|
Health and Safety
|
|
|
|
|
Impact on the Community
|
|
|
|
|
What are the Alternatives?
|
|
|
|
|
History
The ROF factory operated as a munitions factory for over 80 years through two world wars. As far as we understand the factory operated like a chemical works where raw materials were delivered to the site, processed, and the end product removed from the site. Waste would be produced and this was dumped/recycled within the site. There are various landfills and pits within the grounds, some filled with blue asbestos.
Times have changed greatly throughout that last 80 years. Health and safety regulations are very different and science has also advanced. Record keeping, especially in wartime, when the emphasis would have been on production, would not be to the same standard as it is today.
Back
|
|
|
The Site Investigation Process
By BAE's own admission, no one really knows exactly what is contained within the site. BAE have stated that they have done a desk study that involves taking verbal reports from previous workers and using the records that they have.
BAE plan to do site samples. Initially BAE planned to do a mere 600 before planning acceptance. The site is 964 hectares (approx 2500 acres) in size. This works out at less than 1 test sample per 1.5 hectares (about three football fields). However the planning process has been delayed due by further consultation and an examination in public (EiP). According to evidence given at the EiP BAE have now made intrusive investigations at 1189 exploratory points. This works out at 1 exploratory point per 0.8 hectare (approx one point per 1.5 football fields)
- Where will these samples be taken from?
- Will there be adequate numbers of samples to be able to identify all the risks?
- What will they test for? Will it be all chemicals known to man on every sample, or will they only test for the level of the chemical(s) they are looking for from a particular sample.
For example, a test sample X, could have originated from an area thought to contain aluminium and chromium. Will they test that sample for just aluminium and chromium or will they test for everything?
The reason emphasis must be given to this is that the records are not exact and therefore there could be other contaminants present. In addition there were uncontrolled incidents at the site. An uncontrolled incident could be an explosion. When a reaction like this takes place it will produce many new end products which could be unexpected. These products can become air borne. Eventually they will settle all over the site so sample X could contain not only aluminium and chromium but many, new unknown chemicals.
Back
|
|
|
Burning Buildings
Bishopton Action Group is deeply concerned that BAE propose to decontaminate hundreds of buildings by burning them. At a demo of the controlled burning of a building BAE initially proposed burning over 1000 buildings. This number has since been revised downwards. Members of BAG attended the "controlled" burn and were horrified by what they witnessed. You can read the account here. We are very worried about the potential for these fires to spread pollution over the surrounding area. You can read here some of our concerns about how the weather can impact on the spread of pollution.
The Reporter stated in the Examination in Public report:
"However, smoke from fires would have the potential to affect a wide area. Local concerns regarding the environmental effects of this remediation method are therefore readily understandable. In the event that this method was employed, it would not be subject to regulation by SEPA and might not be subject to regulation by the local authority. It would be regulated by the HSE, which the evidence indicates is likely to focus on on-site safeguarding distances [for the personnel involved] rather than potential effects further afield. However, as alternatives to burning are available, burning is not "a measure required" for remediation. Chemical treatment, steam cleaning, pressure washing and/or grit blasting are envisaged for buildings closer to residences."
As the Reporter states, there are alternative methods available. However they are much more expensive and it is for this reason that BAE Systems will only use the more expensive method for a few buildings but propose to use the cheaper method of burning the contaminated buildings for the majority of the site. It is worth noting the following extract from the EiP statement of DR Paul Johnston of Greenpeace:
"The remediation plan for buildings likely to be contaminated with explosive and related chemical residues evokes significant concerns. It is proposed to decontaminate buildings by packing them with combustible material and then firing them. This seems to be a strategy grounded in a different era and borders on the irresponsible."
Back
|
|
|
Contamination
In the CASS Associates impact assessment report 2004, on behalf of BAE systems, they stated:
The programme of building demolition will have an impact on air quality in terms of dust generation on the site and in the surrounding area. Dusts may potentially be contaminated, as toxic materials may have been released to land and some building components may contain asbestos. The contaminated land assessment will consider these impacts. Monitoring and mitigation of dust impacts will need to be considered.
Given the scale of proposed site development it could be possible that a significant amount of soil being worked upon could contain contaminants. These contaminants could become airborne and pass over Bishopton in the prevailing winds and on to the surrounding areas and beyond and could be inhaled. BAE have given us little information as to how they plan to eradicate this air borne contamination, other than they will try to minimise movements within the site and spray down vehicle tyres.
Ground water contamination is also an important potential risk either through the underlying water table, through Dargavel burn, surface run off or overspill from lagoons.
Back
|
|
|
Landfill
It is important to note that the majority of the contaminated waste will not be removed from the site but shall actually be contained within the site as landfill.
Back
|
|
|
Lack of Independence
BAE have proposed to do all the site investigation and remediation. Therefore, they decide:
- where they take test samples from
- how many they do
- what to test for
- how they plan to remediate
- do the final remediation
At present Renfrewshire Council, who may not possess the expertise required to deal with a site of this scale, will oversee BAE. It is suggested that Renfrewshire Council themselves have a vested interest for the site to go ahead.
Renfrewshire Council stand to gain massive amounts of revenue in council tax. Also they can avoid the thorny issue of Green Belt land release for the next 15 to 20 years.
BAE are a company and companies aim to make profit.
Should a profit making organisation be the key assessor of risk to public health?
Back
|
|
|
Loss of Village Identity
Bishopton has grown over the last 20 or so years but it has done so gradually. Never before has such a large-scale development been planned which shall entirely swamp the existing village. We have low crime rates and are a friendly village with an excellent volunteer network.
This development may not stop at 2300 houses and industrial units. We already have empty industrial units in the surrounding area but once the developer has planning for industrial units I understand that it makes it easier to convert this to more housing. Look around us, Erskine seems to be forever expanding. What happened to quaint old Houston? In addition we are in an area known as the 'Wider Cart Corridor Project' which aims to link up Glasgow airport, Paisley and the surrounding area.
BAE have stated that for the initial stages of development they will rely on existing infrastructure.
Back
|
|
|
Schools
With our children already in huts at the primary school what will happen to the extra children. There are no definite plans for any infrastructure. The developer will be made to build certain amenities by Renfrewshire Council planning department. These amenities come with the number of houses that are built. In many instances we have been promised amenities by developers and it has never materialised. There are no plans for a high school to be built in the area and Park Mains is unlikely to be able to cope. There are rumours that the Education dept could re-zone areas sending our children to Port Glasgow or Renfrew for their education.
Back
|
|
|
Hospital
The RAH in Paisley is already stretched since the Vale of Leven and Inverclyde Hospital changes. Will it be able to cope with more people? We need and deserve these answers before one brick is laid.
Back
|
|
|
Station/Car Park
The car park at the station has been temporarily extended on the ROF side of station and is almost full on a daily basis. How will it accomodate the extras cars generated by 2500 houses?
Any of you who take the train in the morning will already have noticed the competition for seats.
Back
|
|
|
Roads
The current plans show the major route to be under the bridge at station road, out through Rossland estate, a new road onto the A8 and the M8 junction. Traffic throughout the village will be increased as vehicles travel from the old to the new. Will certain roads be able to safely handle this volume of traffic? Again we need these concerns answered first.
Back
|
|
|
M8 Road Junction
Nicol Stephen has given provisional approval for the M8 junction. He did so before the Bishopton referendum. Can the M8 cope with any extra traffic from the proposed developments at Bishopton and Inverclyde.
Back
|
|
|
What are the Alternatives?
BAE systems state that they need the revenue from housing to clean up the site. These issues should not be linked together. There is much legislation available, which ensures that contaminated land is cleaned up. Development is a separate issue.
Is it better to leave the site undisturbed or are the risks to our public health outweighed by the benefits of more houses which we (as in Renfrewshire) do not require.
We as a group feel that the safest option should be implemented and that the potential risk to human health/environment should determine future plans.
Back
|
|
|
|
|
