Agenda item

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submitted a presentation to give the Commission an oversight of Textile Manufacturing and Dye Works in Leicester.

The Head of Regulatory, Neighbourhood and Environmental Services presented the item.

It was noted that:

• Currently there were five Dye Works in Leicester City, of which two were Environment Agency regulated.
• The size and scale of the activity was the deciding factor in whether the regulations were monitored by the Local Authority or Environment Agency. 
• The cleaning process at the factories involved the use of heat and solvents which gave rise to odour emission. The solvents had a low odour threshold, which could give rise to complaints.
• The Local Authority is bound by the Environmental Protection Act 1990.  responsible to investigate any complaints in relation to statutory nuisance and has the power to serve an abatement notice.
• The Environment Agency (EA) deals with premises under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999, where the capacity is greater than ten tonnes per day. A permit is required and any complaints would be dealt with by the Environment Agency.
• Permitted Textile and Fabric finishing sites must operate to Sector Guidance Note 6/08(11). Statutory guidance for textile and fabric finishing and coating sets emission limits within the permit, which must not be exceeded by the company using them.
• The 6/08(11) guidance was due for review and revised guidance was expected in early 2023.
• The new guidance would require existing companies to reapply to the Environment Agency for a new permit.
• A general principle was that businesses must operate with the Best Available Technology (BAT).
• A case study was noted where Eurodyers Ltd was prosecuted by the EA for operating without a permit. The site was then taken over by Saffron Shades, which operated under the ten tonne threshold and no longer required a permit. Several complaints were received and the Pollution Team investigated using Statutory Nuisance powers. Odour nuisance was witnessed in June 2022 and a site visit was made to the premises. Advice was given during the visit and Saffron Shades had continued to work to improve the factory. Complaints then reduced and no further nuisances had been witnessed.
• A compliance revisit was scheduled with Saffron Shades for later in the month.
• A second case study Colours Dyeworks was raised previously at the meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny due to odour and noise complaints. As it was a site that was over the ten tonne limit it was the responsibility of the EA to investigate complaints about that site.
• Colour Dyeworks had an A1 permit to operate. This permit contained a number of conditions that the operators must comply with including noise, odour, water, and energy efficiency.
• The last time that stack emissions had been modified was 2006. The results showed that the impact from the stenter stack was ‘insignificant’ and no Environmental Quality Standard (EQS), Environmental Assessment Levels (EAL) or Statutory Emission Limit Values (ELV) were breached.
• In September 2021 there was an increase in complaints to the Noise and Pollution team regarding odour. This prompted a further investigation with the EA. In May 2022 a joint site visit was carried out which found that operating conditions at the site were good and the EA were satisfied with operating practices.
• As part of the companies odour management controls, any complaints are logged and they should be lodged directly with the EA to investigate - . Residents have been advised to contact the EA.
• During the visit to Colours Dyeworks, they advised that they were in the process of updating the abatement technology, the kit was on site and due to be installed by February 2023.
• A sister company in the City, Jersey Dyers, had recently installed the same abatement technology with very good results. Officers from the Pollution Team had inspected and noted considerable improvements in odour control. The company had also seen huge energy savings.
• The textile industry was considered low risk in terms of emissions. For this reason it was thought that the new textile industry guidance requirements were likely to be similar to the required levels in the previous 2003 sector guidance note. There was likely to be a requirement for annual stack monitoring.
• With previous knowledge of the process for site inspections and the installation of the KMA abatement kit, Its anticipated that levels of pollutants will be well within required standards.
• It could be possible that emissions monitoring could report as ‘below detection limits’ as the equipment had limits to which it can accurately test. This would not report a zero emission, but that the emission is below the limit of detection.
• Leicester had the second largest concentration of textile firms in the country, and was the largest for garment manufacture, employing over a fifth of the UK textiles workforce. The sector was worth over £500m to the local economy and was a priority for the local economy.
• A review of the Leicester Labour Market Partnership, that looked at ways to proactively address concerns of non-compliance in Leicester’s garment sector had recently been published, this aligned with Operation Tacit – an enforcement partnership made up of – GLAA, HSE, National Crime Agency, Leicestershire Police to tackle labour abuse and modern slavery
• Leicester City Council had taken a leading role in helping to align the work of a range of organisations engaged in supporting local businesses, community organisations and textiles workers.

In response to the questions asked by Mr Ball and Members it was noted that:

·       In terms of health risk, Leicester City Council were regulating with the Environment Agency to permitted standards. Colour Dyeworks was allowed to operate within those permitted standards.

·       Colour Dyeworks was a  company that was improving and were installing the appropriate abatement technology that meets the recognised legal standards.

·       When applying for a permit, a business was required to carry out emissions monitoring to show standards met to receive the permit however there was currently no requirement for future monitoring as part of that process.

·       When asked if there had been any monitoring of benzene levels, it was noted that the Environmental Agency should be approached to provide information on what the stack emissions contained.

·       The site visit that took place in May 2022 was a full inspection of the operational procedures from start to finish, including process controls, how they monitor and maintain process parameters and checking of their maintenance and record keeping.

·       In the time between January 2022 and July 2022 ten complaints had been logged with the Environment Agency.

·       If a new site were to apply for a permit, then the Planning and Pollution team would assess anyt impact  on the surrounding area and look at steps that may mitigate those impacts. There would also be opportunities for parties to object.

AGREED:

1. That the contents of the report be noted and comments made by Members of the Commission taken into account as set out above.
2. That the Commission be provided with any information from the EA on  benzene monitoring as part of pollution control.
3. That the Commission be provided with details of all site visit records and audit trails in relation to Colour Dyers.
4. That the Commission are updated on the new 6/08(11) guidance legalisation due in 2023.
5. That the Commission receive an update report relating to Colour Dyers after February 2023 on the installation of the new abatement equipment and outcomes.
6. That the Environmental Agency be invited to a future committee meeting to explore this topic further.
7. That an updated report on Textiles Factories be scheduled to a future meeting.