Environmental protection pollution

Authors Avatar

Consider, using appropriate illustrative examples, the notion that the principles and protocols of Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) bring together the concepts of Environmental Management and Environmental Statute.

The first Public Health Act of 1848 came into effect to control the concentrated pollution issues arising from the industrial revolution, regulation has attempted to redress the balance between economic activities and its associated negative environmental effects.  At the time of the industrial revolution, there were two real issues, the first being that there was no environmental statute (ES) available, and secondly that the methods used to control pollution were ‘end of pipe’ techniques. Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) can be defined as a system that applies an integrated approach to pollution prevention and control, and is based on criminal law. IPPC utilises permits to control pollution, and the control philosophy used is best available techniques (BAT). Environmental management (EM) can be considered as a multi layered process, which centres on the activities of man and the relationships to the physical environment and the affected biological systems. (Wilson, 1997: 6)  For the purpose of this assignment, the author will consider, using illustrative examples, the notion that the principles and protocols of Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) bring together the concepts of environmental management (EM) and Environmental Statute (ES).

The United Kingdom’s law on pollution derived from the concept of Best Practical Means (BPM), originating from issues derived from air pollution in Leeds in 1842, whereby a fine could be imposed to offenders who had not complied with BPM to prevent or abate smoke nuisance. Fundamentally the elements of BPM can be defined as ‘no emission could be tolerated which constituted a recognised health hazard. Either in the short or long term, and emissions in terms of both concentration and mass, had to be reduced to the lowest practicable amount, (Clay, H. 1999: 28) denoting that some levels of pollution were permitted and acceptable.  For example, two tons of pollution was deemed as acceptable, whereas two point one tons of pollution did not comply with BPM. (Lbbe, 2001: 31) Global scientific knowledge was rapidly increasing; these fundamental principles still applied one hundred and fifty years later, the concepts and contents remained static.

In April 1956, Sir Anthony Eden’s conservative government steered the Clean Air Bill through the commons. Although not the first piece of legislation to undertake the growing issues of urban air pollution, the 1956 Clean Air Act contained two poignant characters, firstly, it aimed to control domestic as well as industrial smoke production, and secondly, the act enforced compliance.

The catalyst, which brought about the need for change, was due to the Smog, which occurred in London (1952). It is estimated that in excess of four thousand deaths (the figure varies in all reference articles researched). Admissions to hospitals increased, particularly amongst the elderly and those with pre-existing cardiac or respiratory diseases. The Smog caused panic, and the Government instigated a committee on air pollution (Beaver Committee) which took into consideration the social, economic, and medical effects that pollution had on health. The recommendations from the Beaver Committee provided a blueprint for subsequent legislation. Why was the government slow in reacting to, and implementing this piece of legislation?  Historically statute enacted reactively to the impacts of pollution as apposed to contemporary practices, which react proactively.

By the 1970,’s the control of pollution was exceptionally fragmented and was dealt with by several authorities. In 1976, The Royal Commission for Environmental Pollution (RCEP) acknowledged that there were issues, and that a more integrated approach was required. The RCEP proposed that one body should regulate the release of ‘prescribed substances’ to allow an assessment to be made of the impacts pollution has on the environment. Gradually a more unified approach was to be adopted, reports concentrating on the enforcement of pollution led to the inclusion of Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) in the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990.

Perhaps the most influential issue highlighted with the IPC system, was the potential for the pollution problem to be transferred between the different environmental media, (air, land, and water) however; this was still kept within the law. An example of this can be seen when the emission limit is placed on a polluting industry, the business then installs technology that cleans the air omitted into the atmosphere, thus reducing their polluting output. However, there is no control placed on the industry in respect to waste water discharge, furthermore shifting the problem onto another environment media. The focus for IPC was on regulation and the specific processes of industries, rather than looking at the issues associated with pollution holistically.

Join now!

IPC implemented Best available Technique not entailing excessive cost, known as (BATNEEC). This however, had one fundamental flaw. If a business applied this technique and the process of preventing pollution entailed excessive costs, then it was a balancing act between cost and benefit. This concept required ‘more formal and transparent justification of regulatory decisions, based on economic concepts and information.’ (Harrison, R., 1999: 331). Excessive costs unequivocally indicated that economic considerations were built into the environmental regulations. However, in assessing the costs, diverse considerations would apply such as discretionary time periods for upgrading existing plant, how quickly technology changed for a ...

This is a preview of the whole essay