<\/p>\n
![\"scan0027\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/03\/scan0027.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
THE PREAMBLE<\/strong><\/p>\n In the lead up to Rhodia’s geotextile laying mad cap idea, the company decided to undertake a public exhibition. This was attended by their consultants ERM. At the time we commented on this blog<\/a> that there were still many unanswered questions concerning what would happen with the “environmental improvements”<\/span> as they were touted, and why the smaller lagoon was not to be covered in the same manner.<\/p>\n Rhodia now being touted as “Solvay” were not interested in our concerns. Theirs remained a PR driven exercise, as evidenced in a closed meeting from which we obtained minutes in a freedom of information request<\/a>. These minutes can be read below.<\/p>\n dwhitford_P1-4<\/a><\/p>\n It is clear that they wanted to try to stage manage any concerns surrounding potential release of material to the public during the works. A newsletter was distributed to local residents putting their side of the story but mentioned nothing of the closure plan for the site<\/a>– which was a legal requirement on the part of this company and would have to have been undertaken anyway.<\/p>\n The works themselves were\u00a0 to comprise 8 stages, namely<\/p>\n <\/p>\n We will look at each of these in turn and what we actually \u00a0observed in a month by month summary.<\/p>\n We obtained the following document in a freedom of information request.<\/a><\/p>\n “ERM IMPROVEMENT WORKS” DRAFT JULY 2012.<\/a><\/p>\n It was clear that this document had been tailored to suit Rhodia’s legal requirement\u00a0closure plan for the site, and were not specifically related to reducing bird mortality from being poisoned by white phosphorus at the site, which this company have never really accepted or apologised for.<\/p>\n ERM “IMPROVEMENT WORKS”- OUR RESPONSE<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe site historically operated under a waste management licence for the deposition of neutralised wastes containing calcium phosphate and, phosphorus plant from the nearby Rhodia Oldbury plant.\u00a0 Wastes ceased to be deposited in the lagoon in 2004. \u201c\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n This is not accurate. If the wastes were \u201cneutralised\u201d then why was there any need to store the material under water, and why would it have been classified as \u201ca hazardous waste site.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Although they mention that the geotextile barrier and capping layer below the water level is thought to be \u201cunique in the UK\u201d, they do not go into detail as to why this should be. If the waste had been \u201cneutralised\u201d then why would they have had to do this?<\/p>\n \u201cThis would serve to mitigate ecosystem risks, specifically to wild fowl that might use the lagoon.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Again no mention of what they are referring to here, just a roundabout throwaway comment referring to the acute proven poisoning risk that is posed by white phosphorus stored beneath the water.<\/p>\n The consultants like Albright and Wilson and Rhodia try to deflect the presence of p4 and the acute risk to wildfowl with another description designed to try to minimise the clear and present danger to wildfowl<\/a> that this company for so long tried to pretend was no risk at all. The selection of remedial technique was driven purely by cost and the idiocy of allowing a housing development next to the site boundary.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cIt should be acknowledged that the presence of a body of water on the lagoon over the sediment is an important control in ensuring that any \u2018tramp\u2019 phosphorus residues are unable to combust.\u00a0 This has driven the selection of remedial technique. \u201c\u00a0 <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n The description of the proposed after use of the site as \u201can historical landfill site\u201d is again a misleading lie of a statement. It is a unique hazardous waste site containing unique hazardous waste that the company alleged would be too dangerous to move-<\/p>\n Minutes of the final meeting of the group from 8th March 2012.<\/a> (from minutes of rattlechain steering group meeting 3.)<\/p>\n \u201cJM outlined Rhodia\u2019s intentions for the longer term future of the site. The company had a commitment to reduce the potential exposure risk to wildfowl but recognised that the removal of 1 million tonnes of waste would present unnecessary and unacceptable risks to local residents.\u201d)<\/span> <\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n THE PROPOSED WORKS<\/b><\/p>\n NB THE LETHAL ADULT HUMAN DOSE BEING 50-100mg\/kg BY WAY OF COMPARISON, WHICH LOOKS LIKE THIS.<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n magnafloc-338<\/a><\/p>\n MAGNAFLOC -338<\/strong><\/p>\n We have found other safety data sheets for this chemical formerly known as Alcomer 80 which appears to show some toxicity to daphnia. It is also recommended to avoid using this chemical with strong acids and bases. How this relates to the strong fluorosillicic acid reported at the site is unclear. Crucially there appears little evidence of it being used in white phosphorus contaminated environments and sediment.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Further safety data sheets\u00a0can be read below<\/p>\n Magnafloc_338_TI_EVH_0056<\/a><\/p>\n Magnafloc 338; Alcomer 80<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF THE MERE<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n We summarise observations that were made during the 10 \u00a0months when activity took place at the lagoon. See also blog posts that were made during this time.<\/p>\n JANUARY<\/strong><\/p>\n “Solvaytion” was not here! The works were supposed to start on 28th January but there was no sign of any contractors on site during the month. The weather turned frosty as nature appeared to be offering its own “barrier” between the birds and the toxic waste underneath the lagoon surface.<\/p>\n FEBRUARY<\/strong><\/p>\n Belgian contractors Heyrman De Roeck<\/a> were noted to mobilise and \u00a0commence work at the site week commencing 20th February 2013 after the snow was starting to melt. Excavation of the south side<\/a> of the site nearest to the new housing estate on the former Tividale sewage works announced the visual changes that would begin to the lagoon.<\/p>\n During this period a pair of swans arrived at the lagoon. We contacted the RSPCA to try to remove them, and this was arranged with Rhodia as the works were taking place. Unfortunately Rhodia tried to turn this into a PR exercise in a subsequent newsletter- though in reality they had not applied for a licence to remove the swans from Natural England<\/a> as they had told the RSPCA that they had.<\/p>\n Visual changes began to emerge as the contractors removed the pipe in “the beach area”<\/a> and began disturbing contaminated material in this area shovelling it into the water. During this time, we recorded evidence of p4 being released to air <\/a>by visible plumes of phosphorus pentoxide.<\/p>\n Physical works around the North embankment <\/a>also began to remove the reed bed area revealing several barrels that would have originally, and probably still did contain, “phosphorus contaminated wastes.”<\/p>\n old barrels<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n MARCH<\/strong><\/p>\n The work around the reed bed areas proceeded along with the excavation of the North embankment.<\/a>\u00a0“The valley area” that had been the location of the canal discharge pipe was also exposed to reveal part of this old discharge pipe. It became clear that this work was not proposed in the draft ERM proposals.<\/p>\n A spud barge began to transport the mechanical diggers around parts of the lagoon, removing more barrels and debris along the eastern side<\/a>.<\/p>\n The most iconic moment of the entire works and one of Rhodia’s main ambitions to try to disguise the former dumping use of the pool occurred at the end of the month. The long super gun type pump that had discharged waste into the pool was removed<\/a>.<\/p>\n “Those were the days of their lies”<\/p><\/div>\n a swan sits at the end of the waste pipe<\/p><\/div>\n At the conclusion of the month, the icy weather had returned and into the picture came Dutch contractors Klaar<\/a>, whom ERM\/Rhodia had kept under close \u00a0raps- most likely concerned with trying to disguise their lack of experience in remediating white phosphorus contaminated lagoons. They did however have some experience of laying geotextile membranes in other locations, and also have the ability to remove contaminated sediment off site altogether. As stated above- Rhodia\/ Solvay did not want this because it would have cost them. The construction of the main dredger began.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n APRIL<\/strong><\/p>\n The word of the month was FLOCCULATION<\/a>. We now know the mystery flocculant, Magnafloc 338 was used by the contractors. The cutting dredger was connected to a long snaking pipeline that allegedly dispensed the hoovered sediment into harmless firmer piles.<\/p>\n We also recorded how the causeway path was spectacularly breached <\/a>to allow this dredger between the two lagoons and the phosphorus contaminated sediment that was ejected. During this period, work began to intensify to include weekends<\/a>– partly as a result of being behind schedule due to the unforeseen wintery weather.<\/p>\n We have yet to see any clear evidence presented that the contaminated sediment from the smaller lagoon was transferred into the larger lagoon. The main issue with the dredging operations appeared to be the unforeseen amount of algal blooms underneath the water. This unnatural growth was mainly caused by the increased nutrients of phosphate in the water, which historically made the lagoon look like a carpet of green on the surface during hot summers.<\/p>\n The causeway path was widened <\/a>with looser and bulkier crushed stone material. Whilst this continued the algal problems became a major issue for work continuing at the site.<\/p>\n QUITE A MESS AND THE PIT<\/strong><\/p>\n We observed a pit being dug <\/a>at the Eastern side of the lagoon near to the houses, with the tipping of muddy vegetative material <\/a>dredged. We are now aware that ERM applied for special permission to the environment agency to allow this-in the form of a waste exemption<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0EPR\/JE5455AW\/A001\u00a0<\/strong>which was not planned in the original improvement works. We print this below for clarification from the EA’s public register.<\/p>\n This waste exemption certificate requires some explanation. A glossary of terms mentioned in the paragraph numbers can be read below.<\/p>\n LIT_8419_92cd90<\/a><\/p>\n The relevant paragraph numbers are explained in documents available on the EA website. The paragraphs mentioned in this permit are;<\/p>\n D1 DEPOSIT OF WASTE FROM DREDGING OF INLAND WATERS (NON-AGRICULTURAL WASTE ONLY)<\/strong><\/p>\n this is also allied to<\/p>\n U11 SPREADING WASTE ON NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND ONLY<\/strong><\/p>\n D1_exemption<\/a><\/p>\n IN THIS DOCUMENT IT STATES<\/strong><\/p>\n “What is the purpose of this exemption?\u00a0 <\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n This exemption allows you to deposit dredging spoil (dredgings) on the banks of the waters it was dredged from and to treat it by screening and dewatering.”<\/span> <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n What can\u2019t I do? <\/span><\/em><\/strong> \u2022 deposit dredgings that are hazardous waste.”<\/span> <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n We do not see how it is possible for ERM to have ensured that there was no white phosphorus or “hazardous waste” contained within the material that they dredged based on the fact that the dredgings arose from “a hazardous waste site.”! Are we missing something here or did the environment agency at this point not really care?<\/p>\n The guidance they offer is typically poor and the permit holder, not they have the sole policing role.<\/p>\n \u201cdredgings\u201d or \u201cdredging spoil\u201d, in terms of this exemption, includes plant matter that is removed from inland waters.\u00a0 You should satisfy yourself that they are not hazardous.” <\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n “What waste can be deposited under this exemption?<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The wastes codes below are those listed in the List of Wastes (LoW) Regulations. You should read the guidance on the LoW to ensure that the waste type you want to treat fits within the waste code. <\/span><\/em><\/strong> The LoW codes referred to can be read in the\u00a0EA document below<\/p>\n low_guide_v1.2_1397222<\/a><\/p>\n WE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE FOLLOWING WASTE CODES WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THIS “HAZARDOUS WASTE” FROM RATTLECHAIN MATERIAL FROM THE LoW GUIDE<\/strong><\/p>\n 06 09 02 – phosphorous slag Furnace slag, Phosphorus slag 06 09 03* – calcium-based reaction wastes containing or contaminated with dangerous substances Calcium based reaction residue 06 09 04 – calcium-based reaction wastes other than those mentioned in 06 09 03 Calcium based reaction residue 06 09 99 – wastes not otherwise specified N\/A.”<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n WE THEREFORE CONTEST THAT THE MATERIAL DREDGED TO LAND AT THIS\u00a0POINT DID NOT MEET THE EA CRITERIA- WAS EVERY SINGLE DREDGED PIECE OF MATERIAL TESTED BY ERM DURING THIS PROCESS?\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n T23- AEROBIC COMPOSTING AND ASSOCIATED PRIOR TREATMENT (NON-AGRICULTURAL WASTE ONLY)<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201caerobic composting\u201d means the autothermic and thermophilic biological decomposition and stabilisation of biodegradable waste under controlled conditions that are aerobic.\u00a0<\/span> <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n T6-TREATMENT OF WASTE WOOD AND WASTE PLANT MATTER BY CHIPPING, SHREDDING, CUTTING OR PULVERISING.<\/strong><\/p>\n As spring <\/a>bloomed, rattlechain’s north embankment was chopped down in another scheme that had not been proposed in the ERM improvement plan. In reality this confirmed that they were progressing a closure plan scenario for Rhodia\/Solvay and not the “bird protection” cover story. It also allowed the permitted T6 segment mentioned above.<\/p>\n There’s no place for the trees anymore<\/p><\/div>\n By the end of the month, a temporary pipe constructed out of a piece of the old pipe pontoon was discharging water out of the site<\/a>, that had just had highly toxic material stirred up that would have been present in the water in both lagoons.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n MAY<\/strong><\/p>\n May started with more demolition of the steep embankments <\/a>around the lagoon. It was during this phase that an old Albright and Wilson sign <\/a>came to light, reminding that this hazardous waste lagoon was once managed by a company that claimed little risk associated with the site and how “efficient” it was as a model site.<\/p>\n There were new horizons <\/a>opening up, as well as polluted waters<\/a>. The scrap pieces of lagoon pontoon were also scrubbed as work continued to improve only the appearance of the old to the new residents looking in from their houses. But the hazardous waste still lay beneath their upstairs window views.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n JUNE <\/strong><\/p>\n The fourth month saw more sculpting of the North embankment in preparation for the laying of the geotextile membrane. It also saw the removal of more weed from the smaller lagoon.<\/p>\n The large cutting dredger also was lowered onto this side to carry out weeding duty with mixed success. It was also alleged that at this point the sediment from this lagoon <\/a>was transported to the main lagoon- though we have no evidence of this and none has been presented by Solvay or their contractors to prove that there is no p4 sediment left in this lagoon. We discussed what had gone before and what may be still to come in this blogpost <\/a>as some of the dredging equipment was packed away.<\/p>\n The “lost” borehole BH5 on the Mintworth mound side of the site was also re-established as BH5A.<\/p>\n We issued some advice <\/a>to the suffering resident as the picture story side of the works came into focus with the laying of the geotextile.<\/a>\u00a0 This was unfolded and stitched <\/a>together and then thousands of tonnes of sand began to be imported in lorries to weigh it down.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"scan0008\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/scan0008.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"scan0009\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/scan0009.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"scan0010\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/scan0010.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"scan0012\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/scan0012.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"scan0011\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/scan0011.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"scan0013\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/scan0013.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
![\"20130227-170920(003)\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/02\/20130227-170920003.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"tanker](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/tanker-at-tip.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"IMGA0196\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/IMGA0196.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"IMGA0591\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/IMGA0591.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"20130326-175827(002)\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/03\/20130326-175827002.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"20130402-151952\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/20130402-151952.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"scan0003\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/scan0003.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\nYou can\u2019t:<\/span>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
\nYou need to make sure your waste falls within the LoW code and the written description in the table.\u00a0 <\/span><\/em><\/strong>
\nFurther guidance on this can be found at http:\/\/www.environment- agency.gov.uk\/business\/topics\/waste\/32140.aspx\u00a0 <\/span><\/em><\/strong>
\nCodes Waste types <\/span><\/em><\/strong>
\n170506 Dredging spoil other than those mentioned in 170505 “<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
![\"20130425-121906\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/20130425-121906.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"Edit](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/Edit-Picture0-of-20130425-121703.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"20130502-171328(002)\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/20130502-171328002.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"H1140026\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/06\/H1140026.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
![](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/06\/H1330004.jpg\"){kind=link}