Sarah writes:
Whilst not wishing to defend the DoE, having reviewed the NRGE report, I dont think I would allow the further removal of 280,000 tonnes of material on the basis of that report alone. What is interesting to note, is that relatively few of the leachate levels in the NRGE report fail the non-hazardous/hazardous limits in comparison to the dry matter limits. The current acceptable method, I believe, is to use leachate limits rather than dry matter, this would indicate therefore that only a portion of the material identified would require removal.
If this was the case, I would then have to question the works carried out to date, and whether the material previously removed and shipped to Germany was classified correctly.
It appears to me that a proper risk assessment is required, and that a combination of a targeted clean up, on site remediation and on-site containment may be the best solution. Shipping our problem to Germany for incineration/disposal is not, in my view, the best way to deal with this issue.
Whilst I have not had the chance to review the WYG report, and therefore can only comment on the NRGE one, I am alarmed by their comments in relation to potentially hazardous material being in direct contact with any water body and open to the elements. The Minister should either reassure the public that this is not the case, or rectify this issue immediately.

=

Tony responds:

This is a useful post – thanks!

The issue of leachates is explained because of the varied composition of the site – it is all ‘made ground’ – go six inches further down and you would get a different reading – 10 inches you are looking at another metal. Don’t think of this as a landfill with any order – they just dumped and dumped – furnace flu cake – slag – until they had 9 hectares 12 metres deep. All subject to tidal intrusion as well as being open to the elements.

The work carried out to date was a surface clean up contract to level and leave an uncontaminated layer – the estimate was 5,000 tons. It was an incredibly stupid contract probably placed to serve a politician’s idea of a ‘tidy’ development site.

As the work went on they couldn’t find a clean layer. The contractors refused to leave it as it was because they felt their contract required a clean surface and if there were problems due to contamination down the line they could be liable. The DoE differed and the work was stopped at 112,000 tons.

We hope to publish the results from Germany down the line but they were really high – it was the Germans who found the Cromium 6.

We haven’t really said that the whole lot should be exported – hopefully there will be large areas of inert materials that pose no danger.

Our concern since last April has been to get the reports out into the public arena so that informed decisions can be made. We didn’t really think we could even ask an expert about rehabilitation or look at best practice elsewhere on the basis of the apparently conflicting accounts of the extent and danger of the contamination.

Do read the WYG 2008 Report (in conjunction with their 2006 Report) if you have a chance and let us know what you think. It was commissioned to address the ‘misinformation’ the Minister said was circulating – the NRGE interim Report, we suspect, and the German analysis reports.

Tony

[These postings are copied from the Press Release comments section on 22.12.08.]

Article Rating: 1 / 5