Potential Health Risk to Local Schools?

Featured

If this new incinerator were to be built on the existing Cross Green industrial estate, there are concerns regarding the proximity of this site to local schools, and the potential health risks.
Please view the list below to see some of these local schools and the approximate straight line distance to the site.

All Saints C of E Primary School — >1 Mile
Austhorpe County Primary — 2.57 Miles
Brownhill Primary School — >1 Mile
Colton Primary School – 2.45 Miles
Cross Flatts Park Primary School – 2.24 Miles
Cross Gates Primary School – 2.05 Miles
Ebor Gardens Primary School – 1.03 Miles
Greenmount Primary School — 2.08 Miles
Hunslet Carr Primary School — 1.43 Miles
Hunslet Moor Primary School — 1.68 Miles
Hunslet St Mary’s C of E Primary School — 1.14 Miles
Ingram Road Primary School — 2.37 Miles
Low Road Primary School – 1.1 Miles
Meadowfield Primary School — >1 Mile
Mount St Mary’ RC Primary School — >1 Mile
Richmond Hill Primary School — >1 Mile
Mount St Mary’s Catholic High School — 1.03 miles
Rothwell Haigh Road Infant School — 2.37 miles
Shakespeare Primary School — 1.08 miles
St Francis of Assisi R C Primary School — 1.87 Miles
St Josephs Catholic Primary School — 1.2 Miles
St Patricks Catholic Primary School — >1 Mile
Templenewsam Halton Primary School — 1.7 Miles
Victoria Primary School — >1 Mile
Whitkirk Primary School — 1.96 Miles
Wykebeck Primary School — 1.41 Miles

Why Local people should be scared of Veolia‏!

Featured

Veolia, the chosen bidder to build the incinerator, recently admitted at a local consultation meeting that with £68 million investment, only 20 local people are likely to be employed. They showed that they do not recruit local people instead opting for agency staff. Records also suggest that they offer insufficient training and fail to look after their safety.

Taken from the back of several serious incidents in the last few years amounting to a poor record on health and safety for its workers and the local public.

Veolia claims that they have learnt from these mistakes…

Veolia fined for burns to ‘vulnerable worker’
30 April 2012
Waste management firm Veolia has been fined after an employee was
seriously burned at an Energy from Waste incinerator in London

The agency worker suffered 17% burns to his body from hot ash while
cleaning a filtration hopper at the Deptford plant on 29 December
2009. The man was in hospital for almost a month.

Veolia pleaded guilty at City of London Magistrates Court to a breach
of the Health & Safety at Work Act for supervisory failings that led
to dangerous working practices. The company was fined £5,000 and
ordered to pay costs of £12,243.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that the
company failed to follow its own policies and procedures. The court
heard the worker spoke little English and had not been properly
briefed.

HSE Inspector Kerry Williams said the “vulnerable worker” had not been
given “basic information, training or supervision to allow him to
complete his job safely.”

She added: “Veolia operates a high hazard site in Deptford and as such
should ensure its systems are sufficiently robust to ensure people are
not placed at unnecessary risk.”

PREVIOUS CASES

2007
UK. Veolia ES UK Ltd pleaded guilty to two breaches of Health and
Safety Regulations relating to the segregation of hazardous waste and
the appropriate training of staff to handle flammable and combustible
substances. The firm was fined £150,000 after a massive inferno which
closed motorways, schools and brought Preston’s roads to a standstill.
Burning missiles were thrown up to 200 feet in the air as over 132,000
litres of chemicals were set alight in the blaze on July 2 2007. As
fire raged through the site almost 70 firefighters and 10 senior
officers battled for more than eight hours to bring the 30 ft flames
under control. The Fire broke out at the waste handling site on the
Red Scar Industrial Estate at around 6am when lithium batteries
shipped in from the Ministry of Defence in Northern Ireland
spontaneously combusted,
setting fire to oxidisers and organic peroxides which were being
stored nearby. Passing sentence at Preston Crown Court, Judge Stuart
Baker said it was “merciful” that no-one was hurt or killed.

2008
UK. Veolia was fined £13,500 for a major sewage spill which had closed
beaches along the Forth estuary. Around 120 million litres of screened
sewage went into the Forth after a mechanical failure at Veolia’s
Edinburgh pumping station. The same year Veolia was fined £1,000 for
illegally landfilling liquid wastes, with a fine the previous April
for a similar incident related to illegal waste disposal.

2009
UK. Leading waste management firm Veolia Environmental Services and
its contractor Hansen Transmissions (HTL) have been ordered to pay
penalties totalling more than £200,000 after an employee fell 10
metres at a Veolia-ran site in Birmingham.

2009
UK. Veolia Environmental Services (UK) Ltd was ordered to pay to
£166,000 in fines and costs after an incident at its hazardous waste
treatment facility in Bootle, Merseyside. The company was fined
£101,000 and ordered to pay £65,000 costs after an incident at the
facility on April 27, 2006 caused the release of toxic fumes which led
to four members of staff having to receive medical treatment and
several members of the public reporting side effects. Veolia
pleaded guilty to eight charges: three under the Health and Safety at
Work etc Act 1974, one under the Management of Health and Safety
Regulations 1999 and four under section 33 of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990. Charges included failing to ensure the public
were not exposed to toxic fumes and breaching conditions of its waste
licence.

2010
UK. In February 2010 Veolia ES (UK)ltd was fined £130,000 after a
worker was killed near Aylesbury when a 1,100-litre recycling bin fell
on his head. David Ives, 56 from High Wycombe, an employee of Veolia
ES (UK) Ltd was collecting refuse outside a pub in Easington, near
Aylesbury when the incident happened on 5 May 2004. Aylesbury Crown
Court heard that a recycling bin fell from the bin hoist on the
recycling lorry and landed on Mr Ives’ head, killing him. The jury
found the company guilty of breaching sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £130,000
and ordered to pay costs of £220,000.

2010
UK. In Kent a Veolia Employee was killed. The company was fined
£225,000 after a litter collector died in a collision between one of
its vehicles and a lorry. Agency worker Damian Griffiths, 20, from
Swanley, Kent died in the accident on the A228 in East Peckham .Veolia
was found guilty of breaching the Health and Safety Act by a jury at
Maidstone Crown Court in August.

This fire’s not worth lighting…

INCINERATION CONSULTATION LOCATION ANNOUNCED!!!

Featured

This 24th March, the Veolia Incineration consultation takes place!

Let’s show Veolia what we think of their incinerator and get our thoughts known! We need all to attend!!!!
Come join us!

Heres the info:
SATURDAY 24 MARCH – 10.00am to 4.00pm at
Halton Moor Community Centre (formerly East Leeds Leisure Centre),
Neville Road (entrance on Carden Avenue)
LS15 0NW

If you are interested in going with No Incinerator Leeds, or want more details, please contact
david.fanaroff@cooptel.net or just turn up and show your support!

Incineration Consultation Exhibition – 24th March

Featured

This month Veolia are holding a consultation exhibition regarding the new proposed incinerator in Crossgreen. The event on Saturday 24th March, time and location to be announced, gives the public the opportunity of making the views on this incinerator known. We need as many people as possible to attend this event, and we are particularly keen to see children and parents showing their support for no incineration.

If you are interested in going with No Incinerator Leeds please contact
david.fanaroff@cooptel.net and I will forward you further details.

there are alternatives

Featured

recycling bin

The proud winning recycling bin - victor in a wheelie-bin conga race around the Civic Hall, January 2011

We don’t need an incinerator in Leeds. The alternatives to incineration are cheaper in the long run, more flexible, quicker to implement, create more jobs and are better for the environment.

The alternatives include:

  • Increasing recycling: We should increase what can be recycled in Leeds to include glass, all plastics and fabrics. The council could increase the frequency of household collections of recyclables and run an education programme to encourage people to recycle. They could support local recycling businesses to widen the range of materials collected and work in partnership with local businesses who can use recycled materials. And they could use better processes to separate recyclable and non recyclable waste.
  • Collecting food & garden waste - Food and garden waste makes up approximately 40% of our rubbish – but it is organic material that can be collected and composted or treated with “anaerobic digestion” or biological treatments.
  • Increasing re-use: There is lots of potential to improve the collection of large reusable items (eg. furniture and electrical items) from households and “household waste sorting sites”.

It can be done. Some councils in the UK are already recycling 60% of their waste. Without incineration, in 25 years (the proposed length of the incinerator contract), we could feasibly be a truly “Zero waste” city – producing less waste in the first place, and recycling, composting and reusing everything else.

what’s wrong with incineration?

Featured

Anti-incinerator protest, January 2011.

Leeds City Council are proposing to build a new mega-incinerator in East Leeds to burn half of Leeds’ black bin waste every year.

But we believe there are major problems with the proposals…

  1. Incineration releases too much CO2 – even if electricity is produced, twice as much CO2 is released than burning fossil fuels to produce the same amount of electricity
  2. We don’t need an incinerator. The vast majority of our waste can be reduced, recycled, re-used, composted, or treated by anaerobic digestion – at much less cost to us and to the environment.
  3. It would lock us into a 25 year contract – the council could be fined for not sending enough waste to the incinerator to keep it running efficiently – and taxpayers footing the bill.
  4. Incineration creates toxic emissions and hazardous ash. Modern incinerators still emit significant levels of NOx and of ultra fine or nano-particles. This would add to already significant air quality, traffic and noise pollutions issues in the East Leeds area.
  5. Lorry loads of waste would need to be transported to the incinerator every week – further increasing traffic and noise.

There is also widespread concern amongst local residents of the proposed incinerator sites in East Leeds (Cross Green and Knowsthorpe). Visit their blog to find out more.

Communities across the country are fighting proposals for incinerators. You can find out more about the problems with incineration and what we can do about it at UK Without Incineration Network’s website.

chained to incineration… for 25 years

Featured

image: chained to incineration for 25 years

No Incineration Leeds supporters are "chained to incineration for 25 years" outside the Civic Hall, August 2011

Leeds residents gathered at the Civic Hall on the 14 September in protest against plans to build an incinerator in East Leeds. As councillors arrived for their monthly meeting, we stood “chained to incineration”, bound by a 25 year “padlock”.

The proposed incinerator would lock and chain the Council into a contract for burning at least 50% of Leeds’ household waste for 25 years. For 25 years, this would produce toxic emissions, climate change-causing gases  and waste valuable resources.

For 25 years, it would meant that we could not recycle more than 50% of our waste – because we’d have to continue to feed the monstrous incinerator, or pay hefty fines. With some councils in the UK already recycling over 60% of their waste, the proposals would chain Leeds to a wasteful future.

We should ask ourselves – how much will technology have changed in the next 25 years? Will we still want to be bound to incineration?

The people of Leeds should not be burdened with the dirty legacy of incineration. There are alternatives. Please help us ask Leeds City Council to consider them.

Sign the objection letter!!

Veolia the company who Leeds City Council have chosen to build the waste incinerator are holding a consultation at the moment. We’re after you to please forward your objections for this incinerator! The more people the better! Here is a model objection letter to send to them. You can send it as it is and add your name at the bottom or change bits of it or send your own version. The objections need to be in at the end of March at the latest sooner if you can. It is important to send these in because the Council has to report to the government on what people said in the consultation.

Please write your objections or copy the model objection letter below, an sendd with your name to Leeds.enquiries@veolia.co.uk

Objection letter

I would like to object to the proposed waste incinerator for the following reasons:

1. The Environmental Protection Agency in America has just produced a report saying that dioxins even in small amounts are harmful to human health. Waste incinerators produce dioxins and the proposed incinerator is in an area with already poor air quality. There is also evidence that very small particles from incinerators cause respiratory diseases. Ideally any industry producing pollutants should not be located in a valley, nor near other terrain that restricts the dispersal of air pollutants. The site is located in the gently sloping Aire Valley. Although this could be compensated for, to some extent, by the high stack it still does not prevent problems arising on days when there is no wind. The incinerator is unacceptable as it poses too great a health risk to local residents. The government has commissioned a report into the
health risks associated with incinerators no decision should be taken on the incinerator until this has been published.

2. Toxic waste will be transported by lorry from the site to put in the ground in Cheshire. A serious pollution incident has occurred at an incinerator where the toxic waste ended blowing in the wind into a
residential area. This poses an unacceptable risk to local people and for others due to the possibility of road accidents for the lorries transporting waste.

3. The proposed site for the incinerator is in between 4 former coal mines and there are mine shafts on the site itself. For this scale of building and type if operation the underlying rocks should be impermeable and free from faults, shafts, bore-holes and the risk of instability (over the period of operation). Instead the area has coal seams and mine shafts. The possibility of subsidence for a building of this weight in an area with this level of underground workings and instability creates an unacceptable level of risk from failure of the building itself and fire or explosion due to damage to the machinery.

4. The position of mineshafts in the area also means there is an increased risk of ground Water pollution.
Toxic chemicals used for cleaning purposes and toxic waste will be stored on site and can contaminate water supplies. Fears of poisoning the water in Doncaster led to the secretary of state refusing an
application for an incinerator there in 1991. Storage of these chemicals above a ground water aquifer poses an unacceptable risk. The nature and status of all groundwater water supplies should be fully investigated.

5. Leeds City Council has set challenging CO2 reduction targets to address climate change. Modern waste incinerators require the waste to be dry enough to combust. When the waste is wet typically gas is burned to make the waste sufficiently dry. This makes waste incinerators inefficient at reducing CO2. The incinerator should not use gas or any fossil fuels to dry out the material instead waste heat from the combustion process should be used. Permission for an incinerator which uses fossil fuels to dry out the waste is unacceptable in climate change terms and should not be permitted.

6. Incinerators are prone to breakdowns and burning mixed materials at high temperatures to produce steam at high pressure creates risk. In September 2006 the Kirklees incinerator suffered a serious mechanical failure causing extensive damage that put it out of action for several weeks. The operator said significant damage was caused by a serious mechanical failure causing extensive damage and that boiler tube problems were not uncommon in Energy from Waste plants due to the high temperature environment. A local councillor reported that the incident was so serious that the Huddersfield water system could not handle the needs of the fire services. The Kirklees accident implies that standard fire fighting measures are insufficient to deal with a major incident. The Leeds incinerator should be designed with fire fighting capability in terms of onsite water and chemical measures to deal with the most serious possible incident. This also implies that the design of the building is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable on health and safety grounds being built of wood which will burn and glass which could be blasted over a massive area in the event of an explosion.

7. Waste which has the highest calorific value is usually also recyclable e.g. wood, paper and plastics. The markets for these can vary and therefore most profitable action maybe to burn them even though they are recyclable. The contract between Leeds City Council and Veolia should stipulate that recyclable material should not be burnt even if the market value means it is more profitable to incinerate it.

8. The incinerator is proposed to have pre treatments to take out recyclable material. However the technology which is used has a bearing on how much recyclate can be extracted. Veolia and the Council have both stated that they do not believe that the incinerator would suppress recycling rates. However the Council has not set recycling targets within the 25 year contract period. In order for the recycling rate to rise the Council needs to set recycling targets at 5 year intervals during the contract period which are binding on Veolia and ensure that new technology is introduced to increase the recycling rate.

9. The Sheffield incinerator run by Veolia has been used to make a case for the Leeds incinerator. However in the first year that Veolia ran the plant they applied for permission to import waste from other local authority areas as insufficient waste was being produced in Sheffield as they got their predictions wrong. The level of waste produced per household is steadily falling and the incinerator is justified largely on the basis that Leeds will grow by about 250,000 people over the contract period. There is considerable uncertainty over whether this will actually happen. The contract for the incinerator should be conditioned such that the import of waste either domestic or commercial should not be permitted under any circumstances.

Yours ………

yorkshire post reports “funding loss threat” to incinerator schemes

Aside

Great news – it’s been announced that Caroline Spelman has frozen PFI funding for an incinerator in Norfolk, because of local opposition. Here’s David from No Incinerator Leeds commenting on the issue in the Yorkshire Post.

Opposition groups in Norfolk, supported by the local MP and borough council,  collected an enormous 65,000 signatures. So, Leeds, there’s our challenge. Please sign the petition and circulate widely!