Rattlechain lagoon EPR compliance assessment reports
BR7P51 Aerial view of white phosphorus chemical waste disposal in Rattlechain Lagoon, St John’s Lane, Tividale, Sandwell, England, Britain, Uk
Hot on the heels of a revealing FOI request to the Environment Agency, another I put in following that one has sparked more questions about this supposedly “closed” hazardous waste landfill site, and in particular the performance of the supposed body regulating and monitoring it to protect the public and environmental health and safety. So to say once again here, it underlines my experience and opinion of the environment agency as being a joke of a quango who serve only polluting business and who are increasingly paving the way for housing developers on dangerous sites such as this.
This is a long but necessary forensic investigation into the interactions between regulator and the supposedly “regulated”.
The Environmental Permitting Regulations (England & Wales) 2016 generate site visits where compliance assessment reports are completed by the EA visiting officers. As was seen by the last request where the EA visited in June 2025, this was a bit of a sham tick box exercise and almost one of apology asking the site permit holders for information about self monitoring. So I wondered what other CAR forms the EA had in relation to their monitoring of the original permit still in force?
The new request I put in was as follows, and it is the last part of this which is the shocker-I.E 12 years of monitoring the chain.
“Please provide a copy of all EPR compliance assessment reports held for this site and visits made by EA officers since 12/12/2013 When the agency initiated variation to incorporate ‘closure report’ & remove right to accept waste for disposal. NB the number of inspection visits made by EA officers to the site in the last 13 years.”
The EA responded with just 5 forms, including the one already supplied from last year! I could not believe this and so I followed up with a clarification which they unfortunately treated as a new request, though no reason was cited as to why they had not provided all of the forms to start with! Together this produced just 9 EPR compliance assessment reports supplied for this site in 12 years, though it is apparent that not all of these were actual physical site inspections.
and 23/6/25.
Let’s look at each one in turn in order of chronology, and then explore the apparent shocking lack of monitoring for certain periods between 2014 and 2023.
30/10/2014
This for context was nearly one year after the 2013 cover up works where contractors had removed traces of the former waste disposal operation pipes, placed a geotextile membrane over the larger lagoon, allegedly sucked out waste containing white phosphorus from the supposed “clean side” lagoon but crucially left that uncapped, installed a new pumping pier, and a perimeter track around the North and South of the site.
This CAR form appears to be a little more robust than the later site visits with “site security and signage” being assessed. It was however a 15 minute visit!
Straight away, we get a permit breach condition 23. Here is the wording of that condition from the original SL31 licence.
Requires name of site, site operator and the regulator details.
We have of course seen this before when Barratt Homes defrauded people out of money by marketing houses on Callaghan and Wilson Drives at a time when this board was conspicuous by its absence. There is evidence of these historic breaches supplied by the EA themselves. Some reports state “NO ID BOARD” as being present on the site entrance. Condition 31 was essentially linked to condition 23 when it was issued but as both of these signs had to be displayed on the site entrance they count as two separate breaches.
See for example in 1997 when the EA were first tasked with dealing with this site in their creation.
“OUT OF DATE” AND NO EA INFORMATION
Of course, this leads to instant deceit of the status of this site, its contents and the ability of the public to contact relevant authorities. We are not sure if Rhodia fulfilled rectifying this breach in a timely manner, or if the EA bothered to come back to check!
27/4/15
This extended visit of 55 minutes involved the three named EA officers.
It is revealed that this meeting was to discuss the discharge consent to the canal, following the installation of the new pumping apparatus following the 2013 works.
Though the name is redacted, I can tell you for certain that the health and safety manager on this little soiree was “Dr” Tom Dutton, he of the “small amounts” of white phosphorus in the lake and serial bullshitter on behalf of this grotesque frog polluter company outfit. I can only speculate as to the horseshit that fell from those lips that day regards his potted view of the history of this notorious site. He was after all in the role as Albright and Wilson when toxic waste was still being discharged, and an accessory to the cover up of this substance poisoning birds. The “risk” his pathetic company employed at this site did not extend to inviting me on to said site or informing anyone of the properties of white phosphorus present and on birds.
Just to be clear here, I do hope this twat did not lie to the officers about not covering the smaller lagoon, THAT POOL WAS NEVER CAPPED, AND HE SHOULD HAVE MADE THAT FUNDAMENTALLY CLEAR TO THEM, AND ALSO THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT.
The mystery of the alkaline smaller lagoon is something the EA here should have investigated, and not just speculated on from this joker. The matter of using the larger lagoon to pump excess water is a matter I looked at around this time, querying this with the EA, and I discussed this in THIS POST where they actually make reference to this meeting.
27/6/18
This is not an assessment or site visit in any form. Quite honestly, without the EA doing any testing of their own, they are happy to swallow the bullshit fed to them on the basis that off site “locally” the area is “poor”. I’m afraid that this “poor” standard of regulation is one which I have become accustomed to “locally” with this quango. 😛
9/7/21
This site visit of 45 minutes appears to be the first in six years!
Incredibly, the agency have only just appeared to notice that site licence SL31 had in fact gone the way of the dodo several years earlier at their approval with the new numbering, though the licence conditions were still in place.
In June of 2021, I had noticed that the SL31 sign had been removed, and you can read that observation HERE, which ties in perfectly now with this report. The condition 31 is of course the identity board, and its removal a breach.
I further noted a couple of months later in THIS POST , that the new number had been added, and it is clear that my reporting of this had led to this “immediate site inspection”. . 😆 Perhaps if they paid me, I could save some car miles for them from Frankley to keep an eye on this place. 😛
Removing the link to SL31 removes the only history of the site worth knowing
This report refers to monitoring for 2020 and looks forward to a future full site visit.
25/3/22
This report, an “unannounced visit” of 20 minutes , is a direct follow up to the previous visit and ties in by mentioning that form number.
It was however only conducted from the outside as no access had been granted. We have seen this same issue played out in inspections of water company sites which I will mention further on in this post. The visit noted that the new ID board had been added.
Unfortunately this unannounced visit is pretty useless given that the officer requires them to supply dates when they would be available to receive a visit to get in through the locked gates!
The permit discharge to the canal is also mentioned as it stood at that time- linking it to the parent company that chose not to put its own name on the site ID board!
The pictures are of interest and are shown below. It is odd that EA officers do not appear to take any photographic evidence in inclusion with the previous forms where site licence breaches were observed.
How strange that Rhodia claimed the main entrance board was faded, and yet this one never got replaced.
31/12/2023
This in fact was not a visit to the site at all, but as explained, as failure of the now titled “Oldbury Energy Solutions Ltd” to supply monitoring data for 2023 as required. On this point, I would also point out that at no time whatsoever was the site notice board ever rectified to provide the details of this made up company where the permit was actually transferred to them by the EA! It just shows how shite the EA really are in that they failed to pick up on this, and evidently that was due to them not even bothering to visit the site themselves to check on compliance!
The schedule 3 condition 34 was added by them as a modification in relation to the closure of the site for waste.
I looked in detail at the mentioned HSE procedure P44 in this post.
The category variables are explained below. To me this is all rather random and subjective. “Significant” and “major” are open to interpretation, but when the EA are not even doing testing themselves to independently verify anything being given to them due to operator self monitoring, they have even less clue as to assess anything. The difference in scores between the different bands are also rather random and do not really make much sense as to how this methodology was devised. A permit breach is a permit breach, and should not happen. This system appears to be widening the goal posts and making some conditions more important than others, which was not something devised when the conditions were first made.
There is no reason given as to why the agency allowed them a further 3 months to submit a report that should already have been submitted. How as a regulator are they in a position to judge a category breach when they have not even validated results they have not been supplied with?
16/5/24
This visit by two EA officers was an actual site visit lasting 1 hour and three minutes. They appear to have been accompanied by a Trinity Street body, no doubt well versed in bullshit like all of their predecessors and a crucial job component.
Unfortunately, this was a limited assessment and so it comes as no surprise that they were not found to be in breach of the licence/permit.
What is incredible is the statement concerning the absent monitoring results that were asked for in the previous year. Despite this, the company had failed to provide all of the information, and taken together with the statement “phosphorus” had been written by hand, it strongly suggests that the results had been hurriedly made up.
They had had three months to submit this data, far too generous in my opinion and why if the tests and results had actually been done? The absence of borehole data is also telling, they are hiding results, and the EA are in the dark as to what is really going on with the chemistry and monitoring of the site.
Incredibly, the EA officers give them another 3 months to provide this, when perhaps a visit to Trinity Street and waiting outside for them to be given would have been more in order. Where were the results, as it implies that they did not have them to start with , or were covering up the real story? Why is no inference given here by the EA, and why the rather apologetic pussyfooting around with demanding results, or finding the in serious breach? More relevant, as they were there, why did the officers not do the fucking tests themselves? Perhaps if they had, and then asked for the supposed results, we could see here how operator self monitoring is a bogus fraud suited for industry liars and their environmental consultants to conjure up bullshit fraud lying data to satisfy the weak assessment policy of the EA.
The hazardous waste sign was displayed, but no mention of which company were now actually on the permit given the previous site visit and name change, and also the discrepancy of the fact that they state Rhodia limited, then state that the director from “Oldbury Energy Solutions” was their chaperone. We learn here the claim that a “security guard” visits at weekends, and that site inspections are carried out once a month, with monitoring results every six months. And yet no real time data to show, or explanation as to why they had failed to give the EA the results for 2023.
Two boreholes are mentioned which can be identified in the locations on the map below. RC101 is located nearest to the homes in Callaghan Drive. You would think that this is a crucial monitoring point right, for the safety of those within feet residents? Borehole BC6 is located adjacent to the Duport’s Tip now owned by “Rattlechain redevelopments limited” who want to infill this lagoon, and no doubt blend in their offsite releases into the buried waste of another former company to hide the slimy tracks of the former foundry sand dumping tax dodgers from “Jersey”.
Incredibly, these bastards then ask for a change in the permit by trying to extend the time taken to submit ERM’s highly questionable results to them. Instead of within one month for both April and October , they wanted to submit just one set of results by April of the following year, just in time for their next made up results to be initiated! Maybe enough time for the white phosphorus to dissolve for ERM to confabulate a set of more bullshit?
They also raise the issue of permit transfer, which we now know took place at a later date.
23/7/24
This CAR form was again not a site visit but appears to be a review of the outstanding delayed monitoring results previously mentioned. There are some stark observations here which disgrace both this company and the EA themselves as to how far operator self monitoring is an utter fraud.
emailed late after deadline!
Despite the time extension, the site operators even failed to submit the results for the extended deadline as well!
At this point of course it is wondered what had happened with monitoring for April 2024? It is revealed that a 146 page report had been submitted but that this appears to have been a partial exercise given the reported facts of the case. NB. I have asked for this report in another FOI request.
The context of the groundwater borehole monitoring results makes it useful to again show where these locations are.
White phosphorus is found in four of the five locations, including RC102 and SA1101 at the canal. It is found at BH3S towards John’s lane, and also the newest borehole installed at BH5A also near to the canal and the edge of the Duport’s tip land. This to me suggests the potential that off site migration of this toxic chemical is a distinct possibility, and not previously considered by the EA or anyone else. The levels are not the issue here, and of course we had that bullshit with Rhodia and levels found in the systemically poisoned birds when they had purposefully attempted to delay testing so the p4 levels would have been lower. It is rather suspicious that these results suddenly show up after the claimed 12 years of no p4, and further evidence that the delay of getting results to the EA had been entirely deliberate based upon these findings.
Alkalinity, chloride levels and ammonium at the closest point to the adjacent land- ie the foundry sand dump the owners want to tip into the lagoon, is noted to be rising.
All five groundwater points, including those nearest to Callaghan Drive show elevated heavy toxic metal concentrations, (Environmental Quality Standards). Not considered at least by the EA crucially is if these points are discharging via a pathway to surface water- i.e The River Tame ultimately via Johns Lane.
The EA state that further white phosphorus testing should be undertaken to establish the detected increase. On this point I would state that the EA themselves should have done their own testing to ensure that the results that this company have been providing for years were not being made up all along! They also ask the monitoring to be upped to four times a year to establish a clear trend.
As for rising alkalinity, the EA fail to consider phosphine gas. They mention “white phosphate”, and on this point I am unclear as to whether they mean white phosphorus!
Quarterly monitoring required
Surface water testing is largely subjective, as one result could differ from another depending on which point they had sampled. It is interesting however that the two lagoons appear to have different issues, and that of course as we know, water pumped to the mainline canal is being done so from the larger lagoon, as the EA are also aware.
I would hope that no white phosphorus would be found in surface water, as that would fuck up their much heralded capping exercise would it not! We know that the white phosphorus is all still contained within the lagoon, but now questions about groundwater are relevant.
The Birmingham canal samples are dodgy to say the least. This canal as can be seen is utter crap in any case, regularly polluted by boat traffic and topped up by whatever shite comes out of the lagoon when it is on. Conveniently as is revealed, the samples taken were not done from out of the pipe into the canal as the pump was not switched on, and so are pretty irrelevant.
The EA throw a spanner in the works here, as the company will now have to make up dates that they probably have no records of.
In terms of ground gas, why are there no phosphine records!
What is then revealed is that the EA trash the excuses of the late report, in that there was no delay in the white phosphorus reports being received and that it took the company 7 months to submit the reports to the EA for no apparent reason. I would state the reason was they knew the results contravened their previous results and the delay was entirely deliberate.
They also subtly ask for accreditation of the laboratory reports- thus questioning if these are credible. They refuse the absurd request made to delay providing the results to the EA and insert the need to do so after one month of the tests being carried out, and then every three months after that.
N.B I have looked at the report for June 2025 in this page as already stated, their last apparent visit.
NUMBER OF EA MONITORING VISITS AND CONCLUSIONS.
Subsequent clarification by the EA has only provided just 9 reports in 12 years up to 2025.
This compares to 182 inspection response forms, of which 71 recorded a breach of the permit waste management licence between 1996-2006.
I think that statistic is utterly stark and shows how the EA has performed under the previous Conservative Government, and in particular under the leadership of the appointed former fuckwit crone CEO who now finds himself at the helm of a water company. The self operator monitoring of this site, instigated by this pricks design is shocking, but not unexpected given how the water industry also has been exposed to have had the same free pass blind eye treatment under his watch. THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY HAVE BEEN MISSING IN ACTION FOR NEARLY TWO DECADES, AND THAT MATTER HAS BEEN ORCHESTRATED BY CIVIL SERVANTS WHO SHOULD FACE A PUBLIC INQUIRY UNDER OATH.
- It suggests corruption on a major scale and a joke of regulation and monitoring of a very dangerous site.
- I wonder how many more rattlechain lagoons the EA have failed to inspect? Historic sites are poorly understood, and yet the EA newbies appear to rely on information from the liars running this company and operating the site.
- The environmental consultants ERM also have serious questions to answer here regards their testing regime and the credibility of those tests and results. Their legitimacy is seriously questionable when the EA themselves have not verified any of them by doing their own tests.
- Having no access to a site is also something that was shown in the documentary drama Dirty Business.
- Unannounced visits and inspections are not carried out routinely, with only one being done according to this FOI request in all the years.
We feel that this underlines and proves our point on the way in which regulation of sites like this is broken, politically engineered that way and bordering on outright corruption.
