Today myself and Chris went to see the public exhibition that Rhodia and their contractors for the Rattlechain work ERM were putting on at The Vaughn Trading Estate. Right from the start we have stated publicly and reiterate it here that we believe that the proposed works on the lagoon are a distraction and will fail. After leaving the event this view has not changed.
WHAT THE WORK WILL NOT ACHIEVE
The site is not being “cleaned up”. This would involve the removal off site of all contaminated material. The need for high security fencing which was never there or lacking when toxic waste was actually being deposited there, will remain.
The hazardous waste sign will remain- I.E BECAUSE THE HAZARDOUS WASTE IS STILL THERE.
WHAT IT WILL ACHIEVE FOR RHODIA
The deception that this is no longer “a risk” site. The removal of the iconic apparatus used for waste disposal- the long pipes which dispensed the toxic waste. A step nearer flogging the site off for housing and the inevitable years of tipping operations that will be prolonged, dirty and hazardous.
FOR US THE MAIN ISSUE HAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE EFFECTS ON WILDFOWL- THE MAIN VICTIMS OF INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION.
The only success of this scheme will be no more dead birds. This demonstration will only be achieved by retrieving any dead birds on the lake and undertaking white phosphorus analysis on the remains as before, but will Rhodia want to undertake such analysis?
Colourful displays of the work to take place on boards were provided but it was surprising to see how little regard had been given to the wildfowl themselves whose habitat albeit “unsafe” would be made even more so by proposed dredging activities. N.B stirring up the sediment that has lain there for decades is what is being proposed- before any geotextile membrane is laid.
We did not buy the explanation to dredge the smaller lagoon, but then not cap it. We believe that this lagoon is generating phosphine gas, or has the serious potential to and both Rhodia and ERM know this. Why go to the trouble of dredging this but without then capping it?
These concerns were made clear to both Rhodia and ERM, and I was asked to put any concerns/suggestions or questions in writing. Despite doing this I was not afforded a credible response.
We wanted as many of the wildfowl on site to be removed under license before the dredging work commenced- to limit the number that will inevitably be poisoned.
We asked that if a swan landed on the site that work stopped until it had been removed, flown off or chased off, given the increased potential for poisoning. Birds don’t wear PPE.
We asked if the dredged areas could be covered in some way, and preferably the smaller lagoon that is known to contain higher levels of white phosphorus. Additionally the areas where the material was to be dredged to, to prevent birds ingesting particles of white phosphorus. This would be a particular concern at night with birds coming into roost. As work is not going on at night they will not be disturbed from this area.
We expressed concern about the upcoming breeding season and the proposed removal of all the vegetation just prior to or during this period. We also noted
- Phosphine gas monitoring. Is this being monitored below the water and then underneath the cap after capping? Ambient air monitoring is not good enough. Given the nature of the gas, do you expect to detect it high up in the air? If none is detected in the air above detection limit (depending on the height of the monitors -NB I will make sure that residents are not conned here), this does not mean that it is not being generated under the cap- as happened at East Michaud flats. I take your word for it that this site is different to rattlechain but I don’t see how, and certainly think they have more in common than the non white phosphorus Belgian lagoon where this type of capping was used…. The Americans we have discussed this with have exercised caution by this method and cannot understand why the P4 is not being treated to produce less harmful materials that will not require longer term monitoring, but there again the British establishment and their Oxbridge cronies love covering things up, from wartime artefacts under water to Jimmy Savile.
- Could you confirm in writing that Rhodia intend to retain your monitoring services for 5 years with a view to 25? NB this takes the monitoring period beyond the scope of the Sandwell site allocation delivery plan period, given that the site including the lagoon remains allocated for housing. Rhodia have stated on public record that they wish to retain the site as a water feature- but not for what length of time. The 5 year monitoring is within the plan period- 25 years is beyond it- so will the monitoring be undertaken just until the licence has been surrendered by the EA, and can it be confirmed when Rhodia will be likely to apply for such closure of the site?
- I see no purpose in carting unknown metal objects, including chemical drums a matter of less than 50 metres whereby the contents will spill out into the water making it more contaminated, and the chemical reactions unknown or unforseen, given that no study or at least none made public has ever recovered any of these artefacts to characterise what they actually contain. Why are these materials being moved, if they pose no risk where they are then why move them to potentially create one- the reason stated for not removing the entire toxic junk offsite for disposal.? If this is an exercise concerning levelling, then why is the sediment being disturbed at all. Why are materials not being imported to level the sediment out so that there is as little disturbance to it as possible? Given that the sediment is like flour I see no firm surface being created to support the membrane. What trials have been undertaken using the polyelectrolite that you spoke of concerning this type of sediment and what is the name of the polyelectrolite being used?
- Can you provide me with some more information concerning the non white phosphorus pool in Belgium that was covered with the membrane?Location, time since capping was undertaken, nature of contaminants, a bird mortality problem here?
- Rhodia Silver Bow site where capping was undertaken- a bird mortality problem here, or an exercise to “protect” birds?
- The membrane itself seemed little more than postal sack material. These will easily fray and tear. A swans claw would rip it quite easily. I don’t see this lasting 25 years, or even 25 weeks. Any evidence for the claimed durability of this material used for capping?
- Burying the vegetation under the membrane. How is this going to be sunk and not float about on the surface? Will this not generate methane ultimately? How do you plan to stop this? Even though methane is almost certainly being generated anyway due to the nature of material identified in the chemical arm and also the confirmed fact that British waterways used the site for there own uncharacterised dredge dumping prior to licensing.
What I got in response was that the Belgian lagoon referred to was “commercially confidential” material. That I should arrange a meeting to discuss my “misconceptions” about the proposed cap.
My answer to this was no thanks. It is quite clear that this project is a PR job to pacify local residents, who have expressed concern following the revelations of bird deaths that we alone exposed. Birds will be killed during this exercise, we know it , they know it and the environment agency know it. So for all the professed scientific expertise going into this project what will it achieve for the wildlife?
On the subject of white phosphorus poisoning of wildfowl on rattlechain lagoon, I do not need any lessons, especially from former alumni from the University of Birmingham- Albright and Wilson’s main recruiting and spawning ground- who somehow always seem to be involved in their consultancy reports.
There are no pots of gold in Rattlechain lagoon, except fools gold