Showing posts with label dust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dust. Show all posts

Tuesday 24 October 2017

Construction & demolition dust should concern construction bosses

This piece by the acting news editor of Construction News LINK echoes concerns voiced by Wembley Central residents over dust from the demolition and construction  taking place in the High Road, Wembley.


A short walk from Construction News’ offices in Old Street, the refurbishment of the shop formerly titled Acme Electrical Co is well under way.

While the noise emanating from inside sounds like someone has captured a remnant of storm Brian, outside each passing breeze brings to life a dust cloud that wafts into the street. On the floor, plasterboard offcuts and old brick mortar are trodden into London’s pavements by commuters.

It is a scene repeated across the capital.

Almost everywhere you look London is busy building the latest version of the 2,000-year-old metropolis.

Every new development, demolition or refurbishment comes with an issue that is increasingly on the minds of politicians and the public alike: air pollution.

London’s mayor Sadiq Khan has woken up to the problem and is tackling it initially with the introduction of a new T-charge for polluting vehicles in the capital.

But in calling for new government powers to tackle air pollution, the mayor also said that “non-transport sources contribute half of the deadly emissions in London” and urged a “hard-hitting plan of action”.

There’s little doubt that controlling dust is a difficult problem for any construction firm.

The fact that construction site dust has shot to the top of the political agenda – at least in London – should mean that construction firms now take note.

However, it is not only the mayor of London’s air pollution plans that should cause concern for construction bosses.

According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), respirable crystalline silica dust is the second-biggest killer of construction workers after asbestos.

And, in an industry that records a death rate three times higher than that of other professions including medicine, dust is a serious cause of illness.

Of course there are safety measures in place, but are they enough?

Could they be about to be made tougher? And, if as a sector, construction is aware of the risk that particle pollution has for both staff and the general public, what is the culpability for failing to act?

A number of years ago I was asked by a family to help trace the work history of their deceased father.

The man had worked on hundreds of construction sites in London between the 1930s and 1960s - including prestigious schemes such as Wembley Stadium and Broadcasting House.

Trawling through the London Metropolitan Archives as well as the back catalogues of titles such as Construction News and sister title Architect’s Journal, I was asked to look for one thing: evidence of asbestos.

The fact that the original builders who had been the deceased man’s employer had long since gone out of business did not deter the legal claim that the family was looking to file decades after the event itself.

The man had died of mesothelioma – a cancer that develops from asbestos fibres lodged in the lining of the lungs.

The research request came as part of a call for evidence to prove culpability for the illness during the man’s career.

The big question for the sector is: with the evidence of the health risks that particle pollution can cause, could there be similar legal issues in the decades to come?
Tim Clark, acting news editor, Construction News

Thursday 12 October 2017

HGV and dust nightmare on Wembley High Road

In a comment on the Heron House development local resident Jaine Lunn also commented on the impact of redevelopment works on High Road Wembley on residents and provided photographic evidence:
The work at Brent House development is causing a massive amount of chaos. The traffic management plan is bloody useless. We have HGV's parked on both sides of the High Road, and in the bus lane, on the pavements, last week I had 3 parked in my street, on the pavement engines running idling for over 30 minutes at a time. The footprint of the site is so small, they have a huge crane, piling thing, and a minimum of 20 lorries a day picking up rubbish and delivering plant and cement. When Chesterfield House gets going God knows how the High Road is going to cope. As I stated before 8 sites within 500 metres of my house. The dust and pollution is so bad I cannot open the windows.



Saturday 7 October 2017

Vital questions on dust impact of Cricklewood Rail-Road Aggregate Superhub





The following article is republished with permission from the NW2 Residents' Association blog LINK
 
-->
The planning application for a road/rail superhub at 400 Edgware Road tells us
“it is estimated that a total of 370 – 570 Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) could leave the site each day, to export aggregate” which could be “including sand and gravel” or “will depend on local demand and could consist of sand, ballast or MOT Type 1 road stone (mixture of stone fragments and fine particles)”, 
and there’s demand for cement too.


This stuff will be brought in by rail, stocked in piles, and loaded into HGVs. It’s dusty stuff and a dusty business handling it. So how much dust will there be?


In one of the 17 appendices, there are tables covering 42 different locations with all sorts of figures for current levels and predicted levels of NO2 and PM10 pollution from … traffic. Dust pollution from the unloading of trains, from the loading of HGVs and from the stockpiles, from the basic operation of the site – that’s not included. It’s left out of the calculations and there are no figures for dust levels at other aggregate sites.


We are told that the wind’s generally in a good direction, blowing from the south-west across the railway tracks, but often in a bad direction, blowing down from the north-east instead. We’re told that on average, the wind isn’t likely to ‘re-suspend’ dust – to actually pick it up – because
“approximately 57% of the time mean-hourly winds do not exceed moderate levels.”
That ‘moderate’ 57% includes the gusty hours when the wind’s rising and falling, and it happily ignores the 43% of the time that that mean-hourly winds do exceed moderate levels – often by quite a lot.


There will be rain, and mitigation measures: there’ll be sprinklers. Wheels will be washed. Drivers will be told to cover their loads.
“It is anticipated the dust impact during the operational phase will be minimised.”
What does ‘minimised’ mean? Politicians talk of minimising the tax burden and very occasionally shave a percent or two off – we still pay plenty. It seems we’re being told we have to accept ‘minimised’ dust pollution as part of our regeneration. It will annoy us but it will not be significant. Here’s what Appendix 13-1 says:
“Guidance recognises that, even with a rigorous dust management plan in place, it is not possible to guarantee that the dust mitigation measures will be effective all the time, for instance under adverse weather conditions. The local community may therefore experience occasional, short-term dust annoyance. The scale of this would not normally be considered sufficient to change the conclusion that the effects will be ‘not significant’.”
That last sentence is beautifully phrased. But what are we being told? That we will suffer, but that such suffering is usually written off as insignificant when people are planning giant dust-generating operations.


There will be monitoring, we’re told, and something will be done if there’s too much dust. How much is too much? We’re not told. That would open up the whole question of how much dust there will be, and nobody wants to say.


There’s more about the superhub on our page here. Do add your comments and share what you know about the proposal below, but if you want the council to listen, you’ll have to object on their website. The planning application is here; its reference number is 17/5761/EIA. You can add your comments and objections online there, or email the case officer Chloe.Thomson@barnet.gov.uk. The full site name is “Cricklewood Railway Yard, the land at rear of 400 Edgware Road NW2 6ND”. The deadline is 18 October 2017.


You could also copy local councillors in. Council elections are in May.

Barnet – Childs Hill ward
cllr.p.zinkin@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.j.cohen@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.c.ryde@barnet.gov.uk
Barnet – Golders Green ward
cllr.m.cohen@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.d.cohen@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.r.thompstone@barnet.gov.uk
Brent – Dollis Hill ward
cllr.parvez.ahmed@brent.gov.uk
cllr.liz.dixon@brent.gov.uk
cllr.arshad.mahmood@brent.gov.uk
Brent – Mapesbury ward
cllr.helen.carr@brent.gov.uk
cllr.lia.colacicco@brent.gov.uk
cllr.ahmad.shahzad@brent.gov.uk
Camden – Fortune Green ward
richard.olszewski@camden.gov.uk
flick.rea@camden.gov.uk
lorna.russell@camden.gov.uk