Hampshire County Council has given permission for quarry activities to continue at Marchwood for a further 12 year period.

At a meeting of the Regulatory Committee today, members agreed by a narrow majority to agree an extension of time for operations to continue and for a new part of the site, much closer to woodland to be excavated.
The application was vigorously opposed by local County Councillor, David Harrison, who asked the committee not to approve the application because of concerns about continued HGV movements and the impact on the nearby woodland. Local residents also submitted deputations, expressing similar concerns.

Councillor Harrison says “I’m upset but not surprised by the decision. Every time I have asked the Regulatory Committee to put the needs of local people and the environment first, they have decided otherwise. This decision means HGV traffic will be thundering around Marchwood and Totton for years to come.
I’m also greatly concerned about the impact on the nearby woodland. The operators now have permission to excavate within 10 metres of this environmentally sensitive site”.

The woodland, called “Sparrows Copse” was a nesting site for Herons up to 4 years ago, but has now been abandoned by the birds, almost certainly as a result of quarry activity.

Councillor Harrison adds “It’s a deeply depressing outcome which only confirms the suspicion that Hampshire County Council really doesn’t care about Marchwood”.

If you are of a certain age, you might remember a song from the Rolling Stones called “You can’t always get what you want”. This is certainly true in my role as County Councillor for Marchwood.

I have been doing my level best to try and improve things for the area. A large part of my work has been aimed at resisting any new proposals that would likely lead to an increase in HGV traffic movements in and around the village.

Marchwood Industrial Estate is very large and very busy. This is great for the local economy and I am certainly not in favour of putting unreasonable restrictions on successful businesses. However, it is fair to try and get agreement on just how much HGV traffic one area should be expected to take and also to ensure that we get proper compensation to reflect the nuisance suffered.

I have tried, without success, to force the Traffic Commissioners to hold a public inquiry into the question of issuing new licences for HGV’s and Trailers using the industrial estate. I’m grateful to all the villagers who signed a petition, requesting this.

Hampshire County Council relies heavily on the Marchwood area for disposal of waste. There is a waste transfer station, a household waste recycling centre and The Dome (an Energy from Waste facility). All of these generate very large numbers of HGV movements.

I won’t go into too much detail but simply report that I have frequently attended meetings of the Regulatory Committee and spoke up against plans that I believe will increase the frequency or length of time we will have to put up with HGV movements.



The conditions relating to The Dome have been changed so that it can now process waste brought in from outside the county. I don’t believe this is fair to Marchwood, but there we are. I’m continuing to argue the case for maximum restrictions of HGV traffic travelling through the village centre. Also, that we should have a proper means of getting in and out of the village safely on bicycle, or on foot.

My latest battle concerns the activities at Marchwood quarry. This should have ceased last year, but to my shock, the operators have put in an application to extend the life of the quarry for a further twelve years! As you might expect, I’m opposing the application.

I am hoping that Councillors will be given more power to decide what happens in our areas. The current situation is really quite serious and a real threat to democracy. The turn-out for a recent Parish Council by-election in the village was only 11%. In other words, nine out of every ten people who could have voted did not bother. The icy weather was a significant factor but I think it is also a reflection of the view that it doesn’t seem to matter who you vote for anymore.

It’s not of course all doom and gloom. I have been able to help a lot of people in recent months and have been especially pleased to assist a host of organisations through my grant giving powers. If you have a view or an idea to share with me, or need my help, I’m always glad to hear from you. Please call me at home on 02380 864500 or E-Mail : dharrison100@aol.com. My website address that includes a lot of Marchwood news is www.dharrison.org.uk.

A number of people have contacted me, including representatives from the New Forest Friends of The Earth, concerned about the advertised proposals for processing radioactive waste at the Tradebe Incinerator, near Fawley.

I have received much more detailed information about the proposals and am happy to set out some easy to understand questions and answers, below.

I now accept that the risk to public health is quite low. However, I do not accept that it is good for the environment that this waste material is transported 350 miles from Cumbria into the New Forest District. I believe that national government have failed to ensure that proper facilities for processing this material have been provided on site, at Sellafield. I can think of no good reason why this isn’t so.

As a member of New Forest District Council and the New Forest National Park Authority I remain vigorously opposed to the plans, which also include burying the radio active material in a local landfill site.

If you agree with me, please write to The Senior Environmental Health Officer, New Forest District Council, Appletree Court, Lyndhurst, Hampshire, detailing your objection.

Nature of the waste:

1. What was the oil used for at the Sellafield and Windscale sites?

The oil consists of used lubrication, hydraulic and engine oils from a range of facilities on the Sellafield and Windscale sites.

2. What is its radioactive nature (e.g. alpha / beta / gamma?)

The oils have a range of radionuclides, dependent on the plant area in which the oil was used. The oils will be composed of both alpha & beta/gamma emitting nuclides, which would be within the acceptance criteria of the Tradebe incinerator.

Those oils that have been analysed are mostly only trace active, in the order of < 1Bq/g alpha and < 40 Bq/g beta. Each consignment of oil would be supported by detailed analytical data to confirm it is suitable for processing at the incinerator.

3. Is there any further relevant background on the waste oil (e.g. radioactive half-life if relevant?)

The Tradebe incinerator is already authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (RSA93) to dispose of radioactive waste (e.g.
radioactive emissions to air) subject to strict limits and conditions that will ensure no harm to the public or the environment.

The emissions as a result of the treatment of oil from Sellafield and Windscale will fall within the limits and conditions already set. Should there be any breach of these limits and conditions then the Environment Agency would consider taking action against the incinerator operator.

Sellafield Ltd is proposing to send no more than 100 m3 per year, which the operator of the facility has confirmed they can accommodate. The maximum volume that can be accepted per consignment is 30m3, i.e. a maximum of 150 of 200 litre drums could be transported at any one time.

4. How much waste oil will be treated at the incinerator on a daily / weekly / monthly basis?

An average of one consignment of 40 drums of waste oil per month. A maximum of 100 m3 per year. 0.5% of the total liquids that are typically processed each month are radioactive.

5. Has any of the oil proposed to be sent to the Tradebe incinerator been stored, and if so for how long (months / years)?

The oil stored on site at Sellafield and Windscale is of varying ages.
It has been stored in safely contained compounds for an average of around 10 years.

6. How has the waste oil been treated up until now?

The waste is stored in a number of safely contained compounds on the Sellafield and Windscale sites. Some of the oil stocks have been pre-treated to separate waste oil from water. Over the last two years approximately 10% of the oil inventory has been sent for incineration overseas in Sweden.

7. How is 'low level' waste defined in technical terms?

Oils consigned to the Tradebe incinerator from the Sellafield and Windscale sites will be at the lowest end of the spectrum for Low Level Waste. Low Level Waste (LLW) is defined by Government Policy for the Long Term Management of Solid Low Level Radioactive Waste in the United Kingdom, published 26 March 2007 as 'radioactive waste having a radioactive content not exceeding four gigabecquerals per tonne (4 GBq/te or 4,000 Bq/g) of alpha and twelve gigabecquerals per tonne (12 GBq/te or 12,000 Bq/g) of beta/gamma activity.

8. Are there any other types of radioactive waste, similar in nature to this oil, that are already dealt with through incineration - e.g. hospital waste?

Yes, organic combustible liquid wastes (including laboratory chemicals), solvents etc. as well as solid combustible wastes from both nuclear licensed and non-nuclear (e.g. research establishments, hospitals) sites.

Sellafield Ltd will not be a large or the dominant producer of oils destined for the Tradebe incinerator. Most of the business for the facility comes from small producers and the non-nuclear sector.

There are a small number of RSA93 authorised incinerators in the UK which provide a disposal service for hospitals and research facilities, however these incinerators can only accept very small volumes of oil and do not have limits that would be capable of meeting the radiological properties of the Sellafield and Windscale oil, for instance on alpha emitting radionuclides.

Transport:

9. How will the waste be transported?

The waste will be contained in drums and transported by road in accordance with all relevant transportation requirements. Sellafield Ltd anticipates that fewer than 10 lorry trips per year will be needed.

10. How many miles will the waste travel - and what route will it take?

The waste will travel approximately 350 miles using motorways and appropriate 'A' roads.

11. What Health and Safety procedures will be in place during the journey?

Note: This is a question that should be considered / addressed by the HSE / Department of Transport.

However, for info - Materials will be appropriately packaged in accordance with the relevant legislation, ADR transport regulations, RADSAFE. Transportation will be undertaken by suitably trained and experienced hauliers.

12. What are the dangers to people and the environment if there is a leak?

The major environmental risk comes from the oil itself - e.g. pollution of ground or water courses - rather than that associated with radiation.
The impact on the public is thousands of times lower than that which arises from natural background radiation exposure, to which everyone is exposed on a daily basis.

13. How many additional lorry movements will there be on site?

There will be minimal additional lorry movements on site, waste oil will be moved by fork-lift/truck to a centralised location for packing onto transport lorries and movement of lorries to transfer material to Tradebe.

Treatment at the incinerator:

14. How will the waste be stored at the incinerator?

The waste will be stored in accordance with strict regulations laid down by the Environment Agency. The waste will remain in sealed UN approved containers that are stored prior to processing. These are stored in a secure locked compound and the site is subject to 24 hour surveillance.
Processing is planned to minimise the length of storage of these wastes on the Tradebe incinerator site.

15. What risk does incineration pose to the atmosphere in terms of discharge to air?

Discharges to air of volatile radionuclides have been assessed by the Health Protection Agency (HPA) on behalf of the Tradebe incinerator operator. The HPA assessment indicates that any radiation exposures of those living in proximity to the Tradebe incinerator will be low and well within the currently recognised radiation dose limits.

16. Can you confirm the ash following incineration will be radioactive? If so, how will this be managed / disposed of?

Some traces of radioactivity will remain in the ash but at concentrations below the limit set in the Tradebe incinerator authorisation (issued by the Environment Agency). This ash is disposed of to landfill. The safety of this practice, which occurs at any incinerator which processes radioactive wastes, has been verified by a number of independent assessments including reports commissioned by the Environment Agency.

17. How much radioactive/toxic waste has the Tradebe incinerator successfully disposed of in the past three years?

The incinerator has successfully processed about 66,000 tonnes of wastes over the past three years. Of this less than 1.6 percent (1,000 tonnes) was radioactive waste from a variety of sources.

The cost of the New Forest Slippery Floor Fiasco continues to rise. The Tory controlled New Forest District Council suffered a major embarrassment last year as news emerged that the wrong sort of polish used on sports hall floors and a subsequent failed legal case resulted in a loss of around £300,000 to local taxpayers.
A subsequent internal inquiry confirmed that most members of the council were kept in the dark until after the High Court bid claim damages against the flooring company had failed. The bungled case is thought to have cost each taxpayer in the New Forest District up to £5 each.
Cllr. David Harrison, Leader of the Liberal Democrat opposition group led calls for an independent inquiry into the scandal, saying “The public have a right to know who it was that made the foolish decision to contest this case. Nobody has been disciplined or held to account over this fiasco”.
The ruling conservative group refused to agree to an independent inquiry but the case was investigated by the Audit Commission who has been critical of the council. In a report due to go before the Council Cabinet this week it is revealed that the council has had to pay nearly £5,000 more for investigations undertaken by Auditors.
Councillor Harrison says “I’m really angry that local taxpayer’s money has been so stupidly thrown away. The thousands of pounds that the Auditors have charged is for a report that has still not revealed exactly who made the decision to launch this bungled legal case. They didn’t interview a single councillor. It’s a sorry tale of bad judgement, cover-ups and wasting public money”.

Totton County Councillor, David Harrison is calling upon the First Bus Company not to proceed with planned cuts to bus services that will make it more difficult for local people to access Southampton General Hospital.

The campaigning Councillor has asked for an urgent meeting to be arranged with representatives of the bus company and Totton & Eling Town Council, in advance of the planned changes to the timetable, due to take place in February.

Councillor Harrison says “This is not welcome news. Many people rely on a decent bus service to attend hospital appointments. It can be difficult and expensive to go by car and simply not an option for hundreds of other people. I’m hoping that we can persuade First Bus to think again before these service cuts are introduced”.

County Cllr. David Harrison pictured during a previous petition against planned cuts to bus services.

Another battle is looming, over HGV movements in the Marchwood area.
Local County Councillor, David Harrison, is opposing an application to extend quarry activity in the area for a further 12 years.

Quarry activity in Marchwood was supposed to have come to a halt earlier this year, as the time limited planning permission given in December 1995 came to an end. However, Marchwood Aggregates have put in an application to extend the activities for a further 12 years. The application is to be considered by the Regulatory Committee of Hampshire County Council on the 13th January.
Councillor Harrison has served notice of his opposition and intention to speak at the committee meeting.

Cllr. Harrison says “Local people are really upset by the prospect of more quarry activity for a further 12 years. The applicants admit that there may be as much as 100,000 tonnes of material still to recover from the site. It means a continuing 104 HGV movements a day. It was once a tranquil area. Herons used to nest in the nearby woodland, but not for the last four years. The residents of Totton and Marchwood are entitled to some respite from continual increases in HGV traffic in the area.”

Totton & Eling Town Council are amongst other formal objectors to the proposal, expressing concern about the HGV movements and environmental impacts.

I used to joke that the area I represent as a member of Hampshire County Council, Totton South & Marchwood has just about everything one could imagine that might cause problems for people, except for a nuclear waste facility.

We have very high levels of HGV traffic, much of which visits the very large Marchwood Industrial Estate. We have a newly constructed gas-fired power station, an Energy from Waste facility (The Dome).,We have a waste transfer station, a household waste recycling centre, a sewerage works, the largest military port in the country, ongoing quarry activity, the training facilities for Southampton Football Club.

I enjoy good relations with the people running all these facilities and I have experienced them making efforts to minimise the impact of their operations. However, despite the collective efforts of them all, there is no doubt that there is a significant impact on the quality of life enjoyed by the residents in my area.

I have battled, with very little success, to restrain the increasing volumes of HGV traffic in the area. The problem here is that the law gives no powers to elected Councillors like myself to decide how much traffic is reasonable. In trying to achieve a fairer balance, I have been consistently let down by the Regulatory Committee of Hampshire County Council, the Traffic Commissioner and planners at New Forest District Council.

Imagine how I feel whenever the less than satisfactory bus service that travels through the village is threatened by cuts, or I am told that there is no money available to construct a safe means of cycling and walking out of the village to neighbouring towns?

Incredibly, we are now being asked to accept the possibility of radio active materials being transported along our road network, a 350 mile journey from Sellafield, for processing further down the Waterside.

I think it entirely unreasonable that such materials should be transported so far, let alone into the New Forest district.

Further more, I think it about time that Hampshire County Council and Southampton City Council recognised the burden that the village of Marchwood shoulders, for the wider community benefit. An official acknowledgment would be a good start, followed by a financial commitment to help provide some badly needed facilities.

There will be no public inquiry into the issue of increased HGV usage of Marchwood Industrial Estate.

Traffic Commissioners, who are responsible for issuing HGV operators’ licences, have confirmed that they will not be holding a public inquiry in response to concerns from local residents about ever greater usage of the site leading to nuisance from noise and vibration and road safety hazards.
The call for a public inquiry was made by local County Councillor David Harrison who backed up his request with signatures from 50 residents who live closest to Marchwood Industrial Estate.

Councillor Harrison says “I’m dismayed by this decision. It’s now crystal clear that, as the law stands, there is no real way of restraining the use of this industrial estate. It’s been a real merry-go-round getting this far. The highway people on Hampshire County Council say it is a planning matter, the planning people on the District say it is for Traffic Commissioners, the Traffic Commissioners say they can’t help despite being given evidence that there is real public concern”.

Councillor Harrison says he will now look to the next government to change the law so that democratically elected councillors have more say when it comes to control of HGV licences.

He adds “It seems very likely that the volume of HGV traffic visiting Marchwood will continue to increase. Unfortunately, it seems that the size of HGV’s will also increase. This is and will have a very significant impact on the quality of life of people living in the area. We must find the means of doing something to mitigate it”.