View report page

Smoke Nuisance
The problem of atmospheric pollution was fully dealt with in the annual report of 1953. In
the results of the measurement of grit and sulphur oxides in the atmosphere show that there is no improvement
in the areas around the three power stations (Tables 1 and 2, Page 24, and Fig. Page 25).
The Council considered the findings of the Beaver Committee and suggested the following amendments:—
"Recommendation 1, para. 121.
This recommendation is to the effect that, subject to certain exceptions, the emission of dark smoke
from any chimney should be prohibited by law.
The exceptions envisaged by the Committee would almost destroy the application of the general
rule, and we feel that there should be no defence whatsoever against the emission of dark smoke for more
than two minutes and that if under exceptional circumstances dark smoke is emitted for more than two
minutes and there are extenuating circumstances, the owner of the chimney concerned should nevertheless
be guilty of an offence and according to the bona fides of his explanation would receive a lighter or
heavier penalty. We, however, feel that the only excuses for emitting dark smoke for a period of less than
two minutes should be those envisaged in the report, namely, because such emission was solely due either:—
(a) to lighting up a furnace from "cold", and in doing so using all reasonable care and efficiency; or
(b) to temporary mechanical failure which could not have been foreseen, and where it was not reasonable
to have standby equipment.
We also consider that the implied sanction given to soot-blowing should be withdrawn and sootblowing
should be made an offence. There can, in our view, be no excuse whatsoever for any person to
have a licence to blow soot from his own property on to that of others.
Recommendations 2 and 4; para. 121
These deal with new industrial installations. We consider that it is absolutely necessary that plans
for the installation of any new fuel burning equipment should be submitted to and approved by the local
authority, and we completely disagree with the view that the submission of these plans should not be compulsory.
The installation of adequate equipment at the outset is a prerequisite of proper smoke control.
The recommendation suggests that the highest duty on industrial users of solid fuel of a less rate than
ten tons an hour is to take all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the emission of grit and dust. This
does not agree with the general view set out in the report, and to place the duty no higher than that mentioned
infers that the defence of reasonable practicable means will continue to be available. We suggest this defence
should not apply.
Recommendation 3, para. 121
In certain industrial processes in which the prevention of dark smoke, grit or harmful gases presents
special technical difficulties the Report recommends that responsibility for ensuring that the best
practicable means of prevention are used at all times should be vested in the Alkali Inspectorate and the
provisions of the Alkali Acts should be extended accordingly.
It is envisaged under the report that the control of power stations should pass to the Inspectorate,
and is stated that air pollution knows no boundaries, but its origins are local. We feel there is no justification
for this transfer whatsoever and at the most the Minister should hold default powers where a local
authority fails to take any action.
Recommendation 5, para. 121
It is suggested in this recommendation that the law for the control of smoke from railways should
be brought up to date and strengthened; responsibility for enforcement resting with the local authorities.
The report allows the British Transport Commission the defence that all practicable steps are taken to
prevent an offence. We feel that this defence will largely nullify the efficacy of any new control, and
should be deleted.