![\"\"](\"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/keys20.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis second of four part posts dealing with the pollution issues at Millpool in West Bromwich is mainly technical and outlines the chemicals and regulation of the failed W H Keys<\/strong> Company and its incompetent directors and staff.<\/p>\n Already prior to the 2000’s I have evidenced how this company was polluting the Hobnail Brook and the wider area and affecting aquatic birds at Millpool with their “bitumen based” chemicals and how the way in which this was dealt with by the authorities was not very thorough to say the least.<\/p>\n I asked the EA via an FOI request for information regards the pollution issues arising from this factory and associated water pollution. The reply to this 2008 request is shown below.<\/p>\n This evidence will be set out below.<\/p>\n Prior to 2000, a couple of fires were noted on the site, and were a mentioned threat to offsite sources. Obviously at this stage the previous Hobnail Brook pollution<\/a> would still have been on the radar of the NRA officers.<\/p>\n The first incident occurred on 28\/4\/1994 <\/strong>and was a visit connected to a bitumen burner fire where foam was used to extinguish the flammable material. West Midlands Fire Service had alerted their colleagues.<\/p>\n No pollution was noted, although the existing ground contamination is not mentioned or how the residues of this fire would have affected the surroundings. It is noted that although the name of the managing director is redacted by the EA in the request, there are clearly two g’s in the surname. \ud83d\ude09 \ud83d\ude09<\/p>\n A further fire on 25\/2\/1999<\/strong> occurred in possibly the same unit, and again WMFS were involved.<\/p>\n What we see here is the useless “owner” of the site believing there is a “soakaway” drainage- i.e into contaminating the ground and then groundwater, but WMFS believed there to be foul water severe connections. The mention of “unbranded solvents” <\/span>on the site is another example of how badly this place was being run by those in charge.<\/p>\n Important regulation changes but still inadequate events would occur on a national basis in the mid 1990’s. The NRA became the Environment Agency in 1997.<\/p>\n In order to regulate and upgrade the use of dangerous substances in industry, the UK Government enacted the\u00a0Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999\u00a0<\/b>and the\u00a0Amendment Regulations 2005<\/b><\/a>, commonly referred to as\u00a0COMAH.\u00a0<\/b>These regulations amended the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1992.<\/p>\n COMAH regulations and related guidance supposedly aims to prevent major accidents involving dangerous substances and to limit the consequences to people and the environment of any that do occur. This includes:<\/p>\n The W H Keys site was affected by this legislation, and as part of the FOI request I submitted to the agency, they revealed documents concerning the classification of chemicals held on the site that fell within the COMAH framework. The site was classified as a Lower Tier site- even though several substances on the site, and those that had polluted the ground and beyond were deadly to human health and the aquatic environment!<\/p>\n Again, I will explore and comment on the documents in chronological order.<\/p>\n The letter from The Environment Agency to Keys dated 10\/3\/2004 <\/strong>refers to an officer site visit to the factory and explains the reasons for COMAH. I’m not sure how 50 tonnes makes it “toxic” when minute quantities of “dangerous substances” are obviously lethal! The EA are the “competent authority” in dealing with this site, though I would add that by my experience this is far from their actual position in practice!<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Another letter refers to one from Keys, which the EA did not give me in the FOI request. It confirms that Keys had accepted that they fell within the threshold of the legislation. It also refers to “improvement notices” which I will look at further on.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n COMAH CHEMICALS<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n There appear to have been three listed chemicals falling within the framework and over the 50 tonne limit. An inspection report explains the position, and I have scanned this for confirmation below. The interaction and use of these chemicals will be explained further on in this post when a near catastrophic incident occurred at the site.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n FROM EA COMAH SITE INSPECTION DATED 21\/12\/2004- SEE FURTHER BELOW IN THIS POST FOR THIS FULL REPORT<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n Click for full data sheet information. NB All of these substances state that full PPE should be worn when handling, breathing apparatus worn when it is involved in fires, and that medical attention should be obtained when exposed. Not much chance of that when you don’t know what it is is when it gets off site is there?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n orthocresolphenolmix SDS<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n This “marine pollutant”<\/span><\/strong> substance is a mixture of Ortho-cresol<\/span> <\/strong>and phenol<\/span><\/strong> and is a dark brown liquid<\/span><\/strong><\/span>. It is described as “toxic”<\/span><\/strong> to skin contact causing burns and also to aquatic systems. Notably it states that fires should not be fought using water jets. It states “Prevent contamination of soil and water.” <\/span>and also that it may form “explosive mixtures with air.”<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n When molten, it states “Prevent from spreading or entering drains, ditches or rivers by using sand, earth or other appropriate barriers. “<\/span><\/strong> It also states that it may solidify and block drains.<\/p>\n Health wise it damages the liver and kidneys with repeat exposure, kills “tadpoles” in yer stick and also forms tumours in experimental animals.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n In the case of this company therefore, they clearly were unable to do this prior to the regulations coming into effect. One wonders how much had solidified in the soil, and was just waiting to be released again to groundwater when made molten?\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n I will particularly note the information below which is important to the environmental fate of this insoluble chemical and any attempts later to try and identify unknown dark brown liquid pollution in the Hobnail Brook and the Milky.<\/p>\n It sinks in water, if it enters soil it is mobile and may contaminate groundwater, yet is evanescent meaning that if an EA officer were to receive a report of unidentified “water pollution”- what chance of even identifying the substance days later?<\/span><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n cresylic acid SDS<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n This yellowish liquid<\/span><\/strong><\/span> is another mixture of cresols and phenol. Once again it is “toxic”<\/span> <\/strong>and damaging to aquatic organisms.<\/p>\n When burnt it gives of toxic fumes of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.<\/p>\n The same warnings concerning risks to drains and water courses are given as the chemical above.<\/p>\n Corrosive and poisonous by absorption. Respiratory lethal.<\/span><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n LIGHTS SDS<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n This corrosive yellow liquid<\/span><\/strong> chemical is a mixed low boiling point chlorocresol and is “toxic by inhalation and causes sever burns.”<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n “Do not let product enter drains, Do not allow product to contaminate groundwater system. “<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Unfortunately it is once again quick to disappear in water traceability.<\/p>\n Basically, yer fucked!<\/span><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n Keys supplied the regulation 6 form to the EA on 15\/6\/2004<\/strong> to a man called Eaton within The Health and Safety Executive, and I have scanned this in the PDF below.<\/p>\n WHKEYSCOMAH<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n There is so little information contained in this form as for it to be utterly useless and unfit for purpose. The most information can be read below where it states that “toxic liquids”<\/span><\/strong> are stored within the range 50-200 tonnes.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The worst part of this is the liar stating that there are no water courses that may be affected by the operations. Not only was this well known to Keys that water courses HAD been affected by their operations, but also to their regulators as well. The caveat of drinking water is a disgrace given that the River Tame is open and accessible to members of the public and is fed by The Hobnail Brook.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, the (in)competent authority only appear interested in a box ticking exercise and paper shuffling. Notification that it would be put on the public register was later received as per the letter below.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The next EA document they provided me with concerns a list of improvement notices they had issued following an inspection of the site. Unfortunately, they did not provide me with the inspection report mentioned in connection with this. What is interesting is the mention of releasing “white spirit vapour”<\/a> from this site, as well as the Xylene based product.\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n EA KEYS IMPROVEMENT AUG2004<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n The love of the acronym is another observation of these bureaucratic civil service entities. If only they actually meant anything substantial in practice compared to the theory that originated them. Here, we are introduced to MATTES, (Major Accidents to The Environment) and MAPPS (Major Accident Prevention Policy).<\/p>\n The EA wrote to Keys on 5\/11\/2004<\/strong> requesting the MAPP for COMAH- you can see how these phrases just reduce the substance of safety to ridiculous proportions. Environmental matters were what the EA were interested in.<\/p>\n Keys duly sent this off with a letter dated 16\/12\/2004. I have scanned the full PDF below and it only amounts to 10 pages.<\/strong><\/p>\n WHKEYS MAPP POLICY NOVEMBER 2004<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n This is another theoretical exercise, and yet there is no specific mention of previous incidents of pollution to the Hobnail Brook or Millpool.<\/p>\n It does outline the roles of The Managing director, works chemist and works manager, and perhaps the closest we get to admission of past incidents is on page 7.<\/p>\n Why had there been a long history of such spills not being detected until the man in charge of this site was informed by the regulators?<\/span><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n On 21st December <\/strong>2004 the EA performed a pre Christmas COMAH inspection.<\/p>\n WHKEYS COMAH INSPECTION 21DEC2004<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n The report of 4 pages observes some interesting practices which appear to suggest that health and safety at this site was something for the cameras and for the new regulations, rather than something that was ingrained within the managing director of this site instructing staff as to how they should operate. Note the fact that managers were not wearing breathing apparatus- and in connection with this, please refer to the safety data sheets I have already scanned where it is strongly advised to do so in the three chemicals with which they were obliged to register as a Lower Tier site.<\/p>\n It is of concern to me that the inspector was “unfamiliar” with the site during the guided inspection. Perhaps an unannounced visit may have revealed far more of interest? It is also noted that the ground within the works was “soft” <\/span>suggesting an easier pathway into soils and drains given it is classed as a “increased risk”.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The past history of Keys is briefly outlined and the chemicals handled mentioned. I note that Sandwell Council are mentioned as allowing them “releases of solvent”? <\/span>The hot and cold bitumen statement I find troubling, as it appears that this company have a caveat which is not entirely clear was being enforced by anyone knowledgeable or familiar<\/strong> about the site.<\/p>\n The HSE appear to have told Keys they were to be monitored under the new regulations rather than anyone from the company proactively understanding the new legislation. This again suggests a poor knowledge base from the managing director down. It is also noted that the MAPP report as scanned above has only recently been written, suggesting little in the way of previous health and safety policy with regards for operations at this site. One can see from the historic pictures that this site was a barrel waste graveyard which had bled into the soil and groundwater contaminating all around it.<\/p>\n The following I find unbelievable, and one wonders how they can be regarded as a credible handler of 100 plus tonnes of toxic materials that could cause significant environmental damage and loss of life to an unsuspecting populace of West Bromwich- including two nearby schools! I have marked these as the EA should have-<\/p>\n So in summary Keys had<\/p>\n On the last point, we will see how this unravelled in just a very short time later!<\/p>\n THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL POINT IS MADE BELOW, AND ONE WHICH I WILL REPEAT AND MENTION EVERY TIME THAT ANYONE CLAIMS THAT NO POLLUTION CAME FROM THIS SITE- PARTICULARLY WHEN IT WAS GOING TO BE “CLEANED UP”.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Unbelievable statement. But no comment that this was totally unacceptable. <\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n “ALL STORM WATER , SPILLS ETC FLOW TO GROUND AND HAVE BEEN DOING SO FOR A CENTURY. THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF CONTAMINATED LAND, WITH MANY OLD DRUMS STORED ON BARE EARTH”<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Rather than fining them for this or prosecuting any regulations, it appears the EA are content to allow this to continue. I have seen the same thing with Rattlechain and it appears how toothless this quango is when deferring to things of the past continuing. We have seen how this shoddy and incompetent management system polluted controlled waters, and yet nothing changed from the days of the National Rivers Authority.<\/p>\n But it just gets better.<\/p>\n In conclusion the EA accept that a source-pathway-receptor plausible pollution model exists, but do not state that this had already happened, and well within the knowledge of those running this abysmal fucking factory! IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ME THAT THE EA FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE RISKS TO THE HOBNAIL BROOK AND MILLPOOL, WHICH IS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED BY THE INDIVIDUAL “UNFAMILIAR” WITH THE SITE.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n MAJOR ACCIDENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT (MATTE) EXISTS.<\/span><\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n Perhaps not surprisingly, the EA issued the company with an improvement notice, how could they be much worse?) in the new year.<\/p>\n EA IMPROVEMENT NOTICE TO KEYS 7 JAN 2005<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n There is not much to say here, as it is mostly the legal standing that operates rather than the detail needed as to where this company was failing. This is all we actually get, which means they had little to bite them with if they failed to act within the generous time given them to do so.<\/p>\n Perhaps if COMAH had any teeth and fined companies by the week when they failed to act rather than give them months to act, or had the power to shut down the entire business from operating until compliance was reached then the EA might be a credible outfit. As they are, and as I have seen over many years, they are little more than prefects with a badge and do little to “make a better place” as their logo suggests.<\/p>\n The above statement does not address the contamination already in the ground spoken of, and so how can the EA therefore monitor “new” spillages when they would just be blamed on old ones from the last Century? It does depress me that this organisation appears to be a loophole jockey for things to continue as they were, because that is the way they always have been done, and it’s probably what Major Keys, the freemason<\/a>, bunged people to look the other way and ignore his polluting business.<\/p>\n Pointless exercise with no teeth.<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n BITUMEN BLAME GAME<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n It was perhaps inevitable that this failing company would collapse very soon, but as the new year dawned, a visual metaphor occurred that sums up the scope of the case.<\/p>\n At the site, three large storage tanks labelled T1<\/span><\/strong>, T2<\/span><\/strong> AND T3 <\/span><\/strong>were present, and yet KEYS themselves distanced ownership of these vessels which received tonnes of the dangerous liquids for which they were governed under COMAH regulations. The EA and the HSE were negligent in not closing down this bullshit or making enquiries about these storage tanks at the earliest stage. The safe containment of the chemicals on site- is it not, their<\/em> responsibility?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Another cruddy outfit based in Kent known as PMC Marketing Ltd<\/strong> were the said owners of these corroding old storage tanks. The tale from Keys about the ownership and use of these is outlined in the next EA inspection report shown below. PMC were basically the middleman seller of a product made at the works using the dangerous substances to which Keys were being monitored.<\/p>\n Keys wrote to PMC on 16\/2\/2005 <\/strong>giving their account of a “major incident”, or perhaps the negligence of the company involving the collapse of one of the tanks T2.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n\n
<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n
<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n