and child health as well as representatives of the local community. In addition to reviewing scientific research, the Subgroup heard evidence throughout its period of work from people who considered their health to be affected by the incident, as well as local GPs and other relevant professionals.

3.1.8 BP and the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.

The BP Deepwater Horizon was a 9-year-old semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling unit, a massive floating, dynamically positioned drilling rig that could operate in waters up to 8,000 feet (2,400 m) deep and drill down to 30,000 feet (9,100 m). During March and early April 2010, several platform workers and supervisors expressed concerns with well control. At approximately 9:45 p.m. CDT on April 20th, 2010, methane gas from the well, under high pressure, shot all the way up and out of the drill column, expanded onto the platform, and then ignited and exploded. Fire then engulfed the platform. Most of the workers were evacuated by lifeboats or were airlifted out by helicopter, but eleven workers were never found despite a three-day Coast Guard search operation, and are presumed to have died in the explosion. Efforts by multiple ships to douse the flames were unsuccessful. After burning for approximately 36 hours, the Deepwater Horizon sank on the morning of April 22nd, 2010. On the afternoon of April 22nd, a large oil slick began to spread at the former rig site. Two remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROVs) unsuccessfully attempted to cap the well. On April 24th, the US Coast Guard announced that a damaged wellhead was indeed leaking oil into the Gulf and described it as "a very serious spill". BP has not given a cause for the explosion. According to the US Congressional investigation, the rig's blowout preventer, a fail-safe device fitted at the base of the well had a hydraulic leak and a failed battery, and therefore failed. Volume and extent of oil spill According to the Flow Rate Technical Group, the leak amounted about 4.9 million barrels of

oil, exceeding the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest ever to originate in U.S. waters and the 1979 Ixtoc I oil spill as the largest spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Spill flow rate After the explosion, BP and the United States Coast Guard initially estimated that the wellhead was leaking only 1,000 barrels per day. This was a massive underestimate. Outside scientists quickly produced higher figures. Official estimates increased as follows:

1,000 to 5,000 barrels per day on April 29th. 12,000 to 19,000 barrels per day on May 27th. 25,000 to 30,000 barrels per day on June 10th. 35,000 to 60,000 barrels on June 15th.

Internal BP documents, released by Congress, estimate the flow could be as much as 100,000 barrels if the blowout preventer and wellhead were removed and if restrictions were incorrectly modeled. Spill area and thickness The oil's spread was initially increased by strong southerly winds caused by an impending cold front. By April 25th, the oil spill covered 580 square miles (1,500 km2) and was only 31 miles (50 km) from the ecologically sensitive Chandeleur Islands. An April 30th estimate placed the total spread of the oil at 3,850 square miles (10,000 km2). The spill quickly approached the Delta National Wildlife Refuge and Breton National Wildlife Refuge. Oil sightings Oil began washing up on the beaches of Gulf Islands National Seashore on June 1st. By June 4th, the oil spill had landed on 125 miles (201 km) of Louisiana's coast, had washed up along Mississippi and Alabama barrier islands, and was found for the first time on a Florida barrier island at Pensacola Beach. Capping of the wellhead The wellhead was capped on July 15th and by July 30th the oil appeared to have dissipated more rapidly than expected. Scientists believe the rapid dissipation of the surface oil may have been due to a combination of factors that included the natural capacity of the region to break down oil (petroleum normally leaks from the ocean floor by way of thousands of natural seeps and certain bacteria are able to consume it.); winds from storms appeared to have aided in rapidly dispersing the oil, and the clean-up response by BP and the government helped control surface slicks. As much as 40% of the oil may have simply evaporated at the ocean surface, and an unknown amount remains below the surface. The Deepwater Horizon spill is the second-largest in history. The dubious honour of being the largest belongs to the Lakeview Gusher in Kern County, California in 1910 which lasted eighteen months and released an estimated nine million barrels of crude oil.

4.0 Definitions Ecotoxic and Ecotoxins.

Ecotoxic - this term is applied to substances or waste which, if released into the environment, may present immediate or delayed adverse impacts to the environment.

The Ecotoxic label specifically recognises substances that are harmful to the environment, although in practice, most substances which are labelled toxic, harmful, corrosive, etc. are also capable of doing harm to the environment if they are released in an uncontrolled

manner.

Ecotoxins - these are hazardous by means of bioaccumulation and/or their toxic effects upon biotic systems; they can accumulate in the tissues of animals or plants to a concentration higher than the surrounding environment and have toxic effects when absorbed by a living organism.

CHIP refers to the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009. These are sometimes also known as CHIP4. CHIP is the law that applies to suppliers of dangerous chemicals. Its purpose is to protect people and the environment from the effects of those chemicals by requiring suppliers to provide information about the dangers and to package them safely. CHIP requires of the suppliers of a dangerous chemical to identify the hazards of the chemical (classification), give information about the hazard to their customers and package the chemical safely.

Harmful to the environment

4.1 Risk Phrases.

R50 Very Toxic to aquatic organisms

R50/R53 Very toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment

R51 Toxic to aquatic organisms

R51/R53 Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment

R52 Harmful to aquatic organisms

R52/R53 Harmful to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment

R53 May cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment

R54 Toxic to flora

R55 Toxic to fauna

R56 Toxic to soil organisms

R57 Toxic to bees

R58 May cause long-term adverse effects in the environment

R59 Dangerous for the ozone layer

4.2 Incidents Causing Harm to the Environment.

Basel, Switzerland 1986

In November 1986, a chemical warehouse accident occurred at the Sandoz facility. The warehouse was built in 1967. It was part of a large Sandoz chemical complex in Schweizerhalle, a small community six miles east of Basel on the Rhine's left bank. Because the fire was not discovered until it was already large and being fed by a warehouse full of

highly flammable chemicals, it was accepted from the start that the warehouse would be a total loss. Attention was focussed on stopping exposure as barrels of flammable chemicals were hurtling through the air. The fire fighting was defensive to begin with and massive amounts of water were used to stop the spread of the fire.

The fire water volume applied has been estimated to be of the order of 20,000m3. The fire resulted in substantial releases of chemicals, which - when combined with fire water - drained into the nearby water course. Thirty tons of toxic material washed into the Rhine River along with the water used to fight the warehouse blaze.

By the time the chemicals, mostly pesticides, had travelled 500 miles down river, half a million fish were dead, several municipal water supplies were contaminated and the Rhine's ecosystem was badly damaged with virtually all marine life and a large proportion of micro-organisms wiped out.

The chemical slick, now approximately 25 miles long, drifted slowly downstream from the Swiss border to the North Sea. It contained about 30 tons of insecticides, herbicides, and mercury-containing pesticides and threatened the North Sea's Winter Cod Harvest.

Not only were there significant challenges in fire-fighting tactics emergency response management and crises communications with the two nearby countries (France and Germany), there were also the challenges of air and water pollution in a densely-populated area.

4.2.1 Allied Colloids Site, Bradford, England 1992.

The seat of the fire was located in a raw materials warehouse at the Allied Colloids site in Low Moor, Bradford. The warehouse itself had two rooms allocated for the storage of oxidising and flammable products known as No.1 and No. 2 oxystores. No. 2 oxystore had steam heating as it was originally designed to store frost-sensitive products.

On the morning of the incident, steam-heated blowers in the warehouse had been turned on to dry out moisture. It is thought that a steam condensate line was responsible for heating a number of AZDN kegs, which were stored at height in the No. 2 oxystore. The heating effect caused two or three of the AZDN kegs to rupture and spill white powder all over the floor. A passing employee thought that the powder was smoke and raised the alarm. It was determined that no immediate hazard was present and the AZDN data sheet was referred to before a clean-up plan was devised. While waiting for confirmation from the appropriate vacuum cleaner manufacturer, an employee noticed a plume of smoke/vapour and a hissing noise coming from a bag of SPS that was located underneath the AZDN kegs. Before the employee could douse the SPS with water, the vapour plume ignited and became a jet flame of about 300 mm in length. Within a few seconds, the jet flame became a flash fire which was transmitted all around the room.

It was determined later that the AZDN powder probably mixed with unintended spills of SPS and other oxidising products. AZDN in contact with SPS is likely to have been ignited by an impact, possibly from a lid and associated metal ring closure from one of the damaged AZDN kegs falling onto a bag or the floor.

The fire spread throughout the warehouse and smoke was blown towards nearby motorways. The fire was contained that day and the fire brigade was not stood down until 18 days later due to risk of re-ignition during clean-up. Considerable environmental damage to the Aire and Calder rivers resulted from the firewater run off.

4.2.2 Milford Haven, Wales 1995.

On the morning of Thursday 15th February 1995, Texaco informed the Millford Haven Port Authority that there was a berth available at its docks and that the Sea Empress supertanker carrying crude oil should be allowed to proceed to port. A pilot was sent out alongside the tanker, and one hour and 20 minutes before low tide, the ship began steaming towards the Haven. On that same evening, the Sea Empress ran aground at St Anns Head in the entrance to the Milford Haven waterway.

Milford Haven lies within the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, and the main spill area affected 35 sites of special scientific interest, two national nature reserves (at Stackpole and Skomer), and one of the UK's three marine nature reserves (Skomer).

Over the next seven days, approximately 72,000 tons of light crude oil were released, mainly at low tide, and 480 tons of heavy fuel oil escaped whilst the vessel was being re-floated and towed to a jetty within the waterway.

Despite a rapid clean-up response at sea, oil came ashore along 200km of coastline in an area of international importance for wildlife and natural beauty. The worst affected areas were Milford Haven and the south coast of Pembrokeshire, towards the beaches of Carmarthen Bay, Tenby and Pendine.

The total cost of the accident is estimated at 45 million for the clean-up and salvage operations, 90 million in economic costs, and 29 million in environmental impacts. Included in the casualty list were fish - whose eggs and larvae are extremely sensitive to oil pollution - and 25 different species of birds. At least half the population of migrant Scoter Ducks was killed, as were thousands of Guillemots, Cormorants, Oyster Catchers, Gulls, Shags and Red Throated Divers. A conservative estimate is that up to 20,000 birds died either from drowning, hypothermia or swallowing toxic oil whilst preening.

A report by Friends of the Earth found that "the massive kill of marine animals will cause long-term ecological changes, including a change in species diversity and species and population numbers."

The Marine Pollution Control unit estimated, in its report on the accident (1997), that less than 5,000 tons of oil came ashore, and the main amenity beaches were cleared by Easter. The clean-up operation was a close collaboration between central government, local authorities, public bodies, private companies and voluntary organisations.

4.2.3 Aznacllar Mine, Spain 1998.

In 1995 two workers at the Aznacllar Mine alerted authorities to the condition of the mines dam and the possibility that the Guadiamar river could become contaminated if the dam collapsed. However the Swedish-Candadian mine owners, Boliden Apirsa, responded to this by saying that the dam was safe.

The dam did collapse over two years later on the 25th of April 1998. The dam contained stagnant, toxic waste water from the Aznacllar Mine. Five million cubic metres of heavy-metal laden water broke free and flowed into the Guadiamar river, directly polluting more than 4,400 hectares of land and wiping out almost all life in the river.

Doana National Park , a UN World Heritage Area and home to six million migratory birds as well as the habitat for rare species such as lynx, otters and imperial eagles was situated close to the mine and this caused anxiety over the severity of the toxic overflow.

The wetland areas were not polluted although a huge area of land was contaminated,

endangering humans and wildlife. Work to eliminate the toxic sediments continued many years later. Experts designated by Spains Higher Council of Scientic Investigation have studied the river. Results show that the severe metal and arsenic contamination of the Gaudiamar Rivers mud and sediments has diminished and the fish are just recovering. However, the metal concentrations in aquatic organisms remains above normal and some invertebrate species still show severe concentrations of heavy metals and a high degree of toxicity.

Question 4.

The Chemicals (Hazard Information & Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002 (CHIP) requires the supplier of a dangerous chemical to.....

Multiple Choice (HP)

Answer 1: Package chemicals safely

Response 1:

Jump 1: This page

Answer 2: Give information about the hazard to the customers

Response 2:

Jump 2: This page

Answer 3: Identify the hazards of the chemicals

Response 3:

Jump 3: This page

Answer 4: All of the above

Response 4:

Jump 4: Next page

5.0. Fire and Explosion.

Fires and explosions can cause harm to people on- and off-site, and to the environment. They have the potential to cause widespread pollution as pollutants will be dispersed over large areas. It is for this reason that industrial plants using large volumes of substances, where fire and explosion are a particular risk, are subject to the Control of Major Accident Hazards (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (COMAH). Such operations are also required to specifically assess the likelihood, consequences and risk reduction measures associated with a Major Accident To The Environment (MATTE).

It is not the purpose of this course to describe the mechanisms used in the chemical industry to assess the risks associated with chemical processes methods such as HAZOPs, HAZANs and FMEAs have already been covered in other health and safety training courses. However, these techniques will be used to determine potential for failures which could lead to fire and explosions and will also identify and demonstrate potential hazards to the environment.

5.1 Fire.

Fire or uncontrolled combustion can pose a substantial threat to the environment because:

Chemicals can be released into the air which disperse over many tens of square miles at concentrations above the background; dispersion effects may be felt several hundred metres beyond the accident location.

New chemicals can be created as part of the oxidation and pyrolytic process (the products of combustion can vary during the course of the fire).

Firewater can disperse pollutants to water. It can also pollute groundwater. Extinguishing media are often themselves capable of causing environmental

damage. A fire may release other substances (such as asbestos) from the building structure.

As well as the long distance dispersion of pollutants, there may be local deposition at high concentrations and fires can also cause flows of released materials, resembling a spill.

5.2 Explosion.

Explosions can pose a risk to the environment because large amounts of substances will be released suddenly. They can also initiate either a fire or a spill. Explosions that cause large quantities of toxic materials to be released into the air can cause considerable damage to sensitive sites, vegetation or birds. Explosions which lead to a release of a cloud of material could pose a considerable threat under stable atmospheric conditions, as the cloud could travel a large distance before dispersing.

The material released will depend on the type of industry, but could include gases, vapours, chemicals and inert substances, which are thrown out as a result of the event. The COMAH Regulations cover certain requirements in respect of major accidents and require among other things, the preparation of a Site Safety Report.

Such a report will cover:

major hazards arising from the consequences of potential accidents, especially to the possible extent and severity of an accident;

maps showing land use and the location of sensitive parts of the environment; description of the environment and surroundings of the establishment; the ecotoxicology of substances that might be released in an accident; protection and intervention methods designed to limit the consequences of accidents; provisions made to mitigate post-accident impacts and aid the recovery of the

environment; a review when circumstances, including environmental ones, change in important

ways.

There is also a requirement within COMAH to assess the effects of potential Major Accidents To The Environment (MATTE), which could occur as a result of an explosion involving certain dangerous substances.

An explosion could also cause the release of a non-hazardous substance, for example by rupturing a pipeline or causing the collapse of a drain, which could have devastating effects on a sensitive environment or a watercourse.

Radiation may be released as a result of a fire or explosion. It poses some unique hazards to the environment and to people outside the workplace.

6.0 Radiation.

Radiation is a form of energy and the types of radiation are labelled according to the amount of energy they have. Some of these forms of energy are transmitted by waves called electromagnetic waves or particles emitted by radioactive materials which are known as alpha particles, beta particles, electrons, positrons, protons and neutrons.

Electromagnetic spectrum

Radiation can be arranged according to its frequency or wavelength:

Wavelength is the distance between wave peaks.

Frequency is the number of wave peaks in a given point in one second.

6.1 Ionising and Non-ionising Radiation.

Gamma rays and X-rays to the left of the electromagnetic spectrum above contain the greatest energy. They can remove the electron from the atom as they are so powerful, and we call this ionisation. These rays are known as ionising radiation.

Radiowaves to the right of the electromagnetic spectrum above do not contain enough energy to ionise; these are known as non-ionising radiation.

6.2 Ionising Radiation.

Ionising radiation is produced by unstable atoms which differ from stable atoms. These unstable atoms are said to be radioactive.

Ionising radiation occurs as either electromagnetic rays (such as X-rays and gamma rays) or particles (such as alpha and beta particles). It occurs naturally (e.g. from the radioactive decay of natural radioactive substances such as radon gas and its decay products) and it can also be produced artificially or emissions of radon gas and radiation can occur as a result of fire or explosion. Everyone receives some exposure to natural background radiation. Ionising radiation is used in medicine (for diagnosis and treatment), industry (for

measurement and other purposes as well as for producing electricity), research and teaching.

6.3 Types of Ionising Radiation.

Types of ionising radiation include:

Alpha Particles

They are swiftly-moving nuclei of helium atoms and carry positive charges. They have very little power of penetration and can easily be stopped by a sheet of paper or the outer layer of the skin, depending upon the thickness of the skin and the energy of the alpha particle. Ingestion of alpha particles or inhalation can cause damage.

Beta Particles

They are high-speed electrons and are smaller in mass and more penetrating than alpha particles. A sheet of aluminium a few millimetres thick, Perspex or glass can stop beta particles.

Neutrons

They are one of the constituents of the nucleus and do not carry any electric charge. Hydrogen-rich materials, such as water or paraffin can shield against these particles more effectively. Neutrons are emitted during nuclear fission and have greater penetrating power. Thick shielding with substantial layers of concrete or water are required to prevent risks to health.

Gamma rays

They are high-energy electromagnetic waves and can pass right through the body. Dense materials such as steel, lead or concrete can absorb these rays more effectively. Gamma rays are also emitted naturally in rocks and soils.

X-rays

They are very similar in their effects to gamma rays.

6.4 Non-ionising Radiation.

Non-ionising electromagnetic radiation (NIEMR) is the term used to describe the part of the electromagnetic spectrum covering two main regions, namely optical radiation (ultraviolet (UV), visible and infrared) and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) (power frequencies, microwaves and radiofrequencies).

Some common sources of Optical Radiation are the sun, sunbeds and lasers, while some typical sources of EMFs are generated by electrical supply equipment and telecommunications systems.

6.5 Sources of Radiation.

The following list indicates the sources of radiation present in the UK :

Naturally-occurring radioactive gases - radon and thorium - which come up from substrata and accumulate in buildings. The levels of these gases can vary across different parts of the country, according to the nature of the underlying rocks.

Gamma rays emitted from naturally-occurring radioactive materials in rocks and soils. The amount of this source present will also vary across different parts of the country and tends to be highest in granite areas, e.g. Cornwall.

Internal sources, i.e. from naturally-occurring radioactivity in food and drink. Certain foods contain higher levels of radioactivity than others.

Cosmic rays from the sun and from outer space. The radiation dose received from this source will be higher the nearer one is to the poles, the higher one is above sea level, the more time one spends in aircraft and the more time one spends outdoors.

Medical services, e.g. diagnostic X-rays and radiotherapy. The amount of radiation a person receives from this source will obviously depend upon how frequently in the course of a lifetime they are subjected to services of this kind.

Fallout from weapons tests, from waste from the nuclear industry and from nuclear accidents.

Occupational sources, i.e. industrial and medical uses. Miscellaneous, e.g. from ionisation chamber smoke detectors, luminous watches,

television sets, etc.

Sealed and Unsealed Sources

When radionuclides are employed, they are generally contained in such a way as to prevent contamination of those handling them or of adjacent surfaces, breathing zones, etc. Such a contained source is referred to as a sealed source of radiation. This term has been used historically for electrical devices producing radiation, but they are now more correctly referred to as radiation generators. A sealed source, though not a contamination hazard, may still be dangerous because of the emission of penetrating radiation. When containment of a radionuclide is not possible or desirable, it is referred to as an unsealed source of radiation.

6.6 Hazards to People from Radiation.

When radiation interacts with the electrons in surrounding molecules, it can produce changes in those molecules by ionisation. This process can cause a change in the physical structure of DNA (the basic material which controls the functions of the cells that make up the human body). This can cause adverse chemical reactions which could lead to the destruction of the cell or the production of poison within it. This may then lead to biological effects such as abnormal cell development, which may not be seen for some time after the exposure to radiation.

The penetrating power of radiation and the hazards thus presented to humans will depend upon the type of radiation emitted by the radioactive material.

Question 5.

Examples of non-ionising radiation include....

Multiple Choice (HP)

Answer 1: Electromagnetic rays (X-rays and Gamma rays) or particles such as Alpha & Beta.

Response 1:

Jump 1: This page

Answer 2: Optical radiation (Ultra violet & Infrared) and Electromagnetic fields

Response 2:

Jump 2: Next page

7.0 Indirect Effects on the Health & Safety of People Outside the Workplace.

The environmental media are inter-related and an understanding of this interrelationship is fundamental in appreciating the effects of health and safety of people outside the workplace. Changes to the environment - either natural or caused by man - can have impacts on the flora, fauna and human health.

Global, Regional and Local Pollution Effects

In order to understand the global, regional and location pollution effects, it is important that we understand the ecosystem and earth's natural cycles. Here we will outline these main principles.

Deforestation for example, is one human activity that can impose far-reaching effects on an ecosystem. This occurs when the worlds forests are destroyed. This is done to clear land to meet growing human needs such as grazing animals and growing crops, but also for commercial logging purposes. As the human population grows, we need more fuel, water and food and this is when ecosystems can be damaged.

We have seen that the environment can extend from the workplace to the global environment (ISO 14001). Some environmental impacts may be observed locally, whilst some spread as far as the global environment. Now consider as an example, two very different air emissions: a nuisance dust and a solvent emission. The former may be confined to being a local problem, whereas the latter has the potential to affect the global system (although it does not follow that the solvent emissions from one particular factory can do this on their own).

7.1 Food and Drinking Water Safety.

Water is essential for all life on earth. Humans can survive for weeks without food, but only days without water. The water we drink in the UK comes from the surface waters and ground water. Ground water is water located beneath the surface in soil pore spaces and in the fractures of geological formations. A formation of rock or soil is called an aquifier when it can yield a quantity of water. The water table is the depth at which soil pore spaces become fully saturated with water. Both surface and ground water are vulnerable to pollution.

The Government has set legal standards for drinking water in the Water Quality Regulations and their subsequent amendments. Most of these standards come directly from a European law and are based on World Health Organisation guidelines. The Water Industry Act 1991 sets out specific requirements to ensure that water companies supply water of potable quality.

The term 'potable' refers to water of sufficient quality to serve as drinking water, whether it is used as such or not.

Many fresh water sources are utilised by humans; some contain disease vectors or pathogens and cause long-term health problems if they do not meet certain water quality guidelines. The UK has additional standards to safeguard the already high quality of water in England and Wales. The standards are strict and generally include wide safety margins. The standards cover the way water looks and how it tastes, metals such as lead, chemicals such as nitrate and pesticides and bacteria.

Drinking water quality in England and Wales is regulated by the government through the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI). It is responsible for assessing the quality of drinking water, taking enforcement action if standards are not being met, and appropriate action when water is unfit for human consumption. The inspectorate was set up in 1990 after the

water industry was privatised to operate an independent body with staff experienced in all aspects of the water supply. Their main job is to check that water companies in England and Wales supply water that is safe to drink and meets the standards set in the Water Quality Regulations.

Inspectors carry out technical audits of each water company. The two main parts include inspections of the individual companies and an annual assessment of the quality of drinking water supplied by the companies. Inspections are also carried out to ensure results are reliable. In an inspection, there are various checks that are made. These include checks:

to ensure that consumers receive sound advice and help with queries and concerns; that the right number of checks are carried out; that samples are tested by trained staff using accurate methods; that procedures used in sampling are satisfactory; that consumers receive sound advice and help with queries and concerns; that correct results are entered in the public record; that sampling procedures are satisfactory; that treatment processes and the water distribution system are operated and

maintained with safety in mind.

Section 70 of the Water Industry Act 1991 makes it a criminal offence for a water company to supply water which is unfit for human consumption. The Inspectorate can bring prosecutions in the names of either the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the National Assembly for Wales.

The Inspectorate will bring prosecutions

if it believes that it has evidence that water unfit for human consumption was supplied;

if it believes that the company does not have a defence that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence and

if such a prosecution is regarded as being in the public interest.

OFWAT stands for The Water Services Regulation Authority and is the economic regulator of the water and sewerage industry in England and Wales. OFWAT works independently of the government but works closely with the following;

the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Assembly Government;

the Consumer Council for Water (CCWater), which is an independent organisation that represents customers' interests;

the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which sets standards for the quality of drinking water;

the Environment Agency, which regulates and enforces water abstraction consents and quality standards in inland, estuarial and coastal waters; and

Natural England and the Countryside Council for Wales , on environmental issues.

OFWAT can

set price limits on what companies can charge their customers, ensuring companies are able to carry out their responsibilities under the Water Industry Act 1991 as updated by section 39 of the Water Act 2003;

protecting the standard of service;

encouraging companies to be more efficient; meeting the principles of sustainable development; and helping to encourage competition where appropriate.

For more information click on http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/

Food Safety

The Food Safety Act 1990 is the principal piece of legislation dealing with food safety and defines food to include drink, articles and substances of no nutritional value which are used for human consumption, chewing gum and other products of a like nature and use and articles and substances used as ingredients in the preparation of food.

The main provisions of the act make it an offence to render food injurious to health, and of selling or possessing for sale food that does not comply with food safety requirements. This is food which is unfit for human consumption or is so contaminated that it would not be reasonable to expect it to be used for human consumption. The Act gives ministers powers to make emergency control orders prohibiting commercial operations in relation to food, food sources or contact materials when there is an imminent risk of such food causing such injury to health.

The Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA) addresses problems associated with pesticides and pollutants that can reach the food chain. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (and in Wales, the National Assembly) has a statutory duty to control the deposit of articles or materials in the sea/tidal waters; the primary objectives being to protect the marine ecosystem and human health, and minimising interference and nuisance to others. This duty is exercised under powers conferred by the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 Part II (FEPA), which require that a licence be obtained from the licensing authority to deposit any articles or substances in the sea or under the seabed. This includes the burial of human remains at sea.

7.2 Pesticides.

What are pesticides?

Definition: a pesticide is any substance, preparation or organism prepared or used, among other uses, to protect plants or wood or other plant products from harmful organisms; to regulate the growth of plants; to give protection against harmful creatures; or to render such creatures harmless. (Food And Environment Protection Act 1995 (FEPA)).

Pesticides are chemical or biological substances that are used to kill or control pests that harm our food, health or environment. They are particularly used in food production because pests can have devastating effects on the quantity and quality of crops. Pests include rodents, insects, fungi and plants. Plant growth regulators, which are used to influence particular growth processes in plants (for example, slowing down the growth of sprouts on potatoes) are also regulated as pesticides.

Pesticides are used mainly in agriculture to keep crops healthy and prevent them being wasted by disease and infestation. Pesticide residues are the small amounts of pesticides that can remain in a crop after harvesting or storage and so can make their way into the food chain. The Pesticides (maximum residue levels in crops, food and feeding stuffs) ( England and Wales Regulations) 1999 are the principal Regulations in a series establishing a regime for setting and controlling pesticides residues in crops, food and feeding stuffs.

The Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD)

PSD is an organisation established by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to assist him in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by and under Part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA) and EU Directives, in relation to controls over pes