Historically, as I have pointed out with irrefutable evidence of pictures held in official archives, Albright and Wilson discharged toxic waste into ONE single pit- the former original Rattlechain brickworks from where Etruria marl was extracted.
It was only in the early 1960’s, and again irrefutable evidence, that a secondary lagoon was formed with a kidney shape nearest to John’s Lane by basically creating a cut off causeway path. This, as again evidenced by historic correspondence was for the purpose of discharging excess water to The Birmingham Canal so that AW could continue to raise the solid waste and keep it under water. THIS SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, but was because of course this company as well as the treacherous British Waterways were quite happy with this arrangement- pumping contaminated water back to a canal that had been contaminated by the traffic from Trinity Street with the BWB happy to offload their own dredged waste into the void.
We do not have records of how that operation was undertaken, but it was BEFORE any licensing took place, and after this it appears that the authorities wanted to forget that any toxic white phosphorus had ever been dumped into the new smaller lagoon. OF COURSE, WE KNOW THAT TO BE A LIE.
Subsequently when road haulage replaced canal boat, a long pipe was ran along the causeway path and shortly before waste licensing, the site boundary changed from this to this and the new border defines the site we know today- two pools separated by a causeway path.
Over time, and with the useless environment agency supposedly regulating this site under the shite SL31 licence passed in 1978, Condition 10 of the licence required AW and later Rhodia to not allow water to rise above the so called “clean side” lagoon, this is specifically mentioned, as well as Condition 13 requiring the lagoons to be operated to the satisfaction of the regulator.
Black and white
THE SMALER LAGOON WAS NEVER “CLEAN” HOWEVER BEFORE THIS LICENCE, AS I HAVE PROVEN ABOVE. This was an Albright and Wilson invention, and the waste that had already gone in here was still there. These idiots never set levels of p4 being able to be discharged back into the canal, and had no test method to test samples of canal water for same chemical as proven by an FOI request
No samples of the fake “clean side” lagoon were taken by the Cremer and Warner report in 1991, with AW able to bluff their way with the lie of the “clean side”. NO ONE QUESTIONED THIS LIE.
Only with the dodgy “human health risk assessment” hastily arranged by Rhodia as a pr exercise following confirmed systemic exposure to birds being poisoned by P4 did they test sediment from the fake “clean side”, confirming the presence of P4 as you would expect-at levels higher than the so called “dirty side”. You would also expect this given that the historic production of p4 at the site contained higher concentrations of white phosphorus.
The scandal of this is that the EA were happy to believe a lie that had been operating for decades because no one questioned historic operations sanctioned by the useless licence.
When it came to the phoney “cover up works” of 2013, Rhodia claimed that they had sucked out the silt from the fake “clean side” that was never clean, and discharged it into the larger “dirty side” lagoon, placing a cap above this supposed now solidified waste. We take this with a pinch of salt. This magicians trick does not wash however given that excess water was not pumped from the fake “clean side” smaller lagoon any more, and not by the new pier they installed at the end of this pool when they removed the pump pipe that ran along the causeway path. Instead, their operatives set up a pump from the larger lagoon, using a piece of the pontoon they had removed that was used to discharge the waste. THIS MAKES NO SENSE, but it does when you consider that the so called “clean side” has basically been operating as an attenuation pond since capping, discharging phosphine gas into this side from the capped larger lagoon.
The hidden pump is connected by hosepipe from the larger lagoon
Connected to the pump on the pier on the smaller lagoon. Thus water is no longer pumped from the uncapped lagoon.
As seen in 2016
In 2016, I specifically asked an FOI request of the EA about this operation, following the fact that contractors had also been witnessed dumping aluminium sulphate, (acidic substance) into the smaller lagoon to lower the PH. The consent to canal limits specify ph between 5 and 9.
“Why are Rhodia/Solvay pumping water from the large lagoon instead of the smaller one? “
The EA stated
“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. ”
What explanation there is for this given the claim they removed all the waste material from the phoney “clean side” smaller lagoon is of course a valid question which somehow fucks up the claim of waste removal really happened at all.
Given that water has now flowed over from one side into another, how convenient that when it came to turning on the pump again, was this water tested BEFORE they started to pump water again, and also from the canal?
There have been many historic breaches of the causeway path, even when waste was still being discharged by AW and Rhodia, as formal records show from an FOI request as well as our direct observations over 30 years.
2007 Causeway path is clearly flooded breeching condition 10.
What has happened in the last few weeks following heavy rain is a clear breach of the path, and possibly the worst I have seen yet, with no current explanation as to why it has been allowed to happen, and why no water is being discharged to the canal.
Wot no causeway?
Video of this can be viewed at the link below.
The permit of this site underwent a transfer number in 2021 when Solvay officially took over Rhodia, as I looked at HERE.
This new permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 was numbered EPR/JB3909LT.
And who are the unnamed site operators?
The EA provided me with that new permit transfer as can be seen below.
It was only recently that I noticed that another new permit number on a replaced board was now numbered EPR/LB3306US. Sneaky sneaky. 👿
This was obviously done by ERM, when I noted them replacing signs at the site in Summer 2025.
I queried this with the EA in a new FOI request and I have also reported the breach of the permit to their incident hotline, three times.
As part of the request, I also asked how often they had visited the site since last year. I will look at the response to this and break it down in the next post.
On one Saturday, I saw an individual driving up the lane in a private car as I was on the phone to them to report the issue. He asked if I was a member of the public, which I found a bit strange. He also said he would report the breach to the company when he got back, in the third person, and I was left wondering if he is actually an employee at Trinity Street at all and what exactly is his role in driving into the site, yet not apparently capable of turning on a pump? 😡
I have raised this alongside what company are actually in control of this site with the EA, and if it is really sufficient that they are supposedly “monitoring” this site from Kent via Robowatch yet cannot even see when the water levels are excessively high- IN BREACH OF AN EPR PERMIT.
The pump was turned back on briefly after I reported the matter to the EA, but only after this and was discharging to the canal again, but now isn’t with the causeway path still totally flooded, and what ph levels now exist on the breached lagoons is open to question. I will report back when I have answers.