Fears over Southend Airport deicer going into brook

Fears over airport deicer going into brooks

Fears over airport deicer going into brooks

First published in News
Last updated
Exclusive by

AN ENVIRONMENTAL group set up to protect the fishing industry along the Thames estuary has raised “serious concerns” over the discharging of de-icer into two streams, by Southend Airport.

The Kent & Essex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority says the practice of discharging up to 5,273 cubic metres into Prittle and Eastwood Brooks could lead to “increased pollution”

and have a damaging effect of marine life, such as oysters.

Airport operator, the Stobart Group, has applied to the Environment Agency for a permit to continue discharging the deicer, a practice it has been doing for two years.

Responding to a public consultation exercise about the permit application, Joss Wiggins, conservation officer for the authority, wrote: “I write to express serious concerns that this authority has, with regard to the application to discharge de-icing chemicals in the form of potassium acetate into the water courses known as Prittle Brook and Eastwood Brook, which in turn discharge into the receiving waters of the River Roach and Crouch.

“As you will be aware the Roach and Crouch support commercial fisheries for molluscan shellfish, including native oysters, rock oysters and clams. The estuaries also support commercial and recreational fisheries for a range of fin fish species and supports an important diversity of marine species and habitat.”

He added: “Our serious concerns relate to the potential impact of increased pollution resulting from the input of these de-icing chemicals into the watercourse.

Concerns have been expressed in the past with regard to pressures upon these waters from effluent discharges, which impact upon natural marine populations and shellfish production within this area.

“It is considered that any increase in effluent or contaminant discharge into these waters would be totally unacceptable and that serious efforts should be made to reduce or eliminate any existing discharges.

“This authority would appreciate your very serious consideration of these concerns which it is felt should result in your refusing this application.”

A spokeswoman for the airport said: “Extensive ecological monitoring has taken place during this period, and the Environment Agency reports little or no impact on water courses and wildlife.”

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:36am Thu 19 Jun 14

CarnMountification says...

I thought those cockles had a funny taste, assumed it was down to human waste
Now we're finally told about the airports de-icer, without it they'd taste much nicer
I thought those cockles had a funny taste, assumed it was down to human waste Now we're finally told about the airports de-icer, without it they'd taste much nicer CarnMountification
  • Score: 1

11:15am Thu 19 Jun 14

maxell says...

Although you may not think that the eastwood brook and prittle brook are tidal, they are and what is interesting is as the salt water flows in and the fresh water flows out two layers are formed and only mixed when turbulence is created , so depending on when and where water is tested could greatly affect the result, as an example if you tested the water with only fresh water the KAc detection maybe small and the toxicology maybe also small, however when KAc is mixed with salt water it become much more toxic, so when taking samples from the two brookes it is important to get a complete cross section of tests. I would not trust anybody who is intrusted to self monitor as it is always open to abuse. There are far two many anomalies, with regard to pipework,and sewer connections around this airport. Wrong connections could explain why the golf course has been flooding, bet you pound to a penny it has something to do with the runway extension as the area problems have worsend since it being installed. my opinion as always
Although you may not think that the eastwood brook and prittle brook are tidal, they are and what is interesting is as the salt water flows in and the fresh water flows out two layers are formed and only mixed when turbulence is created , so depending on when and where water is tested could greatly affect the result, as an example if you tested the water with only fresh water the KAc detection maybe small and the toxicology maybe also small, however when KAc is mixed with salt water it become much more toxic, so when taking samples from the two brookes it is important to get a complete cross section of tests. I would not trust anybody who is intrusted to self monitor as it is always open to abuse. There are far two many anomalies, with regard to pipework,and sewer connections around this airport. Wrong connections could explain why the golf course has been flooding, bet you pound to a penny it has something to do with the runway extension as the area problems have worsend since it being installed. my opinion as always maxell
  • Score: 7

11:33am Thu 19 Jun 14

CarnMountification says...

maxell wrote:
Although you may not think that the eastwood brook and prittle brook are tidal, they are and what is interesting is as the salt water flows in and the fresh water flows out two layers are formed and only mixed when turbulence is created , so depending on when and where water is tested could greatly affect the result, as an example if you tested the water with only fresh water the KAc detection maybe small and the toxicology maybe also small, however when KAc is mixed with salt water it become much more toxic, so when taking samples from the two brookes it is important to get a complete cross section of tests. I would not trust anybody who is intrusted to self monitor as it is always open to abuse. There are far two many anomalies, with regard to pipework,and sewer connections around this airport. Wrong connections could explain why the golf course has been flooding, bet you pound to a penny it has something to do with the runway extension as the area problems have worsend since it being installed. my opinion as always
In Saen ?
[quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: Although you may not think that the eastwood brook and prittle brook are tidal, they are and what is interesting is as the salt water flows in and the fresh water flows out two layers are formed and only mixed when turbulence is created , so depending on when and where water is tested could greatly affect the result, as an example if you tested the water with only fresh water the KAc detection maybe small and the toxicology maybe also small, however when KAc is mixed with salt water it become much more toxic, so when taking samples from the two brookes it is important to get a complete cross section of tests. I would not trust anybody who is intrusted to self monitor as it is always open to abuse. There are far two many anomalies, with regard to pipework,and sewer connections around this airport. Wrong connections could explain why the golf course has been flooding, bet you pound to a penny it has something to do with the runway extension as the area problems have worsend since it being installed. my opinion as always[/p][/quote]In Saen ? CarnMountification
  • Score: -1

11:51am Thu 19 Jun 14

Ian P says...

I do not believe Stobart Air is the first operator to use deicer on the runways, so where did the run-off go previously?
I do not believe Stobart Air is the first operator to use deicer on the runways, so where did the run-off go previously? Ian P
  • Score: 4

1:22pm Thu 19 Jun 14

emcee says...

I would not mind betting far more deicer, along with other pollutants, find their way into the brooks from roads and peoples driveways than will ever be washed off from the airport.
I would not mind betting far more deicer, along with other pollutants, find their way into the brooks from roads and peoples driveways than will ever be washed off from the airport. emcee
  • Score: 7

2:45pm Thu 19 Jun 14

jayman says...

emcee wrote:
I would not mind betting far more deicer, along with other pollutants, find their way into the brooks from roads and peoples driveways than will ever be washed off from the airport.
Therefore, we have a problem only made worst by the airport. I'm not sure of the harm that can be caused to marine life by runway de-icer though. I do know that aircraft de-icer is a marine, bio-hazardous chemical but i am reliably informer that the airport dispose of this via other means. I do believe though that the volume of water being discharged can and will cause flooding issues.
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: I would not mind betting far more deicer, along with other pollutants, find their way into the brooks from roads and peoples driveways than will ever be washed off from the airport.[/p][/quote]Therefore, we have a problem only made worst by the airport. I'm not sure of the harm that can be caused to marine life by runway de-icer though. I do know that aircraft de-icer is a marine, bio-hazardous chemical but i am reliably informer that the airport dispose of this via other means. I do believe though that the volume of water being discharged can and will cause flooding issues. jayman
  • Score: -2

2:46pm Thu 19 Jun 14

jayman says...

Ian P wrote:
I do not believe Stobart Air is the first operator to use deicer on the runways, so where did the run-off go previously?
in days gone by, 'propeller aircraft' plough and rock salt, failing that, closure until weather improved.
[quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: I do not believe Stobart Air is the first operator to use deicer on the runways, so where did the run-off go previously?[/p][/quote]in days gone by, 'propeller aircraft' plough and rock salt, failing that, closure until weather improved. jayman
  • Score: 0

6:39pm Thu 19 Jun 14

VeteranOfMany says...

CarnMountification wrote:
I thought those cockles had a funny taste, assumed it was down to human waste
Now we're finally told about the airports de-icer, without it they'd taste much nicer
.
[quote][p][bold]CarnMountification[/bold] wrote: I thought those cockles had a funny taste, assumed it was down to human waste Now we're finally told about the airports de-icer, without it they'd taste much nicer[/p][/quote]. VeteranOfMany
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Joe Clark says...

jayman wrote:
emcee wrote:
I would not mind betting far more deicer, along with other pollutants, find their way into the brooks from roads and peoples driveways than will ever be washed off from the airport.
Therefore, we have a problem only made worst by the airport. I'm not sure of the harm that can be caused to marine life by runway de-icer though. I do know that aircraft de-icer is a marine, bio-hazardous chemical but i am reliably informer that the airport dispose of this via other means. I do believe though that the volume of water being discharged can and will cause flooding issues.
Quote jayman.

"Therefore, we have a problem only made worst by the airport"

Should that not be worse?
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: I would not mind betting far more deicer, along with other pollutants, find their way into the brooks from roads and peoples driveways than will ever be washed off from the airport.[/p][/quote]Therefore, we have a problem only made worst by the airport. I'm not sure of the harm that can be caused to marine life by runway de-icer though. I do know that aircraft de-icer is a marine, bio-hazardous chemical but i am reliably informer that the airport dispose of this via other means. I do believe though that the volume of water being discharged can and will cause flooding issues.[/p][/quote]Quote jayman. "Therefore, we have a problem only made worst by the airport" Should that not be worse? Joe Clark
  • Score: 2

7:16pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Joe Clark says...

jayman wrote:
Ian P wrote:
I do not believe Stobart Air is the first operator to use deicer on the runways, so where did the run-off go previously?
in days gone by, 'propeller aircraft' plough and rock salt, failing that, closure until weather improved.
So by your logic we need to close every road as well as de-icer is used on them and anyone who uses de-icer on their car must also be banned as these too would find their way into the water courses.

Well there go's the economic recovery and countless jobs, thank god jayman in not a MP!
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: I do not believe Stobart Air is the first operator to use deicer on the runways, so where did the run-off go previously?[/p][/quote]in days gone by, 'propeller aircraft' plough and rock salt, failing that, closure until weather improved.[/p][/quote]So by your logic we need to close every road as well as de-icer is used on them and anyone who uses de-icer on their car must also be banned as these too would find their way into the water courses. Well there go's the economic recovery and countless jobs, thank god jayman in not a MP! Joe Clark
  • Score: 3

7:21pm Thu 19 Jun 14

jayman says...

Joe Clark wrote:
jayman wrote:
emcee wrote:
I would not mind betting far more deicer, along with other pollutants, find their way into the brooks from roads and peoples driveways than will ever be washed off from the airport.
Therefore, we have a problem only made worst by the airport. I'm not sure of the harm that can be caused to marine life by runway de-icer though. I do know that aircraft de-icer is a marine, bio-hazardous chemical but i am reliably informer that the airport dispose of this via other means. I do believe though that the volume of water being discharged can and will cause flooding issues.
Quote jayman.

"Therefore, we have a problem only made worst by the airport"

Should that not be worse?
My use of textual communication obviously served its intended purpose as you correctly managed to identify the word I used and corrected it in its correctly spelt version. Therefore, by using your time and resources to pick me up on this, you have only wasted your time. ponder upon this as I continue with my life in its fully incorrect and grammatically carefree manner.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: I would not mind betting far more deicer, along with other pollutants, find their way into the brooks from roads and peoples driveways than will ever be washed off from the airport.[/p][/quote]Therefore, we have a problem only made worst by the airport. I'm not sure of the harm that can be caused to marine life by runway de-icer though. I do know that aircraft de-icer is a marine, bio-hazardous chemical but i am reliably informer that the airport dispose of this via other means. I do believe though that the volume of water being discharged can and will cause flooding issues.[/p][/quote]Quote jayman. "Therefore, we have a problem only made worst by the airport" Should that not be worse?[/p][/quote]My use of textual communication obviously served its intended purpose as you correctly managed to identify the word I used and corrected it in its correctly spelt version. Therefore, by using your time and resources to pick me up on this, you have only wasted your time. ponder upon this as I continue with my life in its fully incorrect and grammatically carefree manner. jayman
  • Score: -3

10:00pm Thu 19 Jun 14

jayman says...

Joe Clark wrote:
jayman wrote:
Ian P wrote:
I do not believe Stobart Air is the first operator to use deicer on the runways, so where did the run-off go previously?
in days gone by, 'propeller aircraft' plough and rock salt, failing that, closure until weather improved.
So by your logic we need to close every road as well as de-icer is used on them and anyone who uses de-icer on their car must also be banned as these too would find their way into the water courses.

Well there go's the economic recovery and countless jobs, thank god jayman in not a MP!
alas. we have rock salt and ploughs for roads, oh. Cars do not have wings, And cars that have as many passengers on board are called coaches my dear boy.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: I do not believe Stobart Air is the first operator to use deicer on the runways, so where did the run-off go previously?[/p][/quote]in days gone by, 'propeller aircraft' plough and rock salt, failing that, closure until weather improved.[/p][/quote]So by your logic we need to close every road as well as de-icer is used on them and anyone who uses de-icer on their car must also be banned as these too would find their way into the water courses. Well there go's the economic recovery and countless jobs, thank god jayman in not a MP![/p][/quote]alas. we have rock salt and ploughs for roads, oh. Cars do not have wings, And cars that have as many passengers on board are called coaches my dear boy. jayman
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree