River anker pollution

richiekelly · Apr 22, 2010

just seen on the BBC midlands news that the river anker has been polluted during a fire at a metal finishing factory in nuneaton,the EA have detected cyanide (rings a bell on other polutions) the anker is a small river that has been recovering from being almost an open sewer to a reasonable fishery,the same firm was involved 10 years ago in a simalar pollution,pictures of dead and dying fish were shown on the tv news item,why are factories that are close to waterways and use dangerous chemicals not required to build a bund around the area so that in the event of an incident none of the chemicals can escape and are contained within the bund,god knows how long the river will take to recover its not just fish that are affected but the whole ecosystem of the river.

The Sogster · Apr 22, 2010

I'm saddened to hear of the pollution.

I like the idea of the bund, sadly I can't see it taking off. The paltry fines handed out just don't act as enough of a deterrent sadly.

Will Golightly · Apr 22, 2010

As the blanker said, the same factory had a similar fire 10 years ago, resulting in a large amount of cyanide killing pretty much eveything in a large stretch of this lovely river. (The factory owners said at the time that 'it could never happen again!)

It had almost completely recovered and had recently produced barbel, roach, chub, perch, pike and several other species to a good size. Most of those fish are now dead!

Here's the fire.

The fire brigade dammed a water pipe from the factory into the river.

But missed this one. (It was still leaking contaminated water 10 hours after the fire.)

Some of the results of the pollution.

The EA turned up but said they couldn't do anything for the dying fish, or take any water samples as they didn't know what chemicals had been spilt into the river. They did stand watching the fish dying though!

I came home feeling totally disheartened!

Morespiders · Apr 22, 2010

Why couldnt they take water samples Will?
No let me imagine, health and safety?

S-Kippy · Apr 22, 2010

Is that what constitutes the EA equivalent of a rapid response unit then.....one pair of waders between two and a polo shirt ?

slime monster · Apr 22, 2010

Sad news indeed following the upper trent disaster and a pathetic response from the look of it.

Pete Marshall · Apr 23, 2010

EA Response

The EA are now taking action to save some of the fish. See my report http://petemarshall.com/diary/2010/04/serious-pollution-on-the-river-anker/
Have to wait and see what happens about this, particularity in light of the fact that this seems to be a repeat of a previous incident.
The lawyers for the company are flocking around as I speak, so have to be careful until I get proper confirmation of the events.

preston96 · Apr 23, 2010

I can't get my head around why the EA couldn't take waters samples............this should be looked into by the Angling trust.

My guess is that because they were wearing t.shirts instead of protective clothing they were scared of getting their hands wet............why are they not issued with the suitable PPE to do the job that we expect of them,or if they are why wasn't it used.

Do the EA have a clue?

S-Kippy · Apr 23, 2010

To be fair if anybody said "cyanide" to me I'd be reluctant to get me hands wet but surely this is what the EA do so there ought to be a "procedure" and the EA ought to have the right protective gear somewhere AND the guys trained to use it....which is not necessarily the guys in the photo who may well have been as frustrated & appalled as we are.

Pete Marshall · Apr 23, 2010

S-Kippy said:
To be fair if anybody said "cyanide" to me I'd be reluctant to get me hands wet but surely this is what the EA do so there ought to be a "procedure" and the EA ought to have the right protective gear somewhere AND the guys trained to use it....which is not necessarily the guys in the photo who may well have been as frustrated & appalled as we are.

There is a procedure. A very detailed procedure to be followed when any chemical spill occurs. I would assume the EA would follow this procedure, and it certainly wouldn't involve there employees or any body else entering water that was potentially contaminated by the cocktail of chemicals that is used by this particular company.
Samples were taken as I understand it in the appropriate manner as soon as the emergency services cleared this to go ahead.
Whilst it is great fun to slag of the EA, your attention may be better placed on the company that has now been responsible for two serious incidents in the last ten years and perhaps give the EA and potentially the H&S executive as well as the Fire service a little help in getting to the bottom of what has occurred.
The EA fisheries staff have, to my knowledge, worked flat out today to rescue fish from the river and move them to safety.

Graham Whatmore · Apr 23, 2010

God but thats one awful sight to see isn't it, and yet another example of how the EA race to the rescue, I wouldn't trust them to look after a budgie let alone our rivers.

I used to fish the Anchor around Tamworth in the early 90's and it was a real pleasure to fish there, plenty of roach and chub back then and perfect stick water.

S-Kippy · Apr 23, 2010

I quite agree.My point was that based solely on the pictures it would be unfair to criticise too harshly the two poor sods first on the scene BUT I think it is not unreasonable to question whether the EA might or could have done a bit more,a bit quicker.I'm not saying they could as I have no idea of their true capabilities..I'm just wondering.

We are encouraged to report such incidents [and frankly who is better placed] but what sort of reaction can we reasonably expect ? I'm just wondering.

Morespiders · Apr 24, 2010

In all fairness to the EA, i wouldnt have thought once cyanide gets in the river there was anything they could do about it, but once again a full river devoid of fish.
Whens it going to stop?

preston96 · Apr 24, 2010

Pete Marshall said:
There is a procedure. A very detailed procedure to be followed when any chemical spill occurs. I would assume the EA would follow this procedure, and it certainly wouldn't involve there employees or any body else entering water that was potentially contaminated by the cocktail of chemicals that is used by this particular company.
Samples were taken as I understand it in the appropriate manner as soon as the emergency services cleared this to go ahead.
Whilst it is great fun to slag of the EA, your attention may be better placed on the company that has now been responsible for two serious incidents in the last ten years and perhaps give the EA and potentially the H&S executive as well as the Fire service a little help in getting to the bottom of what has occurred.
The EA fisheries staff have, to my knowledge, worked flat out today to rescue fish from the river and move them to safety.

Actually, i dont find it great fun to slag off the EA, i find it bloody frustrating that such a large body can get away with doing so little at such great cost!

richiekelly · Apr 24, 2010

Paul Williams 11 said:
Actually, i dont find it great fun to slag off the EA, i find it bloody frustrating that such a large body can get away with doing so little at such great cost!

paul i totaly agree with that, if they were doing the job expected of them they wouldnt get critised

will they are sad photographs,i know the river is very near to your home did you fish it yourself? my son fished it during the winter months for chub and had some nice days on there sadly that has been destroyed.

i used to work at a chemical plant and all tanks were within a bund the plant was next to the coventry canal and carp could be seen in the warm water outflow from the plant on many days,things can be done its a question of profit against ethics.

Graham Whatmore · Apr 24, 2010

Paul Williams 11 said:
Actually, i dont find it great fun to slag off the EA, i find it bloody frustrating that such a large body can get away with doing so little at such great cost!

Frustrated but not surprised eh! Paul considering their track record. There is very little anyone can do to stop these poisons going into the rivers, once it is in its too late the damage is done and the only thing to do is attempt to limit the damage.

Perhaps companies that have the potential to damage rivers or water courses should have their sewerage systems blocked off and be emptied by mechanical means? Is it practical? Gawd knows but its the only way to ensure it doesn't happen at all.

S-Kippy · Apr 24, 2010

Good point. If a pipe leads into a river then it has the potential to do this so why is it allowed to remain in place ? I bet most incidents of this type result from some lazy get dumping something down a drain with no thought as to where that drain leads. The trouble is it is really quite hard [and costly] to get rid of unpleasant stuff nowadays.

I just dont understand why those pipes were uncapped. Sooner or later this was bound to happen.

Will Golightly · Apr 24, 2010

When we walked along the river bank on Thursday there was a definite smell coming off the river. I didn't want to see anyone from the EA wading about in the river or lifting buckets of water out, as it could have been very dangerous, especially as they were not sure what chemicals had entered the water.

Let's be serious about it, people are far more important that fish, but surely a few samples could have been taken immediately using the correct equipment? (sample bottles and extending test collection rods with protective clothing)

These samples could then have been analysed and possibly neutralised with other chemicals. The earlier this is done, the better. If the EA officers can stand on the bank watching dying fish, surely they could also do this, rather than have to wait until the Fire Brigade say it is safe to do so? Samples were taken eventually, some 12 hours later, but most of the fish were dead by then!

Blanker, both my son and I have fished the river there for several years. My son and daughter both caught their first fish on that stretch and I have caught some lovely fish from there, including one day when I had 11 different species. Last winter, my mate and I had some lovely days over there, catching chub to 4lb+ on bread and paste.

Last April, my son and I watched Barbel spawning in a tiny weir, 100 metres down from the factory! I don't suppose there is any chance of that this year!

Will

Graham Whatmore · Apr 24, 2010

There is a lot that can be done once poisons are entering or have entered the river and none of them include the EA standing looking at it.

jcp01 · Apr 24, 2010

I see that they have put the rescue fish in the Sence. I fish the area of the confluence of both rivers at King ****s Hole near Atherstone and wonder if the pollution will have reached downstream that far ?

Come to think of it, why did the EA put the rescue fish in another connected but independent river that contains not only coarse fish but also a head of grayling and wild brown trout thereby upsetting a long established biomass balance - surely you just don't do this - I would have thought that the fish should be reintroduced to the Anker itself but some way upstream of the pollution incident?

River anker pollution

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Member

Senior Member

Well-known member