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