|
He said, "Video evidence held by Greenpeace
showed serious operational problems with Global Olivine’s municipal
waste incinerators in Washington USA, and Nova Scotia, Canada. The
Canadian plant was criticised by workers and community and showed
dangerous operational procedures. The USA plant was visibly falling
to pieces, failed its pollution limits, was illegally dumping its
toxic ash, and as a consequence was shut down. The site then needed
to be decontaminated.
"Furthermore,
despite having spent 15 years researching and pyrolosis technology
(which PREL are proposing), the German Company Siemens decided to
withdraw from the market following problems with its plant at Furth,
Germany, which closed down after clouds of gas escaped and left
local people with breathing difficulties.
"PREL
admit that, although the technologies that they propose to utilise
have been used individually before, they have never been brought
together on one site. They also refer to “destroying organic matter
at up to 6,000˚c in a plasma field.
"This
plant could easily be seen by some as an experiment on Peterborough
people.
"The PREL
team are always keen to highlight the philanthropic aims of their
plant, but the fact is that they will be seeking to make a profit
and this can be a powerful disincentive to invest in the correct
level of safety equipment, routines, backup systems and procedures.
"Before
Christmas, we all saw the results of a serious industrial accident
in close proximity to homes and businesses at the Buncefield Depot
in Hemel Hempstead. Who can forget those images? Is it really
intelligent or reasonable to encourage, by way of approving or
calling for a public enquiry, a plant that assembles technologies
that have never been put together on one site before?
"This
plant will use high temperatures to achieve their processes, deal
with toxic substances and encourage heavy traffic to flood an area
that already has an inadequate road system. Is this really a good
idea? Houses in the Parnwell area are in line with the prevailing
south westerly winds, but most of Peterborough and the surrounding
villages could quite easily be affected if there happened to be an
easterly wind when an accident happened."
Councillor Goldspink concluded,
"I would respectfully suggest that this
waste 'experiment',
for that is what it is, should not be carried out within 8 miles of
150,000 people! I hope that my fellow Councillors will follow
officer recommendations and unequivocally reject these plans and
that the Council’s Cabinet will follow suit. Any other response will
be in contempt of local people’s wishes and could be flirting with
danger for future generations of Peterborough people."
January 2006
|
