this is deep
For example chloro phenyl isocyanate as posted by one member as a possible pollutant, will react with water so only the reaction products will be left which are non toxic. I lived in ossy for most of my life until a couple of years ago and used to run a lot past cockers.
I worked at the cockers site shortly before it was closed down , the then owners were clariant uk. Before the site was closed 100s of barrels full of chemicals were unearthed and removed. Thers also an old mine shaft on site which I believe over the years has had countless barrels dropped into it! these idiots are digging up ground with no understanding of what's still there....
interview with ea today ...
are you testing the black hole? - me
"No. We know" - ea
determined that he didn't know personally by as an agency they what it is in the black hole
we determined site controlled by local community council(who only wants to count flies)
i determined buck stops with hyndburn council and ea as well as land owner and cowboy blakeley's is involved
"site has been fully tested" - ea
"contaminants have been identified" - ea
this was "done when the site was closed" - ea - when factory closed and determined contaminated by exactly what i still want to know
*** "JUST TO EASE THE PUBLIC WE ARE DOING SOME SAMPLING" (THE TWO CHAPS A SAW YESTERDAY WITH ONLY 2 SAMPLES *** - to shut you all up and keep you quiet???
"any results will be published" - ea
tell us what you know now please was my request
"concrete was left on site as a control mechanism"
has concrete been disturbed? - me
""no"- ea - absolute bollocks.
my own pictures and my own eyes tell me very different
locals said to check for PCMX, arsenic TCP and alfenticide - i will look them up next
ea also said firemen have been here to create a strategy and assess risk of combustion as nook lane has such a mass of this shit and told EA that would help except they would not allow their men near the black pit.
so what is in that shit black water? will ask the firmen tomorrow.
ea "What is our role?
We have taken water samples from Lottice Brook and are waiting for laboratory results showing a full analysis of the water. We are committed to a sampling program over the next 4 weeks. We have also carried out an ecological assessment on the 24/25 July that indicates that there has been £££££££ no significant impact on the brook. £££££££££££ If you have any environmental concerns relating to this site please report them by calling our incident hotline on 0800 80 70 60. "
Assessing contaminated land under Part 2A
Your local authority has a duty to inspect its area to identify whether there is any contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act. Part 2A deals with contamination caused by past uses of a site, such as former factories, mines, steelworks, refineries and landfills.
Local authorities will identify contaminated land, allocate responsibility for contamination where possible and take action to ensure land is cleaned up, known as remediation.
Your local authority will decide that land is contaminated under Part 2A if a pollutant linkage is causing or could cause significant harm, or pollution of surface waters and groundwater.
A pollutant linkage will only occur when there is all of the following:
a source of contamination, such as heavy fuel oil
receptors, such as people, that could be affected by the contamination
a pathway, such as a river, that could expose a receptor to the contamination
If your local authority believes a site could be classed as radioactive contaminated land, it will assess whether a person has been harmed, or could be harmed, by lasting exposure to certain radioactivity from the land.
If your local authority identifies a contaminated land site it will notify:
the Environment Agency
the owner of the land
any occupiers of the land
any person who appears to be responsible for the clean-up (known as an appropriate person)
See the page in this guide on responsibilities for land contamination.
Amendments to the Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 20062.—(1) The Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2006(1) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 3 (pollution of controlled waters)—
(a)for paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b)controlled waters are being affected by the land and, as a result—
(i)those waters do not meet or are not likely to meet the criterion for classification applying to the relevant description of waters specified in regulations made under section 82 of the Water Resources Act 1991(2) (classification of quality of waters); or
(ii)for controlled waters that are designated as protected areas under Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy(3), those waters do not meet the environmental objectives that apply to them under that Directive (excluding protected areas listed in paragraphs (i), (iv) and (v) of Annex IV to that Directive); or”; and
Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 external website (EPA) requires an overall risk-based approach to dealing with contaminated sites, which is consistent with the general good practice approach to managing land contamination. The regulatory regime set out in part IIA is based on the following activities:
identify the problem
assess the risks
determine the appropriate remediation requirements
consider the costs
establish who should pay
implementation and remediationAlthough since the closure of the plant in 2006 the majority of the buildings have
been removed, there remains in place an extensive concrete hardstanding and some
buildings near the site entrance off Nook Lane. The Hazardous Substances Consent
(HSC), which was in force on this site (Application No. PR/03/0007), allowed for the
storage of 50 tonnes of Para chologophenyl isocyanate, 154.6 tonnes of Benzl
chloride, 685 tonnes Benzoisothiazoline and 166 tonnes of Perchloroethylene. Due
to the existence of the HSC, the site was a Notification Site under the Control of
Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Regulations 1999. The oval shaped Consultation
During this time 2000 local residents were advised to stay indoors by the Police. The company
were fined £21,900 and £75,000 in fines and costs.
Zone relating to this Notification extends 800 metres to the north, 493 metres to the
east, 373 metres to the south and 338 metres to the west from the centre of the site.
Figure 3. Plan illustrating the proposed change to the boundary of the Green Belt.
Notwithstanding the location of the site in the Green Belt, whilst a Hazardous
Substance Consent remains extant, the Health and Safety Executive will continue to
apply the consultation zones, limiting the amount and type of development that could
be undertaken within the area of the zones. In January 2009 the Council presented
a report to its Planning Committee seeking authority to make an order to revoke the
It is likely that the site is contaminated by a variety of chemical substances, however,
the extent or severity of contamination is not known. Redevelopment of the site must
be accompanied by an appropriate remediation scheme that would return the site to
a condition fit for the proposed afteruse.
The site comprises a large previously developed site (illustrated by the photograph in
Figure 4), on the edge of the urban area, but in the Green Belt. Although the
buildings have been removed, the site continues to blight Oswaldtwistle, a situation
that will only be resolved through the comprehensive redevelopment of the area.
There is a narrow strip of land between the former chemicals site and the urban
area. This area has been used for the storage of materials in connection with the
adjoining premises (formerly Joseph Metcalfes) that until recently was used for the
manufacture of soil enhancers, fertilizers and other horticultural products.
In 2010, a consortium of developers worked with the Council towards the
development of a mixed use scheme for the site and the adjacent mill building. The
scheme was based around the development of a Sustainable Construction Centre
for Accrington and Rossendale College, supported by sustainable housing and
employment development. The Centre would have provided a show-case for the
development of low carbon housing as well as a centre of excellence for the college
in design and construction.
The proposed scheme also provided for the
development of a Country Park on adjacent countryside. The Country Park would
have formed an integral part of the scheme and would have provided a valuable rural
recreational resource to local residents and visitors.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE – 7 January 2009
REPORT BY: CHIEF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICER
PREPARED BY: JEAN WILLIAMS
REVOCATION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES CONSENT AT THE FORMER CLARIANT
CHEMCIAL WORKS, NOOK LANE, OSWALDTWISTLE
Purpose of Report
To obtain approval from Members for the making of an Order under S14(2) of the Planning
(Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 to revoke the Hazardous Substances Consent (HSC) at
the former Clariant Chemical Works, Nook Lane, Oswaldtwistle, subject to confirmation by the
Secretary of State.
Members authorise the revocation of the Hazardous Substances Consent No PR/03/0007, as
set out in Paragraph 3 below subject to confirmation being received from the site owners that
they would make no claim for compensation for the loss of the Hazardous Substances
The Hazardous Substances Consent (HSC), which is in force on this site (Application
No. PR/03/0007), allows for the storage of 50 tonnes of Para chologophenyl isocyanate,
154.6 tonnes of Benzl chloride, 685 tonnes Benzoisothiazoline and 166 tonnes of
Perchloroethylene,. Due to the existence of the HSC the site is a Notification Site under the
Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Regulations 1999. The oval shaped
Consultation Zone relating to this Notification extends 800 metres to the north, 493 metres to
the east, 373 metres to the south and 338 metres to the west from the centre of the site. The
Health and Safety Executive wrote to the Council in June 2007 to advise that the site was no
longer in operation and that Hyndburn Borough Council in its capacity of Hazardous
Substances Authority (HSA) should consider revoking the consent.
At recent meetings between Senior Officers of the Council and consultants, acting on
behalf of the site owner, proposals for the future use of the site and adjoining land have been
discussed. At present any planning application submitted within the consultation zone is
subject to the COMAH Regulations administered by the Health and Safety Executive and it is
almost certain that the HSE would “Advise Against” any development on the site and likewise
advise against many other developments within the consultation zone. Until the Hazardous
Substance Consent is revoked it will be difficult to deal with the site, whatever is proposed.
Revocation of the Hazardous Substances Consent
The Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 allows for HSC to be revoked under
s.14. This Authority, as Hazardous Substance Authority, can make a revocation order under
s.14 (1) or (2) of the Act. The revocation will be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of
State under s.15 of the Act (even it is unopposed). S16 (1) of the Act makes it clear that
compensation, which would otherwise be payable for a revocation or modification using
powers under s.14 (1), is not payable for a revocation if it is made under s14 (2) of the Act.
The grounds under which revocation can be made are set out in s14(2) as being:
a) that there has been a material change in the use of the land to which the HSC relates; or
b) planning permission has been granted and commenced for development of the site and
would involve making a material change in the use of the land; or
c) in the case of a HSC which relates only to one substance, that the substance has not for
at least five years been present on, over or under the land to which the consent relates in a
quantity equal to or exceeding the controlled quantity; or
d) in the case of a HSC which relates to a number of substances, that none of those
substances has for at least five years been so present.
The site has been cleared of most of the former buildings and associated
paraphernalia with just 5 former buildings remaining. It is my view that there has been a
material change of use of the site from a sui generis to a nil use. The few remaining buildings
left on the site were ancillary buildings to the principle use as a chemical works. As that
primary use has ceased with the removal of the majority of the buildings then the remaining
buildings do not benefit from any use. This opinion has been confirmed by the Head of Legal
and Democratic Services. As a result I consider that an order can be made under s.14(2)(a)
claiming that there has been a material change of use of the land and that the Council will not
be liable for any claim for compensation.
That Hazardous Substances Consent Ref: PR/03/0007 be revoked.
That the Committee authorise the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to prepare a
Revocation Order under s14 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 for the
Secretary of State to confirm.
That the delegated authority be conditional on the agreement of the owner, in writing,
to the revocation including a statement to the effect that they will not suffer loss and do not
intend to claim compensation on the revocation of the consent.
Reasons for Recommendations
The site is no longer used for the production or use of materials stipulated in the
current Hazardous Substances Consent and the continuation of the Hazardous Substances
Consent is no longer relevant.
Alternative Options considered and recommended for rejection
Not to revoke the Hazardous Substances Consent (HSC) Ref: Application No.
PR/03/0007. This course of action has been rejected because the continued existence of the
redundant HSC for the site inhibits the proper consideration of any proposed planning
application by the Health and Safety Executive and local planning authority.
As the site owners are being asked to confirm that intend to raise no objections to the
revocation of the Hazardous Substances Consent, no compensation will be payable by the
CONTAMINATED LAND MANAGEMENT ACT 1997
- As at 20 January 2012
- Act 140 of 1997
TABLE OF PROVISIONS
PART 1 - PRELIMINARY
1. Name of Act
3. Objects of this Act
6. Responsibility for contamination of land
7. Concept of notional owner
8. General functions of EPA
9. Need to maintain ecologically sustainable development
PART 2 - (Repealed)
PART 3 - MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATED LAND
Division 1 - Preliminary investigation of land
10. Preliminary investigation orders
Division 2 - Regulation of significantly contaminated land
11. Declaring land to be significantly contaminated land
12. Matters to be considered before declaring land to be significantly contaminated land
13. Choice of appropriate person to be made subject to management order
14. Management orders
15. Details of management order
16. Actions that may be required by management order
17. Voluntary management proposals
Division 3 - Ongoing maintenance of management action
28. Ongoing maintenance orders
29. Ongoing maintenance-restrictions and covenants
Division 4 - Action by public authority
30. Public authority may step in if person fails to act
31. Duty of public authority
Division 5 - Entry on land
32. Refusal of entry on land
33. Liability for losses
Division 6 - Costs
33A. Recovery of money under this Division
34. Recovery of EPA’s costs
35. Recovery of public authority’s costs in carrying out order
36. Recovery of other costs
37. Public authority’s priority if owner insolvent
38. Limit on liability of representative or trustee
39. Registration of cost notices
40. Charge on land subject to cost notice
41. Removal of charge
42. Repayment of appropriations out of Consolidated Fund
Division 7 - General
43. Multiple orders and notices
44. Amendment or repeal of orders and notices
45. Obstruction of persons
46. EPA may issue clean-up and prevention notices
PART 4 - SITE AUDITS
48. Statutory site audits
49. Accreditation panel
50. Application for accreditation as site auditor
51. Grant of accreditation as site auditor
52. Renewal of accreditation
53. Conditions of accreditation
53B. Site audit reports and site audit statements
53C. Notification to EPA of statutory site audit
53D. Annual returns and other notifications
54. Site auditor to avoid conflicts of interest
56. Revocation, suspension or refusal to renew accreditation
57. Holding out
PART 5 - INFORMATION
58. Record to be maintained by the EPA
59. Local authorities to be informed
60. Duty to report contamination
PART 6 - APPEALS
61. Appeals about management orders
62. Determination of appeals
PART 7 - ORDERS AGAINST DIRECTORS OR COMPANIES TO MANAGE CONTAMINATION AT OWN EXPENSE
63. Director of body corporate that is wound up
64. Director of body corporate that disposed of land
65. Holding company of body corporate that is wound up
PART 8 - EVIDENCE
67, 68. (Repealed)
69. Proof of certain matters not required
70. Documentary evidence generally
71. Certificate evidence of certain matters
72. Evidence of analysts
PART 9 - AUTHORISED OFFICERS
Division 1 - Administration
73. Appointment of authorised officers
74. Scope of authority
Division 2 - Powers to require information or records
76. Application of Division
77. Requirement to provide information and records (EPA)
78. Requirement to provide information and records (authorised officers)
79. Manner and time for compliance
80. Provisions relating to information and records
Division 3 - Powers of entry and search of land
81. Powers to enter land
82. Entry into residential premises only with permission or warrant
83. Powers to do things on premises
84. Search warrants
86. Care to be taken
Division 4 - Powers to question persons
88. Power of authorised officers to require answers
Division 5 - General
90. Provisions relating to requirements to furnish information or answer questions
PART 10 - OFFENCES
Division 1 - Proceedings for offences generally
91. Proceedings for Part 3, 4 or 5 offences
92. Proceedings for other offences
92A. Penalty notices
93. Time for commencing proceedings
Division 2 - Who may institute proceedings for offences
94. EPA may institute proceedings
95. Other persons may institute proceedings with leave
Division 3 - Restraint of breaches without prosecution for offence
Safety: nook lane
Benzyl chloride is an alkylating agent. Indicative of its high reactivity (relative to alkyl chlorides), benzyl chloride reacts with water in a hydrolysis reaction to form benzyl alcohol and hydrochloric acid. Since benzyl chloride is quite volatile at room temperature, it can easily reach the mucous membranes where the hydrolysis takes place with production of hydrochloric acid. This explains why benzyl chloride is a lachrymator and has been used as a war gas. It is also very irritating to the skin.
this is what they digging up and spreading through the water table.
Industrially, benzyl chloride is the precursor to benzyl esters which are used as plasticizer, flavorants, and perfumes. Phenylacetic acid, a precursor to pharmaceuticals, arises via benzyl cyanide, which is generated by treatment of benzyl chloride with sodium cyanide. Quaternary ammonium salts, used as surfactants, are readily formed by alkylation of tertiary amines with benzyl chloride.
In organic synthesis, benzyl chloride is used for the introduction of the benzyl protecting group for alcohols, yielding the corresponding benzyl ether, and carboxylic acids, yielding the corresponding benzyl ester. Benzoic acid (C6H5COOH) can be prepared by oxidation of benzyl chloride in the presence of alkaline KMnO4
Hazard Summary-Created in April 1992; Revised in January 2000
Tetrachloroethylene is widely used for dry-cleaning fabrics and metal degreasing operations. The main effects of tetrachloroethylene in humans are neurological, liver, and kidney effects following acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure. Adverse reproductive effects, such as spontaneous abortions, have been reported from occupational exposure to tetrachloroethylene; however, no definite conclusions can be made because of the limitations of the studies. Results from epidemiological studies of dry-cleaners occupationally exposed to tetrachloroethylene suggest increased risks for several types of cancer. Animal studies have reported an increased incidence of liver cancer in mice, via inhalation and gavage (experimentally placing the chemical in the stomach), and kidney and mononuclear cell leukemia in rats. In the mid-1980s, EPA considered the epidemiological and animal evidence on tetrachloroethylene as intermediate between a probable and possible human carcinogen (Group B/C). The Agency is currently reassessing its potential carcinogenicity.
Please Note: The main sources of information for this fact sheet are EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which contains information on oral chronic toxicity and the RfD, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR's) Toxicological Profile for Tetrachloroethylene. Another secondary source is EPA's Health Effects Assessment for Tetrachloroethylene.
Tetrachloroethylene is used for dry cleaning and textile processing, as a chemical intermediate, and for vapor degreasing in metal-cleaning operations. (1)
Sources and Potential Exposure
Prior to 1981, tetrachloroethylene was detected in ambient air at average levels of 0.16 parts per billion (ppb) in rural and remote areas, 0.79 ppb in urban and suburban areas, and 1.3 ppb in areas near emission sources. (1)
Tetrachloroethylene has also been detected in drinking water; one survey prior to 1984 of water supplies from groundwater sources reported a median concentration of 0.75 ppb for the samples in which tetrachloroethylene was detected, with a maximum level of 69 ppb. (1)
Occupational exposure to tetrachloroethylene may occur, primarily in dry cleaning establishments and at industries manufacturing or using the chemical. (1)
Assessing Personal Exposure
Tetrachloroethylene can be measured in the breath, and breakdown products of tetrachloroethylene can be measured in the blood and urine. (1)
Health Hazard Information
Effects resulting from acute, inhalation exposure of humans to tetrachloroethylene vapors include irritation of the upper respiratory tract and eyes, kidney dysfunction, and at lower concentrations, neurological effects, such as reversible mood and behavioral changes, impairment of coordination, dizziness, headache, sleepiness, and unconciousness. (1)
Animal studies have reported effects on the liver, kidney, and central nervous system (CNS) from acute inhalation exposure to tetrachloroethylene. (1)
Acute animal tests in mice have shown tetrachloroethylene to have low toxicity from inhalation and oral exposure. (1)
Chronic Effects (Noncancer):
The major effects from chronic inhalation exposure to tetrachloroethylene in humans are neurological effects, including sensory symptoms such as headaches, impairments in cognititve and motor neurobehavioral functioning and color vision decrements. Other effects noted in humans include cardiac arrhythmia, liver damage, and possible kidney effects. (1,5)
Animal studies have reported effects on the liver, kidney, and CNS from chronic inhalation exposure to tetrachloroethylene. (1,5)
EPA has not established a Reference Concentration (RfC) for tetrachloroethylene. (4)
The Reference Dose (RfD) for tetrachloroethylene is 0.01 milligrams per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/d) based on hepatotoxicity in mice and weight gain in rats. The RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer effects during a lifetime. It is not a direct estimator of risk, but rather a reference point to gauge the potential effects. At exposures increasingly greater than the RfD, the potential for adverse health effects increases. Lifetime exposure above the RfD does not imply that an adverse health effect would necessarily occur. (4)
EPA has medium confidence in the RfD based on low confidence in the study on which the RfD was based due to the lack of complete histopathological examination at the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) in the mouse; and medium confidence in the database because it is relatively complete but lacks studies of reproductive and teratology endpoints subsequent to oral exposure. (4)
ATSDR has calculated a chronic-duration inhalation minimal risk level (MRL) of 0.04 parts per million (ppm) (0.3 milligrams per cubic meter, mg/m3) for tetrachloroethylene based on neurological effects in humans. The MRL is an estimate of the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. (1)
Repeated skin contact may cause irritation. (1)
Some adverse reproductive effects, such as spontaneous abortions, menstrual disorders, altered sperm structure, and reduced fertility, have been reported in studies of workers occupationally exposed to tetrachloroethylene. However, no definitive conclusions can be made because of the limitations of the studies. (1)
In one study of residents exposed to drinking water contaminated with tetrachloroethylene and other solvents, there was a suggestion that birth defects were associated with exposure. However, no firm conclusions can be drawn from this study due to multiple chemical exposures and problems with the analysis. (1)
Increased fetal resorptions and effects to the fetus have been reported in animals exposed to high levels of tetrachloroethylene by inhalation. (1)
Epidemiological studies of dry cleaning workers exposed to tetrachloroethylene and other solvents suggest an increased risk for a variety of cancers (esophagus, kidney, bladder, lung, pancreas, and cervix). These studies are complicated by potential exposure to other chemicals and personal lifestyle factors such as alcohol consumption and smoking were not taken into account. (1,5,6)
One human study reported that there was a potential association between drinking water contaminated with tetrachloroethylene and other chemicals and an increased risk of childhood leukemia. The statistical significance of the incidence of leukemia has not been resolved. (1)
Animal studies have reported an increased incidence of liver tumors in mice, from inhalation and gavage (experimentally placing the chemical in the stomach) exposure, and kidney and mononuclear cell leukemias in rats, via inhalation exposure. (1,5,6)
Less than 5 percent of absorbed tetrachloroethylene is metabolized by humans to trichloroacetic acid (TCA), with the remainder being exhaled unchanged. TCA is classified as a Group C, possible human carcinogen based on limited evidence of liver tumors in mice (but not rats). (4,7)
EPA does not currently have a classification for the carcinogenicity of tetrachloroethylene. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified tetrachloroethylene as probably carcinogenic to humans.
EPA uses mathematical models, based on animal studies, to estimate the probability of a person developing cancer from breathing air containing a specified concentration of a chemical. EPA has calculated a provisional inhalation unit risk estimate of 5.8 × 10-7 (µg/m3)-1. A provisonal value is one which has not received Agency-wide review. (7)
EPA has calculated a provisional oral cancer slope factor of 0.051 (mg/kg/d)-1. (5)
Tetrachloroethylene is a nonflammable colorless liquid with a sharp sweet odor; the odor threshold is 1 ppm. (1)
The chemical formula for tetrachloroethylene is C2Cl4, and the molecular weight is 165.83 g/mol. (1)
The vapor pressure for tetrachloroethylene is 18.47 mm Hg at 25 °C, and it has a log octanol/water partition coefficient (log Kow) of 3.40. (1)