AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Purle accused of environment disregard

30th June 1972, Page 26
30th June 1972
Page 26
Page 26, 30th June 1972 — Purle accused of environment disregard
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• Allegations that Purle Waste Disposal (North West) Ltd allowed "noxious and disgusting material" to pollute a stream resulted in the company being fined the maximum penalty of £100 on each of five summonses, with £80 costs by Stockport magistrates last week.

Mr Ian Webster, for the Mersey and Weaver River Authority, said that the firm caused polluting matter to enter a tributary of the River Tame in October last year. The firm pleaded guilty to the offences and the owner of the farm from which the pollution took place admitted one summons of permitting pollution.

Mr Webster said that on one occasion an inspector checked the stream and noticed a sudden increase in the flow of the stream. Sludge analysis revealed the presence of propylene dichloride identical to waste material from Shell Chemicals at Carrington. Later an inspector went to the farm and saw one tanker discharging into a hole. The tanker, he said, had been caught in the act and added that the owner of the farm was present at the time. Mr Webster also said that Purle was carrying waste for Stretchford Corporation that was "too hot to handle".

Mr Barrington Black (defending) denied the "too hot to handle" suggestion and also dismissed as "rubbish" the suggestion that Purle made a great deal of money from the work and showed a complete disregard for the river and the environment. Mr Black said this was one transgression and that the driver involved had since left the firm.


comments powered by Disqus