Ecologist - Vol 23 No 5 - September / October 1993

Page 177

How Safe is Safe?

In 1810, the J. J. White factory bought a 414 acre site of a 17th century steel works near Glasgow and another 12 acres as a waste materials dump, to produce soap and soda, but by 1820, it was producing chrome salts. It went on to become the largest producer of chrome in the world. In 1899, the horrific working and health conditions at the White's factory became a national scandal when Labour leader Keir Hardie published the first of his "White Slave" series of pamphlets on the Rutherglen works, entitled "Chrome, Charity, Crystals and Cant". In many of the workers, the chrome, both liquid and dust, had created holes in their arms and noses. "They told me of John Campbell who had to wear a cage to cover his belly it was so eaten away with chrome poisoning," wrote Hardie.

By the turn of the century, the company had become British Chrome Chemicals Ltd, which started manufacturing chromium oxide in 1919, followed in 1945 by bichromate crystalizing. The waste products changed accordingly from chrome ore dust, to a contaminated liquor, to residue deposits. In the mid-1950s, factory records detail complaints from residents about the chromium dust levels in the street. Other by-products included heavy metals, acids and poisons such as cyanide, arsenic and benzene. After more mergers and amalgamations, the factory finally closed down in 1968 when the production of bichromate was moved to Cumbria.

The 12 acres of land set aside for waste disposal had quickly become inadequate in the 148 years of the factory's working life. Expansive ponds and lagoons formed and regular but indiscriminate dumping took place day and night. In April 1991, chromium waste was discovered on land acquired for the development of a nursing home. A driver, Mr McLeary, employed by the chemical factory to transport the waste to the various dumps, came forward, after local and national publicity, to reveal more sites — and the names of other drivers. Soon toxic dumps were discovered throughout the built-up areas of southeast G l a s g ow— Cambuslang, Carmyle, Rutherglen, Toryglen and Eastfield.

An October 1991 public meeting, convened by the district council, revealed that the local people knew far more about the extent of dumped carcinogenic hexavalent chromium waste than the authorities. Rutherglen maternity hospital has been constructed on top of a toxic waste dump, while an industrial site — with at least four food-related factories — has been built on the site of the former White's chemical works.

Most of the contaminated areas that have been found have been children's play areas and football pitches, which, although fenced off with warning sites, children still play on. Some of the toxic waste seeping through the football park cannot be seen in daylight but glows clearly at night.

Dust and direct human contact with contaminated material seem to be the major immediate threats. Levels of child leukaemia in the area are high, as is the number of children with asthma and people with skin problems.

After several months of official reports, including health reports, members of the public involved in supplying information to the authorities formed the Cambuslang, Carmyle and Rutherglen Against Pollution (CCRAP) group in March 1992 to campaign against and publicize the toxic waste. The group are now opposing plans of Celtic Football Club to build a new stadium on an area believed to have high levels of contamination from the chemical works, and demanding proper remedial action, not just the fencing off of contaminated sites, in addition to surveys to find the full extent of contamination.

Cambuslang, Carmyle and Rutherglen Against Pollution are lobbying hard to ensure that the site is not simply covered over with concrete.

Mary Ferrie of the Craig Anti-Pollution Group expresses the frustrations of many similar groups and concerned individuals when she says, "We're not scare-mongering. We're scared. Why aren't our councillors and MPs shouting the odds about this? We're just housewives, but we have to do it ourselves. We have to say something," a plea that has been echoed around Britain by groups who have found little local or central government interest in land contamination.

Clean-Up

The most effective way to remove the stigma of contamination would be a credible — but expensive — clean-up operation. The cost of remedial work to prevent landfill gas, for example, can range from £50,000 to £500,000 depending on the site, while remedial work for groundwater pollution may reach

£1 million.32 The total cost of cleaning-up contaminated land in the UK has been estimated at £10-30 billion.3 3 Environmental groups argue that a tax on the more polluting industries, such as landfill sites, steel works, chemical factories and even petrol filling stations, could fund the clean-up and reduce further contamination.

In the meantime, on-site containment — covering contamination with earth or tarmac — and cheap waste disposal in landfills is undermining remedial treatment, and the little remedial work that is carried out is often of a low standard. In a 1988 survey of 29 sites which had been redeveloped, contaminated ground in 22 of them had simply been covered over, while in the remaining seven, contaminants had been removed for disposal off-site, shifting the problem elsewhere. A more detailed assessment of seven of the sites indicated that reclamation on only four of them had prevented hazards to human and animal health, and to the environment. Waste tips, especially those containing drummed or bagged waste, were described as " a contamination time bomb."34

The Ecologist, Vol. 23, No. 5, September/October 1993

177