Alternatives put forward to incinerator
News Archive > General > Alternatives put forward to incinerator
THE FORMAL objectors of the proposed St Dennis incinerator are proud after finishing giving their evidence at the public inquiry.Consultancy firm the Power of Cornwall completed the evidence put forward at the appeal hearing being staged at Kingsley Village in Fraddon against the facility earmarked to be built at Parkendillick. The company called witnesses to demonstrate the wrong method was chosen by Sita and Cornwall County Council to treat the county’s residual waste.
The Power of Cornwall also showcased an alternative solution to incineration that could be operational within two years, which would prevent penalties being imposed on the county by the Government for not fulfilling landfill directive requirements.
Residents will have an opportunity to air their views today on the proposed incinerator during the public speaking stage, which is being held at St Dennis Working Men's Club.
Sita Cornwall is also due to launch its counter offensive today when the company's experts start giving their evidence.
Ken Rickard, chairman of the strategy group for the anti-incinerator campaign, said: "In my opinion the Power of Cornwall witnesses gave excellent, high class performances. It could not have been better.
"We have now completed our presentations of evidence which have achieved a standard which we all must be very pleased with and proud of. We could not have asked for more."
Mr Broadhurst, the founder and director of the Power of Cornwall, told the public inquiry: “In consideration of best available techniques they had the opportunity to choose one of two methods, which had a much smaller effect on air and water quality by emission than that created by incineration, but failed top include then in the analysis.
“There should also have been consultation between the appellant, the council and various statutory bodies to ensure a correct choice was made. There is no proof that this occurred.
“Consultation was lacking between the appellant and the public concerning the choice of waste technology, neither were local environmental groups assisted in fulfilling their role of informing the public as to the significance of various emissions from the proposed plants.
“A booklet issued by the appellant to inform the public was considered to fail the Advertising Standards Authority tests on truthfulness, substantiation and environmental claims.
“The appellant did not choose a technology that was the best method of increasing recycling and recovery of resources from the waste, as directed by the regulations.”
The Power of Cornwall gave evidence that Sita chose the wrong waste treatment method.
Mr Broadhurst said: “Persistent organic pollutants are a very toxic part of the emissions from incinerators and similar plants. They are mainly created by the burning of plastic.
“European legislation is clear that waste treatment plants, particularly those which are in the process of design and construction, must be chosen to minimise persistent organic pollutants.
“The appellant could have chosen a technology that recovered plastic either before or during the process but chose not to do so, and thus failed to comply with the regulations within the Stockholm Convention.”
Mr Broadhurst, giving evidence on the choices that Sita made that impinged on commercial and public interest factors, said: “Some of the possible choices seemed to be positively discriminated against. There was also a failure to consider changes in legislation and improvement in technology that could have been a major factor in the options appraisal.
“In the section deliverability, totally incorrect assumptions are made about the reliability and robustness of certain technologies. The information on reference plants is very outdated. No mention is made of any catastrophic failures such as fires, explosions and emission filter failures which have occurred at incinerator sites.
“The conclusions drawn by the options appraisal are thus biased and flawed in many respects.”
