...Angus Fire must have known
Newly recieved data shows that Angus Fire must have known that they were discharging into the Wenning and WWTW (Waste Water Treatment Works) and what they were sending.
In our last post "When is Transparency not Transparent" we showed images from Angus Fires Sewer system CCTV mapping which links directly to the main sewer from the Lagoons, their own map also shows that there are discharge points to the "Water Culvert" a fancy name for Rivers and Becks or other surface water (Becks are streams to those down south of Yorkshire).
How could they not know that these were being sent directly to pollute our rivers and Aquifers as Angus Fires owners Kidde Products knew about the environmental and health dangers of PFAS in 2001?? (Fire Fighting Foam Coalition)...
Also with the wording within Angus Fires consultants Geosyntec it seems that the smoking gun has been found.
Angus Fire must have known about these issues long before the Guardian Report in May 2024.
Sources:
Although the above doesn't show what they were analysing, it shows that at the very least ASIG (Angus International Safety Group*) were aware of PFAS.
What we do know is that Angus Fire want to continue to pollute our River where even 1ppt of PFAS is dangerous to human health.
*while I acknowledge Mr Williams claims that Angus International Safety Group is a "holding company" the name of the firm, and their own Companies House Filings for Angus International Safety Group Limited, shows that AISG is in fact part of the same group as Angus Fire and other subsideries. I also acknowledge that Mr Williams is the CEO of both (if not all) firms within the group.
Personally my prefered discharge rate is 0m3 per day, hour or minute from any discharge point on the site. After you've connected the locations of the outlets and which drainage system is connected to which drainage system, there are key words mentioned.
"Flow Rates" and "V notches"
Wording in the report that makes my alarm bells go off, is they knew flow rates from the discharge points and words like "diversions from the S1 v-notch" and the waste water treatment system as recomended by United Utilities... does this mean that UU were aware of PFAS in their WWTW?
Knowing a flow rate of a discharge point shows it must be measured (for their permit), they must have also known the drains were connected to polluted effluent waters(or atleast someone at Angus did), we also know that AF discharged into the sewer system due to the CAR's submitted.
Coincidently, in the meeting GeoSyntec quote United Utilities as saying "with PFAS being an emerging contaminant of concern in UK and the Waste water treatment plant at High Bentham having no specific PFAS element included within it, their position was to take a precuationary approach and not accept any level of PFAS to their treatment plant currently". Yet they have been for many, many years.
United Utilities are then quoted as saying "UU noted that they had considered accepting the stormwater at an alternative facility with a greater capacity....."
But did not mention the PFAS treatment element in this plant with "greater capacity"... so are UU just fobbing it off into a greater "diluted state"? which to be fair just spreads the pollution further - and with Water Authorities current record of polluting our Rivers will just end up as more polluted Bio Solids and River pollution.
Something that brings up another issues is the contractors also say "but the Environment Agency declined this option based on dilution of effluents which are not collected local to the alternative facilility being impermissible".
I've taken impermissible as not allowed, or not covered by a permit - which begs the question was the transport of effluent to the Morecambe Building from 1976 to the mid/late 1990s transported to another storage site illegally?
