Rattlechain Lagoon has always been Licenced to spill
“I appreciate you taking the time to follow up, and I want to sincerely
apologise for the error in the information we provided to you on that date.”
I have come to expect serious failings in the way that this hazardous waste landfill site has been regulated over the years and how unsafe the whole issue was, but this one has surprised even me!
It is interesting how just one FOI request opens up a pathway that leads to others, and how that journey reveals things that were previously hidden from public view or scrutiny. So was the case with THIS request and the change of permit number.
In response to this I contacted the EA about future development concerns and monitoring of the site by the EA, and also one Suzanne Ward, who has been in this organisation in a senior position for many years, including during the 2013 works undertaken at the site. Principally she was the boss of Dave Whitford, who undertook much of the liaison with Rhodia and the individuals Tom Dutton, HSE Director and John Moorhouse, “Site redevelopment manager” from that company. She now has the title “Place Manager – West Midlands Combined Authority, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire.”
Though I did not specify this as a new FOI request, questions I had asked within were treated as such, and the response to this is interesting in itself, which I will save for another day.
Other observations I made- some were conveniently totally ignored, whilst others were answered. Specifically, as well as providing background to the site history, I mentioned the then ongoing permit breach of the causeway path and how this had happened before. This is a little lengthy, as you may expect by now from me 😆 , but the detail IS important to note.
- Over time, and with the EA supposedly regulating this site under the 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.
- 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. No set levels of p4 being able to be discharged back into the canal were set, and regulators had no test method to test samples of canal water for the 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. 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.
- 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 refutes 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.
- I raised the recent breach of the causeway with the EA
- I informed them that I knew 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.
- I questioned what company are actually in control of the site and the integrity of a remote monitoring operation from Kent.
- The pump was turned back on after I reported the matter to the EA, but only after this but only discharged back to the canal again for a couple of days, though what ph levels now exist on the breached lagoons is open to question. The path remains fully breached in clear breach of the permit.
I MADE IT CLEAR THAT I HAD REPORTED THIS MATTER THREE TIMES VIA THE HOTLINE NUMBER.
The EA gave me the following reply where they tried to tell me about the history of this site and its phoney remediation. 😆
My reply below.
“In respect of this response, I have to state that you are factually totally wrong concerning the subsidiary lagoon being lined. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. Only the larger lagoon was capped with a geotextile. The smaller lagoon was never capped. I have proof of this, so I suggest your staff get their facts right. I documented this, have video evidence and the following should be of interest to you.
Specifically, here is what your former colleague DAVE WHITFORD STATED IN WRITING – environment management regards these works. He approved them, as did others.
Therefore, I do suggest that you correct your untrue statements here, or I will escalate this matter further!
The lagoon was once ONE pit, where dumping took place before licensing. The fact that white phosphorus was found in the smaller lagoon where you allowed this to take place shows the lack of historic insight that the EA have on this matter. Waste from this lagoon was pumped into the larger lagoon, but this smaller lagoon was not capped.
This is therefore NOT a “minor breach”. On obtaining your monitoring records of this site in the time since the 2013 works took place, barely any site visits have been made by EA staff to confirm results being fed to you.
There have been substantially delayed reporting of results by the site operators and where white phosphorus was being found in ground water, which I would suggest why they failed to give them to you promptly, and now this; a clear failure of understanding by your current staff to realise what actually took place.
It is clear to see how operator self monitoring has benefitted no one but industry for all of that time, and how the EA have been corrupted by this approach. I have been a witness to all of this since the 1990’s evidenced through the bird deaths I recorded and can document and back up everything that I state.
No remediation of the Eastern and Western sides of the lagoon has ever taken place. These were not capped or even touched during the works of 2013. The embankments were as they remain- contaminated.
You therefore fundamentally fail to have risk assessed this site and have failed to regulate it properly in that time.
Please therefore respond to this email and admit you have given me information which is evidentially not correct or true. “
With this in mind, the EA corrected this, bizarrely even asking Rhodia what they should have known all along.
“Thank you for your email of 15 April 2026 regarding our response to your enquiry on
15 April 2026. I appreciate you taking the time to follow up, and I want to sincerely
apologise for the error in the information we provided to you on that date.
15 April 2026. I appreciate you taking the time to follow up, and I want to sincerely
apologise for the error in the information we provided to you on that date.
After reviewing the matter in more detail, we identified that the mistake arose from a
misinterpretation of earlier internal and external correspondence. It was initially
thought the geomembrane covered the two pools that make up the lagoon.
misinterpretation of earlier internal and external correspondence. It was initially
thought the geomembrane covered the two pools that make up the lagoon.
Thank you for highlighting this and prompting further investigation. Our investigation has confirmed that the geomembrane covers only the larger of the two pools.
At the time of the installation, the smaller overflow pool was cleaned up sufficiently to
allow ongoing water collection and discharge to the canal. The causeway which
divides the two pools acts as a filter between them.
At the time of the installation, the smaller overflow pool was cleaned up sufficiently to
allow ongoing water collection and discharge to the canal. The causeway which
divides the two pools acts as a filter between them.
This information has been confirmed internally with specialist staff and with the site
Operator.
Operator.
Yours sincerely,
Beth Robertson
EPR Waste – Team Leader
West Midlands Area”
EPR Waste – Team Leader
West Midlands Area”
CONCLUSION
- The EA originally tried to fob me off with bullshit. Many people asking questions about this site and other historic landfills are no doubt reliant on information that they would expect to be accurate and clear, and yet the EA were not informed by the facts of the case at all.
- This is serious as this operation was done in recent times and on their watch. There are no excuses as far as I am concerned about not understanding “historic” communications.
- In planning terms, and as a statutory consultee, the EA would make “expert” comments in regards to planning applications where a local authority would expect them to provide guidance on the status of contaminated sites. If the EA had made this lie in such correspondence with Sandwell Council it would have been parroted by the planning officer without the slightest challenge or scrutiny of the facts. THE EA WERE WRONG, AND BADLY WRONG HERE.
- Equally Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 depends on factual information being obtained. RHODIA HAVE NOT REMEDIATED THIS SITE.
Furthermore the National Planning Policy Framework (version Dec 2023) of which the current Sandwell Local Plan was examined has this to say about regulated sites and contamination at paragraph 194.
“SHOULD ASSUME ” IS A VERY WISHY WASHY WAY OF LOOKING AT THINGS- BUT THIS SUMS UP THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY’S APPROACH TO HISTORIC LANDFILL SITES.