+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Mercury – a Part IIa investigation · health risks but that mercury fulminate was needed to make...

Mercury – a Part IIa investigation · health risks but that mercury fulminate was needed to make...

Date post: 20-Oct-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 0 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
30
Mercury – a Part IIa investigation Mandy Dennis Senior Environmental Protection Officer
Transcript
  • Mercury – a Part IIa investigation

    Mandy DennisSenior Environmental Protection Officer

  • An unlikely mix!

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwikjOyfi4DSAhWLPRoKHZDwAXoQjRwIBw&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit&bvm=bv.146496531,bs.2,d.ZGg&psig=AFQjCNEm0l6KzWXnL8iEA9vkPpota4bieg&ust=1486629135673704https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwikjOyfi4DSAhWLPRoKHZDwAXoQjRwIBw&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit&bvm=bv.146496531,bs.2,d.ZGg&psig=AFQjCNEm0l6KzWXnL8iEA9vkPpota4bieg&ust=1486629135673704http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjg-tbpi4DSAhXHDxoKHa6ODtIQjRwIBw&url=http://www.liquidmercury.net/&bvm=bv.146496531,bs.2,d.ZGg&psig=AFQjCNEyka0mIkDVkAf-FmShO5YuJCAkrQ&ust=1486629186020886http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjg-tbpi4DSAhXHDxoKHa6ODtIQjRwIBw&url=http://www.liquidmercury.net/&bvm=bv.146496531,bs.2,d.ZGg&psig=AFQjCNEyka0mIkDVkAf-FmShO5YuJCAkrQ&ust=1486629186020886https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjO_vjMjYDSAhXFXhoKHQM8B9IQjRwIBw&url=https://www.pinterest.com/pin/393924298631567498/&psig=AFQjCNE7jg8eQN4YZPJ5u_T6Eg1s-uD1EA&ust=1486629747756571https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjO_vjMjYDSAhXFXhoKHQM8B9IQjRwIBw&url=https://www.pinterest.com/pin/393924298631567498/&psig=AFQjCNE7jg8eQN4YZPJ5u_T6Eg1s-uD1EA&ust=1486629747756571

  • Section 78A – Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

    • Cause their area to be inspected to identify Contaminated Land• Statutory requirement to produce an inspection strategy• To determine whether a site is “contaminated land”• To act as enforcing authority for contaminated sites (other than

    special sites)• Determine what remediation is required and ensures that it takes

    place• Establish responsibility for remediation• Decides who bears what proportion of liability/cost of remediation• Maintain a Public Register

  • What is contaminated land?

    • Land is legally defined as ‘contaminated land’ where substances are causing or could cause:

    • significant harm to people, property or protected species• significant pollution of surface waters (for example lakes

    and rivers) or groundwater• harm to people as a result of radioactivity

    Source GOV.UK (not the legal definition)

  • Pollutant linkage• Source • Pathway• Receptor

    Must be plausible

  • Planning and land affected by contamination• Majority of remediation is carried out via the planning process• NPPF • Section 111 encourage effective use of brownfield land• Section 120 prevent unacceptable risks from pollution an land

    instability• Section 120 responsibility for safe development lies with the

    developer/landowner• Section 121 suitable for use taking into account previous use• Section 121 after remediation land should not be capable of

    being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA

  • Mercury can be highly toxic• Inorganic• Organic (methylmercury)• Metallic

    • Minamata disease• Health effects• Toxic to the nervous system• Damage to lungs, kidneys, digestive tract• Neurological and behavioural disorders• Tremors, insomnia, memory loss,

    headaches• Foetal damage• The list goes on

  • Always expect the unexpected!Mercury (total) found across the site ranging from 0.7mg/kg to 390mg/kg

    SGV 8mg/kg

    Plus arsenic –naturally occurring

  • 1884

  • 1952

  • 1964

  • • Where did it come from?• Anecdotal evidence of a

    tannery• Further investigation• 15 further trial pits• 32 soil samples• Mercury 2.3mg/kg to

    960mg/kg• Highly leachable• Geology – Made ground

    over Northampton Sand and Ironstone Formation

    • Mercury found to depths of 2m

  • Site history• Tannery started between 1884 and

    1900• Closed in 1957• Sold in 1965 and used as a garage• 2000 sold for housing

  • Leather finishing• Tanned leather can be dry and hard• Casein emulsion used to make leather supple and fix the

    dyes• Milk based casein has mercuric chloride added to it• Acts as a bactericide• Prevents the casein going off• Usage largely finished by the 1950s

  • What is casein?• Principle protein found in cows milk as a suspension of casein

    micelles• Family of phosphoproteins• Gives milk the white colour• Cheese is the coagulation of casein using rennet• Used in processed food products• Casein based glues used in woodworking and aircraft

    manufacture• Casein glue used to coat transformer board• Leather finishing

  • What next – risk assessment• Inorganic mercury• SNIFFER assessment gave SSAC of 20mg/kg• Installation of boreholes• Mercury in groundwater 83ug/l in borehole and well• Lots of discussion about compliance point• Source removed• Remediation surface strip • Clay capping layer and topsoil

  • Digging out hotspot

  • Hotspot reinstated

  • Why Part IIA?• Missed section of land at back of site outside footprint of the

    tannery had elevated levels of mercury max 50mg/kg at near surface

    • If mercury found here could it be in other adjoining properties around the tannery/garage

    11 – 116mg/kg

    0.25 – 5.9mg/kg

  • Part IIA investigation• 12 properties investigated• Criteria within 20 metres of site boundary• Special site based on the presence of mercury on the Northampton

    Sand and Ironstone formation • Investigation undertaken by the Environment Agency

  • Museum of Leathercraft• Kelly’s Directory 1893 list a John Lee & Son trading in the

    village• In the Welland list no mention of this company on either the

    1849 or 1874 lists• In 1915 company name changed to John Lee & Son

    (Grantham) Ltd• Up to 1930s traded as furriers, hide and skin merchants• In the late 1930s hatters was added to the list• Possibly closed during war time• Known for tanning rabbit hides• Closed in 1957 possibly due to myxomatosis in rabbits

  • As Mad as a Hatter!• Listed as furriers up to 1930s• Late 1930s company listed as hatters• Fur from small animals used to make felt for hat

    making• Suggested they specialised in treating rabbit

    hides

  • Carroting?• Nothing to do with the vegetable!• Rabbit skins rinsed in a heated solution of

    mercuric nitrate or brushed onto the pelt• Pelts dried in an over or outside on racks• Turned the rabbit skins a carrot colour• Fur separated from the pelt put onto a cone

    shaped colander and treated with hot water to consolidate

    • Banned in US in 1941 not because of health risks but that mercury fulminate was needed to make detonators from WWII

    • Banned in UK by 1941

  • Part IIA Investigation• Special site • The Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2000• Environment Agency took on investigation• WHY

    – Certain industries such as oil refining, explosives manufacture– Underground strata listed in Schedule 1 of the regulations– Northampton Sand and Ironstone Formation– Families or groups of substances listed in Schedule 1 of the

    regulations– Mercury and its compounds

  • Part IIA Investigation• Investigated 12 residential properties• Criteria within 20 metres of the boundary of the tannery• Communication strategy• Involved all partners such as the PCT, HPA, GPs, etc• Consultants engaged by the Environment Agency• Sampling of gardens for all three forms of mercury• Results ranged from 8.41mg/kg to 62.4mg/kg• One garden reported levels of mercury up to 62.4mg/kg

    (US95 32.2mg/kg)• SSAC 11.1 – 14.2mg/kg

  • Further investigation

  • Further investigation

  • Voluntary remediation

  • Human health assessment criteriainorganic mercury

    mg/kg• ICRCL 1• SNIFFER SSAC 20• SGV 8• SSAC 11.2 – 14.1• SSAC without home grown produce 51• SGV 170• LQM/CIEH S4UL 40• C4SL ND

  • THANK YOU FOR LISTENING

    Mandy DennisSenior Environmental Protection Officer

    01832 [email protected]

    Mercury – a Part IIa investigationAn unlikely mix!Section 78A – Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990What is contaminated land?Slide Number 5Planning and land affected by contaminationMercury can be highly toxicAlways expect the unexpected!1884�1952�1964�?Site historyLeather finishingWhat is casein?What next – risk assessmentDigging out hotspotHotspot reinstatedWhy Part IIA?Part IIA investigation�Museum of LeathercraftAs Mad as a Hatter!�Carroting?�Part IIA InvestigationPart IIA InvestigationFurther investigationFurther investigationVoluntary remediationHuman health assessment criteria�inorganic mercury�THANK YOU FOR LISTENING


Recommended