What Lies Beneath Rattlechain Lagoon?

The long running saga to establish details of what exactly happened at the Solvay Trinity Street site on 2nd January 2009 has been challenging to say the least. I have asked many FOI questions to find out the causes and effects of this white phosphorus related fire. The most recent of these to The Health and Safety Executive has been stalled when I requested an internal review, due to the ludicrous redactions made concerning events that have reported elsewhere.

One of the main requirements of the HSE concerning such incidents is to report them to The European Commission, which they stated in the released report document, and also in their post successful prosecution of Solvay which was published on their website , formerly known as Rhodia, (in effect of course exactly the same company).  The report goes into detail as to why this was required under the COMAH regulations citing L111- A Guide to the COMAH regulations as amended.

The FOI requests made and featured on this website have been made using whatdotheyknow.com, an excellent site run by My society which gives the requesters a chance to submit requests easily and more importantly allowing the answers to be publicly listed as a permanent record.

A recent expansion to this idea comes in the form of asktheeu.org, an opportunity for ALL EU citizens to request information and documents under Regulation 1049/2001.

Wonderful then, in that in theory anyone in the EU could ask the EU for information to which they are lawfully entitled- especially on an institution to which the UK voted to leave last month who are perceived to be secretive and esoteric in information that they disseminate. So via this new site I decided to ask the EU via the Environment directorship what information they held concerning the Solvay fire, directly reported to them by the UK HSE. Would they also withhold information and redact it under the same spurious reasons?

Unfortunately, my request never got off the ground via this site, due to the bizarre reply which makes the asktheEU website utterly useless, unless you want your contact details publicly listed. The lengthy bureaucratic reply is typical Brussels gabble.

Despite this, I asked the same question directly to the European Commission.

Question: “Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which contain the following information:

 The major accident/release of toxic gas at Rhodia/Solvay solutions site Trinity Street , Oldbury, West Midlands, United Kingdom B69 4LN.

 This incident was reported to the European Commission and I am requesting all documents that you hold on this matter, including the quantities of substances released.”

Positive vibes were received when I was given a direct link to a website that I never knew existed about such reports to the European Commission.

“Please also note that in principle, all accident reports are available at https://emars.jrc.ec.europa.eu.  “

You can easily find the accident you are searching for by searching on the date.”

Given that I knew the date, I did just that and found much of the information that the HSE had decided to redact, even though they had reported it and it was already in the public domain!

Here is the direct link to the information that the HSE are supposed to have reported to the commission.

It is worth looking at the background to how the report found its way to the EU commission, which is given at the link as the EU Seveso 2 Directive.  

The Seveso incident occurred  in 1976 at an Italian chemical factory manufacturing pesticides and herbicides.  Many people were poisoned by dioxin and some six years later the first Seveso Directive was aimed at trying to strictly control such events within the EU zone and in theory prevent them from happening.

The HSE published COMAH control of accidents and emergencies regulations 1999 explains

 “COMAH implements the Seveso II Directive (96/82/EC) which replaces the original Seveso Directive (82/501/EEC), implemented in Great Britain by the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 (CIMAH). The CIMAH Regulations are now revoked. The new Regulations aim to prevent major accidents involving dangerous substances and to limit the consequences to people and the environment of any accidents that do occur. “

This directive has since been superseded  since the life of the ridiculous procrastinated HSE prosecution with a third Seveso Directive.

The information at this source, reported by the HSE reveals much of the information that the HSE chose to redact! Thus they appear incredulous to the fact that they refused a British citizen right to information that any EU citizen could read with an internet click. Were they just being unhelpful in not providing me with the direct link, or are their staff so clueless as to not know that the EU actually publish information given to them by the HSE? Somehow I suspect the latter.

This report gives significant information which I believe the HSE has misused to withhold information interpreted incorrectly under Section 12 (5) (a) concerning the information being useful to terrorists. Quite why the amount of chemical released would be useful to terrorists is only relevant to the bizarre thinking at the HSE.  The redacted HSE report in the FOI request deleted the chemical quantities involved in the incident.

In the EU report the quantities as reported by the HSE are clear to see.

“A mixture containing ~115kg of phosphorus vapour and ~37kg of phosphine was accidentally discharged. On contact with air, the mixture auto-ignited to produce ~390kg of phosphorus pentoxide which reacted with water vapour in the atmosphere to produce ~538kg of phosphoric acid in the form of a mist over a period of approximately 114mins.”

The HSE FOI request redacted significant information concerning the geography of the Trinity Street site and the actual events causing the incident.

In the EU report the detail is retained without redactions.

“Site description
The incident occurred in the Phosphine No.1 Plant which is located towards the edge of the site adjacent to a railway. “

“Causes of the accident

The Phosphine No. 1 Plant includes a ‘converter’ where white/yellow phosphorus is heated to convert it to red phosphorus, and a ‘reactor’ where red phosphorus is reacted in the presence of other substances to produce phosphine. The two vessels are connected by means of pipe work through which the product from the converter passes into the reactor.

A stainless steel rod enters the converter at one side (by means of a stuffing box) and passes diagonally down into the connecting pipe work, through which it enters the reactor. The rod (by means of forward, reverse and rotational motion) is used on a periodic basis to clear any product blockages that might otherwise form in the connecting pipe work. It is understood that the rod is made up of two parts which are screwed and welded together (end to end) to make one length.

It is understood that the plant was in normal operating conditions when, during a rodding sequence, as the rod withdrew from the converter it pulled clear of the stuffing box, leaving a 3cm orifice through which the dangerous substances discharged, auto-ignited and reacted to form a cloud of phosphoric acid and combustion products.

The phosphorus feed was switched off and emergency cooling was applied to the converter. The flame at the orifice continued for ~114 minutes, and the piece of rod that had pulled clear of the stuffing box was then re-inserted into the orifice.

It was later found that the rod had broken in two, apparently having failed at the welded joint.”

The aftermath and casualties in the HSE investigation- in theory their entire raison d’etre is redacted in their released report.

In the EU report this information is more forthcoming and we learn

“Consequences

The incident occurred at a time of reduced manning over the Christmas/New Year break when apparently only approximately 40 persons were on site. No on-site casualties were reported by the Operator.

In terms of off-site casualties, it is understood that a number of persons attended hospital requiring treatment for coughs & stinging skin (apparently having been affected by the cloud which was reported as leaving the site and drifting over the surrounding area). These persons include four employees of the Highways Agency who were stationed at J2 of the M5 for the purpose of closing the motorway in response to the incident.”

The number of people confined for over two hours is recorded in the report as an estimated 4,514 with the motorway also closed.

Further details of the emergency response are recorded in the EU report

Following the receipt of an internal review response where I put the fact that the HSE had released the redacted information to the EC who had made it publicly available , they have completely failed to even look at this, also significantly delaying the internal review as well. The assertion that withholding information is preventing “a terrorist” attack is of course only preventing information getting into the public domain about  the terrorists who confined 4,514 persons indoors and caused them alarm and distress and requiring hospital attention.

THE HSE PROTECT PRIVATE COMPANIES, NOT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC BY WITHOLDING INFORMATION.

THIS WILL OF COURSE BE TAKEN FURTHER AND I WILL BE GOING TO THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER.

What is even more bizarre however, is the HSE’s response to the EC, who have to ask the host country for permission to release reports- when I made my request to the European body. This is what the EC stated in a letter to myself, before I had received the HSE internal review response.

Thus the HSE, whom released their report to the EC but redacted a version into the public domain, now acknowledge the fact that it is in the public domain, yet in their internal review do not advise me of this, and nor did they when redacting the information that was needlessly redacted. Solvay have friends, as Rhodia and Albright and Wilson did- that’s for sure!

Perhaps Rhodia/Solvay should also consider the advice of their long term friends at West Midlands Fire Service in going forward. Please inhale liberally.

Shhhhhhh, the European Chemical industry are trying to gain influence for their products by lobbying the European Commission directly. ClamadiEU, CEO of Solvay and Chair of CeFIC is backed in this quest by one Alistair James Steel, under the pretentious title “Deputy Director General”,  who previously utterly failed to protect the environment in Great Britain during a disastrous term in charge of Rhodia UK Limited between 2001-2006.

Perhaps as a former employee of the Frenchman under Rhodia, he is his “right hand man in Europe.” During this time their company were polluting beaches, spilling acid without informing the Environment Agency and had the headache of a legionnaires outbreak connected to the Trinity Street site. Oh and did I leave out the fact that they were poisoning birds at a certain Tividale tip with white phosphorus, yet denied this based on so called “risk” based “evidence” that they did not want to be tested?

With such a pedigree, what could possibly go wrong with ensuring citizens of the EU are in safe hands from the reported 29,000 companies that they claim to represent? 😳

But the chemical industry are very, very, very sly, as I have found out directly from my dealings with Albright and Wilson, Rhodia and now Solvay. Despite claims of wanting to protect public health and the environment, they base these claims on deniability of proving that their chemical products are “harmful” until proven guilty. It is this burden of “proof” of course which is highly controversial and very difficult to pin down. The EU takes a precautionary approach whereas, CeFIC  appears to want to follow the American model where nearly everything gets approved. TTIP is what they both want, and this trade agreement must be stopped.

One of the main controversial chemicals in recent times involving the EU concerns Glyphosate. This is principally used in herbicides, and in particular Monsanto’s “Round-up” products.  It is certainly NOT a “safe” product in the environment.

“There is a reasonable correlation between the amount ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Advancing age is also associated with a less favourable prognosis. Ingestion of >85 mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults. Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion.” Glyphosate poisoning. Bradberry SM, Proudfoot AT, Vale JA.2004

glyphosate

Industrially glyphosate relies on phosphorus acid in one form of its manufacture, and at one time Albright and Wilson directly produced this for Monsanto who first marketed it in 1974. The other method also involves a phosphorus derivative product made by Rhodia called Dimethyl hydrogen phosphite. This was known as “Albrite® DMHP“. A brochure from the mid 2000’s confirms.

Other producers manufacturing the chemical include Dupont, Bayer Cropscience and Dow AgroSciences. The chemical industry therefore is directly connected to this product, and its continued sales and promotion are therefore threatened by any regulation which would hinder its use. Any “ban” would be catastrophic for their profits.

The problem for the chemical industry and Monsanto however is that many studies are now showing this exact thing- that glyphosate is both harmful to life and is also a likely carcinogen.  Whilst the US EPA pander to the chemical lobby, it is becoming more clear that the product is causing systemic  harm to people.  Playing on semantics some scientists deny that glyphosate itself is harmful, but some of its constituent parts may be. Well what a load of crap that is.

A major concern has been that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. Scientific research has demonstrated this. Though Monsanto hide behind US EPA protection, independent science tells a different story.

One would think then that Monsanto were up against it in terms of the European Union taking a firm stance on banning such a concerning harmful product to environmental health- well that would be where ClamadiEU , Steel and co come into the equation to at least in part lobby on their behalf. ClamadiEU also belongs to the international lobbyist group ICCA, which includes of course Monsanto.  They are also signed up to TTIP  and would welcome watered down regulation in the EU area to boost sales and cull costs.

A meeting took place as revealed in a freedom of information request to the European Director of Environment where Cefic representatives including Clamadieu and Steel met with top EU bureaucrats. Without even mentioning Monsanto or their product, they did raise the spectre of endocrine disruptors, and it is patently clear that they are talking about glyphosate and round up.

“These are issues which need to be discussed with EU policy makers as a matter of extreme urgency and on behalf of our President Mr Jean-Pierre Clamadieu I Invite you to meet our Executive Committee comprising thirteen CEOs and industry leaders from the major European chemicals companies during a window of opportunity from 16:30 on 3rd December through to the evening of 4th December 2014 when they will all be in Brussels to meet. As the Executive Committee only meets in Brussels twice a year this is a rare opportunity to arrange these face to face meetings.”

Clearly the meeting went well according to Cefic, in that the commissioner had agreed to a meeting to resolve the issue of endocrine disruptors and the chemical industries concerns.

Other developments since this December 2014 meeting should be considered. Bayer, a German pharmaceuticals manufacturer has recently made a bid to buy the American spray poisoners for $62 billion.

At the meeting in December with the commissioner was Cefic executive and board member Bayer’s Michael König. Oh how convenient that Monsanto through these intermediaries and Bayer with a certain vested interest are allowed to plant a seed into the minds of the EU hierarchy, to help unpick EU legislation to the two companies benefit but little to EU citizens.

And so even more recently it appears the scandalous Cefic has helped triumph in its lobbying in the EU through stumbling inaction to allow Monsanto’s cancer in a can to continue to flood the EU market without being banned for another 18 months. Should be good news for all of their companies profits, but at what cost to the environment and human health?

Softly softly, whisper whisper, it is the way of the chemical industry that will gas us in our beds, kill us with poison in our food and defer responsibility and deniability to a regulator who is their sock puppet.

One can only guess if this was the first word that spilled out of The Frenchman’s mouth on hearing Brexit had won and the UK were leaving the European Union. Jean-Pierre ClamadiEU probably was not a supporter of Vote leave, I am pretty sure of that, although I remain open to a retraction if he wants to point out differently. 😆

As CEO of Brussels based Solvay, he is also chair of the chemical industry European lobby group Cefic, The European Chemical Industry Council, based in , you’ll never guess, Brussels- the heart of course of The European Union. Aside from that he is also a former French Government civil servant, but information on that appears a little more secretive.

Being based in Brussels no doubt helps both Cefic and Solvay get very close to where European legislation is constructed- especially its regulation. The lobby group unsurprisingly  seeks out get togethers with the powerful unelected Brussels bureaucrats. An EU freedom of information request reveals significant information about Cefic and the way that they operate.

A meeting was sought with the newly appointed EU Commissioner for Environment, Maritime affairs and fisheries, Karmenu Vella in December 2014. His appointment ends in 2019.

According to the Commissions “mission” statement the purpose of Vella’s portfolio is

“To develop and facilitate the implementation of policies and legislation that contribute to enabling EU citizens to live well, within the planet’s ecological limits, based on an innovative, circular economy, where biodiversity is protected, valued and restored and environment-related health risks are minimized in ways to enhance our society’s resilience, and where growth has been decoupled from resource use.”

What a long winded load of waffle- typical EU bureaucrat speak you might say filled with flashy verbs and adjectives to disguise the real limited effect of its existence.

The Cefic letter is typical brown nosing disguised as a friendly Brussels luncheon chat. packed with self important trumpet blowing such as “with an annual turnover of €558 billion, 17.8% share of the world market and a trade surplus of €49.2 billion we are a vital component of European manufacturing industry” , it virtually reads as a summons. One wonders what they would have said if he had declined the invitation.

They also subtly remind Vella of unelected President of the EU Junker’ s own agenda whilst asking what “hurdles” the new environment chief has so that they can presumably develop a strategy around avoiding them, or seeing them lowered in order for them to achieve their “mission” strategy. Unfortunately, lobbying like this is endemic within the European Union.

It is clear that this meeting benefitted the lobby group in that they spell out a further letter reminding the commissioner as to what they believed had come from the meeting. These “key points”  are anchored with personable statements such as “your enthusiasm”, your offer“, whilst connecting them to Cefic’s aims.

“Though we touched on a variety of topics I make particular note of:

• Your enthusiasm to reduce the administrative burden on industry particularly in complying with REACH;

• Your offer to engage in a meeting to resolve issues connected to the Endocrine Disruptor debate.

• The importance of the Circular Economy in tackling growth & jobs;”

The freedom of information request also presented Cefic’s objectives, which in relation to Mr ClamadiEU’s company in the UK are particularly interesting. They point out that there are 150 legislative EU rules which they desire to reduce under the guise of achieving better environmental standards, but does anyone really believe this, or conversely that they just want to remove as much of the regulation as they can. Presumably the EU set these legislatures for specific reasons of environmental protections. Why should the polluters have an easy time of steering a course through these protections?

“Non-toxic Environment
The European Chemicals Industry is committed to ensuring that there is “no harm to people, wildlife and the environment as a result of exposure to substances during the whole life cycle”. To deliver on this commitment we support an evidence based approach to the safe use of chemicals.
Thus, if evidence were to show that people, or the environment, are being harmed, then we do whatever is necessary to prevent that harm. Where evidence shows that people, or the environment, could be harmed, we will manage the risk so as to avoid that harm. And where scientists suggest a possibility of harm, we explore that possibility and may take proportionate, precautionary measures to guard against any possible risk pending such review. “

I coughed quite loudly on first reading this and remembered the lies of Rhodia Consumer Specialities concerning what they knew to be harmful in Rattlechain lagoon, which even when proved harmful to birds dying on the lagoon they further attempted to deceive the public. Mr ClamadiEU was in charge of Rhodia at the time that Rhodia knew what was causing the bird deaths. It is uncertain if he has ever even heard of the site, or visited it,  except that it featured in a single line concerning financial liabilities that the company held in remediation terms in past corporate reports. SO OF COURSE THEY KNEW AT EXECUTIVE LEVEL EXACTLY WHAT THE RISKS WERE TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

And then of course there is the Rhodia/Solvay toxic assault fire of 2nd January 2009 on Oldbury and subsequent guilty plea revealed earlier this year. One must wonder if this left Mr ClamediEU extremely red faced when it was reported to the EU commission, yet it should be remembered that the procrastination of the UK Health and Safety Executive trial was in part due to people within his company trying to spin out scientific evidence to favour their own selfish denials of guilt.

Bullshit arguments by Rhodia not protecting human health

Their toxic gas emergency plan was non existent

Politicians left in such positions may be called to “consider their positions” and to take collective responsibility when embarrassed by such incidents, but I’m not sure if lobbyists have such rules let alone morals when it comes to “responsible care”.

We also learn from the request that the insidious TTIP is backed by Cefic. This secretive trade deal between the US and the EU should worry everyone because US legislation is virtually bought by lobbyists and backed by gamekeepers turned poachers who used to regulate companies and then go on to work for them for their expertise. Science for hire you may call it. Environmental regulation in the US as evidenced by the recent drinking water crisis is utter rubbish and has been widely condemned by well known environmental activists like Erin Brockovich. .Oddly Cefic wanted the name and data of the requester from the EU which she agreed to, even though it appeared on a public website. Is this a little sinister?

Of course reduced costs are what Cefic and their affiliates are about and they desire less cumbersome regulation to achieve this.

Another meeting over dinner appeared to take place on the same date as revealed in a further information request. On this occasion we learn that the head of Cabinet, Mrs Maria Åsenius, and the CEOs of the chemical industry mainly discussed TTIP.

 “Cefic is also very concerned about the negative tone of the public debate and believes that Member States should do more to promote TTIP and counter misperceptions. “

If you voted to remain in the EU, and believed the lies about economics, then this is basically what you were voting for, a corporate green light for business to piss on us all from a great height. One can only hope that after the democratic exercise that Mr ClamadiEU and his colleagues’ ambitions have been thwarted and they are now up Merde Creek like a Rattlechain bird landing in the quagmire of a white phosphorus lagoon that his polluting company were eager to lie about when they were dying.

Of Solvay’s two sites in Halifax and of course Oldbury, will the Brexit vote mean the exile to Brussels of this chemical behemoth to reduce costs? I certainly hope that potential  voyage has been aided by the result.

So were you in or out today? The speculation and campaigning has been bitter, divisive and scare mongering of the worst order- just what politicians do best of course, whilst pretending to be in touch with the common man or woman.

On balance I don’t believe the status quo will change whatever the eventual result because business and politicians will still control what we do and corporations conspire to make things work for them and not us.

I chose leave because the EU simply adds a useless unnecessary cloud level of bureaucracy to the local and national level, as well as the unelected house of Lords. I am happy to send the British MEP’s, 73 of them back where they come from. Can anyone name their MEP, or even 2, apart from the obvious Nigel Farage? They aren’t household names and the work that they do is not advertised and neither are their advice surgeries- if they even have them.

The EU is a gravy train propping up the French and Belgian economy where every week the train ride from Brussels to Strasbourg sees the entire circus move en masse between the two countries. It would apparently take a new treaty to override this nonsensical arrangement, yet this would require a referendum to bring this about. Fat chance if you are a French or Belgian politician that this will ever happen.

Talk of reform after 40 years is not going to happen. This along with the doom and gloom of Cameron and Co’s Remain campaign  was the false flag.

In terms of “environmental protection”, I’m afraid the EU has been a dismal failure in sites like Rattlechain Lagoon. The article below has been looked at in more detail HERE. It is worth pointing out that membership of the union took place at the same time as that other useless guardian of protecting the environment- The West Midlands County Council waste disposal committee had approved the dumping of toxic waste that would continue to poison birds over three decades later.

Recently there was some suspicious activity noted on the Birmingham canal near Rattlechain. The pump from the lagoon had been switched on again and was flowing out of the larger lagoon. A couple of cars were up on the cut and it was quickly apparent that some “monitoring” was going on concerning water samples.

Bottles were filled and placed into a box.

A slightly demented German Shephard watched intently from the other side inbetween chasing the passing trains.

Later inspection also revealed that the Canalside boreholes had been uncovered and remarked. But the curious and still unanswered question concerns the discharge being made to the canal from the now “covered” larger lagoon which is still producing bubbles of obvious phosphine gas from below the surface.

The original licence allowed the site operators to discharge water from the so called “clean side”, the smaller Western subsidiary lagoon constructed around 1961. Since 2014 however and following the so called “improvement works” of 2013, the site operators appear to have utilised the newly added pier pump to discharge only from the larger now supposedly covered lagoon. The smaller lagoon was never covered with geotextile membrane and no sand was added either.

I decided to ask the Environment Agency what was going on here and they replied treating a simple question as a freedom of information request, which it wasn’t. As the contact email for the person in Environment management no longer appears responsive , (the person the EA appeared to have delegated to answer my questions), I am unsure as to who in the EA is now looking at matters Rattlechain.

Please find a response to your email dated the 5th May 2016: 

Why are Rhodia/Solvay pumping water from the large lagoon instead of the smaller one? 
They are pumping from the larger lagoon as the ammonia levels are lower in the larger lagoon than the smaller lagoon according to testing conducted by the operator. 
Do Rhodia/Solvay have permission to do this and why no longer from the smaller lagoon, have they been restricted from doing this and for what reason? 
The operator had a meeting with the Environment Agency in April 2015 to discuss the change in pumping, and as the discharge permit did not specify which lagoon the water was pumped from they have decided to pump from the larger lagoon for reasons given above. 
Do the EA still sample from the canal discharge point? Have there been any changes to the licence? 
There have been no changes to the discharge permit and yes we endeavour to gain a sample from the discharge point at the canal.  The Environment Agency do have a sampling programme to monitor the discharge which is currently under review as a discharge is not always being made at the time of sampling.  Samples may be taken directly from the lagoon in future.  This would not require a change to the permit.

The wording of the discharge consent is indeed open to abuse given that it only specifies the discharge point to the canal, and not the source from where the “pumped quarry water” comes from.

There remains no creditable explanation as to what chemistry is going on with the smaller lagoon, why it was never covered like the main lake, and why the ammonia levels are higher, especially when it was claimed that a one off exercise in February 2014 was carried out to lower the levels using aluminium sulphate. Well obviously that didn’t work did it and we are now two years on from this?

So Rhodia rig up a hosepipe from the contaminated larger lagoon connected to an old piece of pontoon that they once used to discharge “hazardous waste”  into the lagoon direct from tankers from their site.  Periodically they then discharge what we are supposed to believe to be just water into the cut.

So there you have it. The EA continue to coast along on the crest of whatever the site operator appear to want to do at any point in time to suit their own agenda.

Whilst passing John’s Lane I happened to notice two pairs of recently disposed  latex gloves.

bbb

I have recently had a response to a long running saga concerning Rhodia’s 2009 Trinity street fire where a mixture of phosphine and white phosphorus vapour released into the air formed associated breakdown products. Toxic gas WAS released from the site into the Langley/Oldbury area.

The seven year HSE investigation finally ended with a conviction for the company now known as “Solvay Solutions Limited”. I had throughout the wait tried to get hold of the report into the incident, which had been refused due to the investigation being ongoing.

Once complete, the HSE then refused another request on the basis that it was too costly to reproduce all the report– which basically they were just trying to stall me on.

I then further narrowed down the request, given that the Investigator Kay Brookes who replied to the request had previously stated on the HSE website press release  

“HSE inspector Kay Brookes, said: “This was a long and complex case, but at the heart of it lay the fact that this company’s actions caused an incident that affected the public and workers.

“The loss of containment and failure in Solvay’s systems caused huge disruption and the outcomes could have been far worse. “

Picture Express and Star

The 125 page report has been so redacted that it makes for nearly impossible reading. The most bizarre redactions however are at the very heart of Brookes’ case- the amounts of dangerous chemicals released!

These have been redacted under section 12 (5) (a) of the Environmental Information Regulations which in short

EIR Guidance set out by the ICO

12. – (5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a) a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect –   

    (a) international relations, defence, national security or public safety.

THIS IS UTTERLY LUDICROUS AND IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

I have of course challenged the redactions decision in an internal review. It is further bizarre that some of the figures are already available and were reported in the press at the time- for example the blank of phosphoric acid released we know to be 564 kilos.

From The Express and Star article

In the pages it is possible to see that

*Rhodia tried to con the HSE with calculations about the amount of phosphine released but the HSE did not accept their figure. This too has been redacted, and it would be interesting to see how far they were out. A similar scenario unfolded with this dishonest company concerning the “small amounts” of white phosphorus that had been found in dead birds at Rattlechain, which was not the amount that they had swallowed. You can see the games that the chemical industry play unravelling here.

*Their systems were basically crap

* They failed to trigger the emergency toxic gas alarm on the basis that they treated the incident as a fire.

*They stalled for time prolonging the investigation with excuses and tried to shield their staff from any blame.

*Some of their statements were contradictory in nature, questioning the integrity of those making them.

*Some of the statements are ingenious spinning of the worst deceitful order.

*They lied to the HSE  about never having had similar incidents at the site.

Their toxic gas emergency plan was none existant

There are large sections of the report which make it impossible to read.

Well that’s helpful

We will have to wait and see what comes out of the internal review, but I can see it having to go to the Information Commissioner to extract any more “secrets” out of the supposed regulator.

This is the same regulator who offered next to no comment on Rhodia’s hazardous substance consent increases in years gone by– including for the storage of phosphine!

We will have to see what transpires here, but in years gone by previous assessments were made by independent people concerning the potential release of chemicals at this site, and more specifically the folly of building more houses ever nearer to a major hazard factory.

Mr Gordon Nonhebel considered the following risks associated with such an application. His Key observations

“Undesirability of building hazardous factories near large centres of population”

“When phosphorus manufacture was started over 100 years ago, Oldbury was sparsely populated. It is today accepted that new factories involving risks such as fires and escape of dangerous gases, should be built away from large centres of population- this has been mentioned in reports by The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and in the annual reports by the alkali inspector”

smoke clouds

“Any phosphorus fire would emit large quantities of phosphoric oxide P205, fume of which could blanket large areas of the town, leading to confusion and panic among the inhabitants, especially in low wind conditions and at night. The smoke from a large fire would be equivalent to the release of smoke from thousands of bombs.”

“phosphorus fires

Although phosphorus fires should be readily quenched by water, an uncontrolled fire would emit large volumes of P. vapour into a cloud of air in which most of the oxygen had been consumed. Incoming gusts of fresh air into this vapour cloud might then cause a mild explosion. This is a potential risk which should be considered by HSC  hazard branch.”

His words would be quite prophetic some 31 years later when almost exactly the scenario he suggests occurred at the Trinity Street site!

Some times you have to fill in the blanks yourself, when someone else fires them. So much for section 12 (5) (a) HSE 🙂    😆 😈

They certainly do challenge boundaries and cross them with toxic gas!

Public Health England, formerly known as “The Health Protection Agency” appear to have updated version one of a document entitled “white phosphorus incident management”, written in 2007.

DOWNLOAD THIS HERE.

The January 2016 update is perhaps long overdue, given that the previous incarnation stated that it would be updated not longer than 3 years “if substantive evidence becomes available.” What that means is unclear. But perhaps the incidents at Rattlechain and Rhodia/Solvay’s 2009 fire perhaps focussed the minds of this pious supercilious bunch of chemical industry sympathisers. More about that in a future blog post.

Both versions give basic information on the highly toxic flammable substance, and are still quite similar but the health effects section appears to have been tweaked.

“Health Effects
Major route of exposure

• effects may occur following exposure by all routes (ingestion, inhalation, dermal or ocular exposure) “

“small amounts”

There remain however substantive gaps when it comes to the actual “management” of a chemical, especially in terms of remediating former waste dumps where the chemical was buried and even the question of PHE’s maxim “protecting and improving the nation’s health” being explored.

Well that’s really helpful isn’t it!

Below is version one of the 2007 Health Protection Agency white phosphorus incident management for posterity.

The most interesting omission from the new version are the “frequently asked questions” about white phosphorus (pages 11 and 12 of the 2007 original). Perhaps Public Health England would rather we didn’t ask questions about this chemical anymore, its past and current military use and misuse abroad in fake terror wars.

There was also of course their abysmal “human health risk assessment” at Rattlechain, where they relied on Rhodia to give transparent information concerning their and Albright and Wilsons toxic legacy, yet the majority of the chemicals identified on paper theoretically were not in fact tested for or analysed.

If only birds could have read the advice offered here when landing on a white phosphorus waste dump lagoon, or if Rhodia had made people trying to rescue the poisoned birds aware of incident management for this chemical before inviting them onto the site when still operational to rescue the ailing creatures.

“ASKING MORE FROM CHEMISTRY” 😆

The chances are if you do not live within the West Midlands County you would never have heard of the Metropolitan borough of “Sandwell”. The neologism was coined in 1974 by joining smaller borough towns with more famous names together into one central area, located somewhere to the North of Birmingham.

I recently chanced on a copy of what can best be described as the PR spin piece put out at this time by the newly formed council as a would be prospectus for trying to attract outside interest in what was a fairly run down industrial wasteland, even back then. Unfortunately industrial “heritage” is often somehow mixed with the political classes pomp for civic pride, and so a forward in typical pompous prose describes the coat of arms. Somehow the new borough with its made up name strived to have “Unity and Progress”.

Can ya tell where it is yet?

This 162 page dinosaur of a read mainly consists of adverts of some of the “local” business enterprises at the time. Who knows how much they had paid to be included in the piece, which appears devoid of any human character whatsoever. It isn’t until page 21 that you get to “the official guide”.

“With an estimated population of 324,000 and a total area of 21,150 acres, the borough is urban in character and highly industrialised and includes the districts of Oldbury, Rowley Regis, Smethwick, Tipton, Wednesbury and West Bromwich.”

The argument put forward is of Sandwell being at  “the centre” of things or even preposterously “at the heart of Britain”, and somehow being the cog that drives all of the other wheels. If the new borough was so significant in this claimed chain, then why the need to invent a new name that no-one would recognise? Industrial cogs and gears may well turn wheels, but who the hell would want to live in such a greasy grimy place? It’s not clear if they are talking to potential residents when stating “you could make your future here”.

Indeed, with the proven industrial polluters contributing to this propaganda manual who appear to get “centre” stage, who on earth would want to live in such a place? On page 18 we have another cog image of the dirtiest players in the game, based in what would become Sandwell’s capital- Oldbury.

Just down the road, another cowboy operation who liked to dump large quantities of waste into used pits.

And so to the biggest grime hole in Tipton with the Triplex foundry. For years this metal bashing mongrel covered peoples’ homes with all types of air borne shite right under the noses of Sandwell’s environmental health until they finally packed up and went in the last decade. Unfortunately like most of these companies who were central to Sandwell back then, their place has been taken by row upon row of new houses, to the point now where there is almost no green left and no industry left there either.

It is quite bizarre to read about new schemes of creation boast in 1974 which in very recent times in 2016 have themselves been replaced with other new schemes of which the local politicians like to brag.

West Bromwich town centre 1974 for example

“In high Street West Bromwich, the Sandwell centre provides approximately 120,000 sq. ft. of shopping, all services from the rear, (wtf?) a central bus station, a multi-storey car park for 840 cars, public conveniences and a new public house……”

 Today we have seen the demolition of almost everything boasted about in this guide, as the local council in its 40 year rule played lego land , adding buildings designed by cloudy colourful characters without any grounded black and white business acumen that cost the taxpayer millions, only then later to be sold off conspicuously under the guise of “learning.” Gone are the Kings cinema, the Gala baths, the old bus station, and even the multi-storey car park now destined to be turned into some on/off bizarre ice skating rink. How long will the belated replacements last before undergoing yet more regeneration schemes?

It’s also best not to mention the sale of public conveniences in the borough- there’s something very smelly about that indeed!

In the changing face of this borough with the silent “n”, the scepticism was there from the start. Take for example what residents in Oldbury made of the new borough at its Alpha.

Unfortunately the rubbish is something that has not gone away. Industrial estate scrap yard fires blaze in the night sky replacing the blowing of glass and the forging of chains. The area is disappearing under new housing, as the schools they were built on and the ones remaining are unable to cope with overpopulated numbers. But this is the very curious thing. Sandwell’s population is now estimated at 316, 700 in 2014 according to a recent FOI request. It seems hard to believe that the number of people estimated living in the borough in 1974 has actually fallen over 40 years later, yet we are supposed to believe that the demand for new housing is what is promoting them being built. Clearly there is something very wrong about this claim from these statistics. But what exactly is going on here? Who is benefitting from new houses being built?

One can only suppose that those who can do move away from the rotten borough, not because it has anything to offer (except to housing developers), but because it increasingly has little to keep them there.

The political classes failure to inspire stems from its failed leadership. One only has to join the dots to see that one political party has been in control for so long, since the conception, and has utterly failed to make Sandwell a better place to live for its existing residents and fails to attract anyone to better it because of its soiled preceding reputation. There is only one word that describes the 40 years of durge that has followed. Perhaps the sheep truly graze on the crud they deserve when putting a cross in the same place.

This website has put together evidence and information from a variety of primary sources.  Eye witnesses who remember the historic dumping of waste at Rattlechain may be starting to get a little grey, if not there already, but the vividness of their recollections is important because there are those with purely financial intent who would wish to rewrite the toxic legacy into one of present day wide eyed “risk management” . Any fool looking from the outside can pretend that a waste management licence somehow keeps people “safe”.

Canal enthusiast and narrow boat owner Malcom Edge is one person who remembers the real site as it stood, and it is with great pleasure that I reprint a part of his memoir below. I’ve added a few useful links and pictures to illustrate. It was after having seen his original blog concerning canal stories from the 50’s,60’s and 70’s that pieces of the Rattlechain jigsaw started to fit together, and that the bird deaths were not just something that could be put down to “natural causes”. I will always be grateful to him that he played a big part in solving the mystery of what lies beneath rattlechain lagoon.

If you have any recollections of the lagoon, or surrounding area when waste was being dumped there please get in touch.

The Smell of the cut–

BY MALCOLM EDGE © (Originally published as  “A lads eye view of the canals in the 1950′s-1970’s.  Chapter 8 Companies and cargoes -The smell of the cut.” 

“One haulage company who were prominent through the sixties and into the seventies was Alfred Matty & Sons Ltd , based in Deepfields Coseley. They operated a wide array of boats on a a variety of contracts which included dredging, civil engineering projects such as the laying of the Natural Gas pipeline in the early seventies, and also a long standing contract to which the whole of the BCN owed a lot——–It’s smell!- for Matty’s had a contract for the disposal of phosphorous waste in liquid suspension from Albright and Wilson’s chemical plant in Oldbury to an open marlhole at Dudley Port.

As far as I can recall the company used three motor boats on this contract. ‘Maurine’ a wooden Ricky , whose bows were so rotten you could have put your fist through the holes in them, an ex-Fellows Moreton and Clayton steamer said to be the ‘Monarch’ and the large Northwich motorboat ‘Stratford’. All three motorboats operated in pairs with a range of steel ‘railway’ type boats although the company preferred wooden craft for this work as the phosphorous had a nasty habit of eating the metal craft away!

They used to run 3 to 4 trips a day, pumping the white liquid cargo in at the company’s private arm. Once loaded, the boats would make the short trip down the chemical arm and onto the Gower branch . The top two locks are a  staircase and the ‘butty’ would be flushed through the pound to the bottom lock to be snatched round to the discharge point on The New Mainline.

Brades locks

Here there was located a brick building which housed a huge pump which was right next to the towpath. It was from here that the cargo would be discharged into the open and unfenced marlhole, which I vividly remember as a haven for young lads who used it as an adventure playground.

plan of site in 1974, pumphouse shown on left hand side of towpath

Where the discharge pipe stuck out into the water filled marlhole, whose water was crystal clear and as blue as the sky. The white ‘sludge’ was only a matter of inches below the surface and it was this fact that made it such an attraction to young lads. For if you think back to the experiments that you probably carried out  in the school science laboratory using phosphorous for if you keep it under water it is quite stable, but if held in air it would self ignite and flare.

Oh such fun it was to heave large bricks and rocks from the neighbouring Rattlechain Brickworks, into this sludge and watch in delight as the resulting splash would erupt into flames. The other favourite pastime was ‘firesticks’ . A length of wood, such as a wooden fencing panel of the type favoured by local councils, would be dipped into this sludge after climbing down the very steep sides of the pit. When once well coated, if removed, would burn vigorously in open air. This operation called for great skill for if you held the stick upright the sludge would run down towards your hand.

The Rattlechain brickworks overlooking the water filled disposal steep edged site in 1950

When I look back now at the consequences of somebody falling into it, it is frightening especially when you think of the boatmen working with it every day and walking from stern to bow along planks!

As children we were told that this company made the smell for cheese and onion crisps and although I don’t think it was true, it does give you some idea of the stink that the canal did suffer from. All around the area it could be detected in the air and water. I should think that more must have ‘accidentally’ gone into the canal  than went down to the tip for disposal at this time. After passing through this area and churning up the bottom with a motor boat the canal water would turn grey and the smell was horrendous. In fact if you journeyed through Oldbury after dark the canal to the rear of the boat would become illuminated with a violet/pink phosphorescent glow. It was not far from here that as a child that I learned to swim, and go fishing, or as I should say ‘not catching’, (as it should have been called.)

I often wonder now if the people who will buy houses that they will probably build on the site after it’s filled in, will be told about its former use and exactly what lies at the bottom of the garden! And it’s not fairies.

Another activity that Matty’s were involved in was civil engineering projects, such as piling, pipe lines and dredging. The latter being mainly sub-contracted work for British Waterways and involved the use of both mechanical dredgers, one being made, I recall , from a big Woolwich motor boat with the bows cut off and replaced with a square ‘punt’ type bow , (what a sin!) A second method of dredging called for the use of an ancient, hand operated ‘spoon dredger’ which consisted of a large spoon shaped scoop suspended by a wooden crane which would be wound down to the bottom of the canal and mud boat alongside. I can clearly remember Matty’s dredging the Bradley arm using this craft some time in the sixties.”

Throughout this website, you will probably quickly note a high level of sarcasm and tongue in cheek concerning the unravelling of events and circumstances in relation to my experiences with Rattlechain lagoon. My dealings with many of the “professionals” involved in regulating this site and those who have been involved in some capacity with the revelations to date would make an interesting memoir in their own right.

The Environment Agency are by far the biggest player in events surrounding this site, the operator site, the chemicals, processes and incidents that arise and are released and contained. Their role is both passive and reactive as regulators, but their methods of regulation and monitoring are less well known to the general public.

A recent FOI request sheds some light on the framework within which their officers currently operate. I think it offers a fascinating insight, previously not available, and I am glad that I asked the question, following a repeated complaint that I have made; something which their officers have termed “a minor incident”.

The question I asked related to how they classify incidents, and also why they had passed my report to their 0800 incident hotline to the private water company Severn Trent Water plc.

The supplied response from the EA confirmed that the agency use the ” Common incident Classification Scheme as guidance ” for incident reports. For some reason this has been removed from the main .GOV website which is odd given it explains in detail about how the agency operate. I see it as a retrograde step in that the public are unaware of how their calls are being responded to by people paid by their tax pounds.

The supplied PDF is 75 pages long, but gives many detailed explanations about terminology which would be lost on the general public. Two tiered systems are used and within this different category level responses are noted.

The number of unlawful water/land pollution and illegal waste deposit incidents that the EA recorded in West area 7 (Staffordshire, Warwickshire and West Midlands) for 2010-13 is provided in this FOI request. But how many of these presumably unrecorded incidents did it pass on to other agencies like Seven Trent?

There is explanation as to repeat complaints of discharges, such as the ones that I have reported about spillages into the River Tame.

The majority of incidents involving pollution end up with Environment management. Unfortunately all this theory involving impacts on human health, protected habitats and species is not really assessed when dialling 0800 80 70 60- the EA hotline number that people ring to report anything. The only question usually asked aside from name and contact details are “Are there any animals or fish in distress?”

It is of course in the callers hands to make their own “Assessment”.

When reporting incidents that were directly under the control of “environment management” when birds were being poisoned by a toxic chemical at the lagoon that the EA stupidly had allowed to be dumped under licence, what exactly could be “assessed” by reporting incidents? The deaths were of course repeat occurrences, with the agency apparently unable to make a direct connection to white phosphorus poisoning.

Classifying incidents therefore appears to be purely in the hands of those on the ground attending, yet in the situation I have outlined concerning The River, it was a private water company that attended, (SEVERN TRENT) whom the EA had chosen to delegate responsibility without making their own assessment and NOT attending! It is difficult to see therefore how they can make assessments, or if Severn Trent follow the EA’s common incident classification scheme.

Personally I find the water company being called poor. The close relationship between the two organisations is worrying. It is also extremely poor and a data protection breach as admitted, that my personal details were passed onto Severn Trent. This company have a pretty poor record of maintaining water themselves. They were also directly responsible for selling off their former sewage works adjacent to Rattlechain to a private developer for housing.

Severn Trent appear to have their own reporting system at their own sites, which is confusing because should it not be the case that people should report the incident to the Environment Agency?

It should be reported to the Environment Agency so that a private company cannot cover it up!

THE EA DATA POLICY  was supplied.

One wonders whose hands our data, our water and environment are really in? It should certainly not be in the hands of corporate water pirates.