How many lorries will there be?

During construction there will be about 770 lorries day and once operational about 666 a day.

That’s 55 an hour.55 lorries an hour a

Diesal Fumes cause cancer

There’s not enough waste locally to fill the incinerator, so it will be driven in from all over the country.

There is no contractual requirement for the lorries to follow a specific route.  Lorries carrying hazardous waste could be coming down your road soon.

The incinerator will produce over 75,000 tonnes of ash a year that needs to be driven elsewhere for further processing.

That’s the equivalent weight of 17 double decker buses worth of ash a day.

haz waste10,000 tonnes of this ash is considered hazardous waste and this has to be disposed of in specialist landfill sites.

That’s about 3 skip loads of extremely toxic ash a day being driven through our streets.

Fly ash from the South London Incinerator will likely be going 285km away to Wingmoor Farm in Gloucestershire where the local residents get to inhale this very toxic waste.

For a more in depth look at lorry movements please see this post.


Category: All you need to know about the South London Incinerator

← How many lorries will there be?
  • smogbad

    The ash lorry numbers are extremely relevant.The lorries and their diesel engines will be
    doing enough damage by raising general air pollution levels locally, but
    there will be a special extra danger.

    THE LEGAL VIEW OF
    AIR/INHALED DUST TOXICITY AT CORBY

    (of more than incidental
    interest,first legal acceptance of the inhalation route for toxicity)

    20 LORRIES at 20 tonnes = 400 tons a day of very toxic
    ash….they’d better be dustproof..if I were them I would be knobbling the Public Health doctor’s
    collection of STATISTICS for:

    miscarriage,congenital malformation,stillbirth.neonatal
    deaths and infant mortality as we
    speak.(they all relate to foetal healthy development,but are collected separately)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corby_toxic_waste_case

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2009/1944.html

    There’s
    been a lot of judgements coming down recently….perhaps people will
    forgive
    me quoting extensively from one in 2009,that may even seem
    irrelevant.
    What’s Corby got to do with Beddington?

    Through Corby drove convoys of
    ill-protected loads of contaminated mud from
    the demolition of the Corby
    Steel Works…a number of children were born
    with limb deformities (we know
    little of the other ill-health that would
    have resulted locally).Their
    parents took Corby Borough Council to court.

    THROUGH LOCAL ROADS will be
    coming convoys of lorries carrying loads of
    exceedingly toxic FLY ASH.How is
    the safety of these loads to be
    guaranteed?Will they have HAZMAT warnings on
    them.What will the accidental
    spillage procedures be?Who will be responsible
    for damages,in the legal
    sense?

    The illustrations,below, is of
    levels of metals due to be coming
    from the Beddington chimneys (Viridor’s
    numbers) and of nanoparticles in the
    lungs.

    The Corby Judgement also has implications for the Council:

    Implications for industry
    Paula Jefferson, head of Beachcroft LLP’s Disease Group, said: “Any
    organisation involved in any activity in the future, where there is the
    potential for release of harmful substances in to the atmosphere, should
    ensure that they have taken all necessary steps to identify the
    potential contamination and to then ensure that they either employ, or
    have themselves the necessary skills, to deal with that contamination.
    The principles in the judgment apply not just when there is demolition
    in progress, but to any activity where there is potential for exposure
    in to the atmosphere. Where there is any known potential for such
    exposure, then regard should be had to not just the onsite workforce but
    also to those living and working in the surrounding area. In the Corby
    case the area of risk was 4km from the demolition site. The area for
    potential exposure will clearly vary depending on the circumstances of
    each case. In essence, the message remains the same – proper risk
    assessment is key and must include identifying the appropriate people to
    do the job and not cutting corners, which, as has been proved for Corby
    Borough Council, is likely to be false economy.”

    DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT EITHER VIRIDOR OR SUTTON HAS DARED TO MAKE ANY SUCH LORRY OPERATION RISK ANALYSIS PUBLIC?

    This is some of what
    Justice AKENHEAD had to say

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases

    “·
    Dr Flaks, correctly in my
    judgement, identified PAHs, dioxins and heavy
    metals as the likely
    teratogens.
    The former were present at the BSC site
    largely as a consequence of the coke
    making processes used on the site over
    many years whilst the latter were the
    by
    products of the iron and steel
    making process. Also, dioxins and furans
    (PCCDs
    and PCDDs) were produced
    in the electric arc furnace process as well as in
    the
    sintering process.
    Dioxins and furans accumulate in the body and are only
    very
    slowly
    eliminated.

    ·
    So far as dioxins are concerned, Dr Flaks
    commented,
    based on papers and research, that it should have been obvious
    that the BSC
    site would be contaminated with dioxins when it closed, it being
    inevitable
    that dioxins would have been produced during the steel works
    operation (in
    particular the sintering plant); dioxins were and are known to
    be extremely
    stable in the soil. Decommissioning should have taken this into
    account so
    that
    any patches of heavily contaminated soil could have been
    identified and
    disposed of by incineration. The toxic characteristics of
    dioxins had been
    widely published since the 1970s and the technology for
    analysis and
    disposal
    was readily available in the early 1980s when
    remediation work at Corby was
    proposed. The toxic characteristics of dioxins
    include damage to human
    health
    (and potential damage to the embryo). I
    accept this evidence; it is logical
    and
    backed up by numerous papers and
    research.

    ·
    Dr Flaks was of the view, which I accept, that
    embryos
    and foetuses are much more sensitive to toxic chemicals than adults.
    The
    dosage
    of a teratogen required to induce birth defects can be much
    lower than that
    which would be required to cause toxic effects in adults and,
    although its
    teratogenic effects may be the result of induction by high
    doses, they may
    also
    be induced by low level
    exposures.

    ·
    During the period from conception until
    implantation,
    insults to the embryo are likely to result either in its death
    and
    miscarriage
    or resorption, or in its intact survival. At this stage,
    the embryo is able
    to
    repair itself by multiplication of its
    undifferentiated cells. The embryonic
    period, from 18 to 54-60 days after
    conception, is the period when the
    organs
    are developing and is the
    period of maximum sensitivity to teratogenesis,
    since
    tissue damage
    becomes irreparable. The foetal phase, from the end of the
    embryonic stage to
    birth is the period when growth and maturation of
    previously
    formed
    organs takes place, and exposure to teratogens is likely to affect
    foetal
    growth, or the size or function of a specific organ, rather than to
    cause
    gross structural defects. Human teratogenicity is indicated by a
    recognizable
    pattern of anomalies, a statistically higher prevalence of a
    particular
    anomaly in patients exposed to an agent (which is an

    epidemiological
    facet), the presence of the agent during the stage of
    development of the
    affected organ, a lower incidence of the defect in the
    population prior to
    the
    introduction of the agent, and production of
    birth defects in experimental
    animals by the agent.

    ·
    To induce a
    teratogenic effect, teratogenic substances
    must be administered during
    organogenesis, the period of embryological
    differentiation. The critical
    period of organogenesis in humans is 20-55
    days
    (or 35-70 days after the
    last menstrual period). The nature and incidence of
    effects are dependent on
    the particular developmental stage when exposure
    occurs. During embryonic
    differentiation or organogenesis, the embryo is
    highly
    susceptible to
    teratogenic insult. Following differentiation, the foetus
    becomes
    progressively less susceptible to teratogenic stimuli, although
    increasing
    the dosage may or extend the period of susceptibility.

    ·
    Most known
    teratogens have been identified through
    experimental animal studies. It is of
    course not ethical for any teratogenic
    tests to be done on pregnant mothers
    let alone on embryos and foetuses. A
    problem with this is that there is no
    exact or mathematical correlation
    between
    what will affect a mouse foetus
    and a human foetus. Only about 19 drugs or
    groups of drugs and three other
    chemicals (methyl mercury, toluene and
    polychlorinated biphenyls) have been
    established as teratogenic agents in
    humans (by clusters of abnormalities
    being observed by physicians) whereas
    about 1,500 teratogens have been
    identified in laboratory animals (mainly by
    laboratory
    testing).

    ·
    A teratogenic response depends upon the
    administration
    of a specific treatment of a particular dose to a genetically
    susceptible
    species when the embryos are in a susceptible stage of
    development.
    Susceptibility to teratogenesis by a particular chemical depends
    on
    differences
    between species and between strains within a species.
    Variables determining
    strain susceptibility include maternal parity and
    weight, foetal weight,
    number
    of young, size of the placenta, foetal and
    maternal production of hormones,
    and
    maternal utilization of vitamins and
    other essential nutrients. This is
    modified by environmental factors, such as
    diet, season and temperature.

    · Dr Flaks’ view, which I
    accept, is
    that the most likely teratogenic agents are Dioxins, PAHs and
    particular
    heavy metals, namely CHROMIUM, NICKEL and CADMIUM and respective
    compounds of
    these metals. It is at least theoretically possible that other
    agents might
    also be active. This does not exclude other agents that might
    have
    been
    present Dr Flaks could not identify what was likely to be the
    effective
    dosage of any one of these agents for human teratogenesis because
    the
    information does not exist. Further, the precise mechanism whereby any of

    these
    teratogens act is largely unknown. Toxicological coupled with

    epidemiological
    evidence can provide useful evidence as to the cause of
    birth defects.

    Air Pollution and Safety Risk Management

    ·
    Since
    the primary case made by the Claimants is that the
    birth defects were caused
    by the inhalation by the Claimants’ mothers during
    pregnancy of air borne
    contaminant bearing dusts, the evidence from the
    experts
    in the area of
    air pollution is important to determine how and in what
    circumstances dusts
    from the site could or would reach the mothers.

    · Dr Cox MBE, the expert
    in
    this field for the Claimants, secured his PhD in air pollution
    predictive
    modelling from Imperial College, London in 1975 and, as a
    chartered
    mechanical
    Consulting Engineer, has spent much of his
    professional career in risk
    analysis
    as well as risk management. He has
    had to address the dispersion and release
    of
    gases and the impact of
    biocidal products and for 10 years he served on the
    Health and Safety
    Executive’s Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances. He
    “spotted” a
    serious error in published papers by Ove Arup and IEA
    upon which Ms Heasman
    and Dr Searle had relied relating to the distance
    which
    small particles
    (under 10 microns) may travel. This had not been picked up
    either by Ms
    Heasman and Dr Searl; Ms Heasman ultimately accepted the error.
    He
    gave
    his evidence in a relaxed and self deprecating way and did not seek

    ever
    to exaggerate his views.

    ·
    Before reviewing this area of
    the case, it is necessary
    to make findings at least broadly as to what levels
    of contaminated dust
    were
    likely to be present, where and in what
    quantities. In my judgement, there
    was
    a virtually constant generation of
    contaminated mud and dust from and
    including
    1985 onwards to at least
    June 1997. There was almost constant work over this
    period by CBC and its
    contractors, but, even when there were slacker
    periods,
    dust would still
    have been released from the CBC sites or some of them,
    particularly Deene
    Quarry. Substantial quantities of contaminated material
    were
    carried on
    and on to the public roads mostly with unsheeted lorries. The
    main
    roads
    on which they were carried were Gretton Road, Gretton Brook Road,

    Phoenix
    Parkway, Steel Road, Shelton Road, Geddington Road and Weldon
    Road. It is
    clear
    and I find that the sweeping of the roads was
    inadequate and often not done
    to
    all. Once deposited on the roads, the
    mud and dust would inevitably be
    spread
    even further around the roads and
    the town by other vehicles passing over
    it.
    There is every reason to
    conclude in addition that dust was generated in
    drying
    and drier weather
    off the sites during demolition, excavation, transporting,
    depositing and
    grading and levelling operations involving the substantial
    quantities of
    contaminated materials. In similar conditions, where slurries
    had
    been
    exposed to the air (as on Willowbrook North A) or spread and deposited

    on
    the surface (as when Toxic Ponds 3and 4 were deposited in the
    north-east
    corner
    of Deene Quarry) there would be contaminated dust
    generated from those
    sites.
    It would be facile to believe or expect as a
    matter of fact that at any one
    material time during this overall period there
    was only one precise point
    source of contaminated dust being
    generated.

    · As Dr Cox said, not only
    would vehicles carry material
    some distance, it would either come off
    because
    it was blown off the back
    or by way of being dropped off the wheels or
    undercarriage; if the material
    was wet, it could also spill over at the
    edges
    of the lorry. Any material
    dropped onto the ground including the roads or
    pavements could then be
    re-mobilised either by wind or by passing vehicles.

    One needs to
    bring
    together the findings overall, There was a statistically significant
    cluster
    of
    birth defects between 1989 and 1999. Toxicologically there
    were present on
    and
    from the CBC sites over the whole period from 1985
    (and possibly before)
    until
    1997 the types of contaminants which could
    cause the birth defects
    complained
    of by the Claimants. There was an
    extended period between 1983 and August
    1997
    in which CBC was extensively
    negligent in its control and management of the
    sites which they acquired from
    BSC and otherwise used. That negligence and,
    as
    from 1 April 1992, breach
    of statutory duty on the part of CBC permitted and
    led to the extensive
    dispersal of contaminated mud and dust over public
    areas
    of Corby and
    into and over private homes with the result that the
    contaminants
    could
    realistically have caused the types of birth defects of which

    complaint
    has been made by the Claimants (save in limited respects). It
    can not
    however
    be demonstrated that after August 1997 the birth defects
    in children
    conceived
    thereafter could be caused by any breaches of duty
    or public nuisance
    occurring
    before that time; there can have been no
    significant emissions of the
    relevant
    contaminants after that time which
    could have caused birth defects of the
    types
    with which this case is
    concerned. CBC is liable in public nuisance,
    negligence
    and breach of
    statutory duty, obviously subject to it being established in
    later
    proceedings by individual Claimants that their particular conditions

    were
    actually caused by the defaults identified in this
    judgement.”

    I must be frank.I have very little trust that either the
    councils
    (particularly Sutton) that make up the SWLP or Viridor will do the
    relevant
    monitoring with sufficient rigour and transparency.You would not
    believe how
    diluted the regimes have become,since the “cutting of red tape”
    in EU
    legislation.How will you know?

    http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/Environmental%20Audit/Action%20on%20air%20quality/written/9765.html