Guardian release for PFA Pollution Documentary.
Today the press release for Sundays Documentary was released by Marth Elwell and Pippa Niell in the Guardian. Pippa and Martha have revealed infromation that North Yorkshire County Council claims that Angus Fires "Fire Testing" release plumes of thick black smoke across the town is exempt from the Clean Air Act 1993.
Cleaner Benthams report indicated that this testing is one of the main pathways contributing to PFAS dispersal across the town and beyond,
Something that the firm denies.
Angus Claim that testing stopped in 2022, Cleaner Bentham has evidence that this testing still continued well into 2025 (although they "no longer tested PFAS laden AFFF").
"However, North Yorkshire
council said that due to the company’s connection with firefighting,
the test fires were exempt from the Clean Air Act 1993, which otherwise
prohibits emissions of dark smoke from trade or business premises".
This may not exactly the case.
Under the Clean Air Act 1993,
"Emissions of dark smoke from trade or industrial premises are generally prohibited. However, there is a recognised exception relevant to firefighting and safety testing".
🔎 The key point
Emissions of dark smoke are not treated as an offence when they arise from
Firefighting operations, or
Testing of firefighting equipment or systems,
provided the activity is necessary and reasonable.
How it’s usually interpreted covers things like:
Fire drills involving smoke
Testing fire suppression systems
Emergency response training
BUT:
The activity must be genuine, necessary, and proportionate
It should not be used as a workaround for waste burning or disposal.
Local authorities can still intervene if it’s excessive or misused
A Company like Angus would have been covered if the smoke is an unavoidable part of "legitimate firefighting or safety testing," and not a routine business activity.
Foam testing: not automatically exempt
Testing the performance of firefighting foam is not automatically covered by the Clean Air Act exemption.
The key distinction the law cares about is:
| Situation | Likely treatment |
| Emergency firefighting | ✅ Exempt |
| Essential safety testing (e.g. commissioning, statutory system checks) | ✅ Usually exempt |
| Routine product testing / training / demonstrations | ⚠️ May NOT be exempt |
So, have North Yorkshire County Council Misinterpreted the law or have they been misled?
Angus is well known for late paperwork, or paperwork thats incomplete.
But, being fair this is also what happens when Departments are underfunded or legislation and research is not up to date (at a Government Level).
The Elephant in the room
One of the things not being discussed is that Angus Fire test with Leaded fuel in any testing (with AFFF or F3 foams) Lead is a known Neuro Toxin, so where is this in the calculations and testing done by our Local Authorities about this exemption, or are they unaware of this fact?
Is foam testing “routine business activity”?
It depends on why you’re doing it:
Likely Exemptions
If the foam test is:
1. Part of commissioning or maintaining a fire suppression system
2. Required for safety compliance (e.g. site fire system validation)
3. Conducted to ensure a system will work in an emergency.
Then it can fall under “necessary testing of firefighting equipment”
Likely NOT exempt (or risky ground)
If the foam test is:
Product performance testing (R&D, QA, batch testing)
Demonstrations or training exercises
Routine or repeated testing not tied to a specific safety requirement
Then it starts to look like normal business activity, and the exemption may not apply.
What regulators typically (or should) look at and Local authorities usually assess:
Is the test legally or operationally necessary?
Is it proportionate in frequency and scale?
Could it be done in a cleaner way (no dark smoke)?
Is it core business activity rather than safety assurance?
Bottom line
Testing foam can be exempt if it’s genuinely about ensuring firefighting capability.
But if you're:
testing foam performance as part of ongoing operations,
R&D, or routine processes
then yes — that can be treated as routine business activity, and the exemption becomes shaky.
As an ex-worker at the factory, they did do demonstrations, I am not sure how often but there were guests from potential clients that came to Bentham specifically for this, they also did (and do) this around the country and in other countries.
But even if this falls under "exempt" why is no one talking about the lead content of the fuels they burn?
In our next blog (whats the fuss about the lead?) we look at the issues of burning Lead based fuel in a residential and Country area.
