The proposed site of the incinerator at Saddlebow. Picture: Ian Burt
Air quality – effects ‘not significant’, inquiry is told
By Doug Faulkner
Saturday, March 9, 2013
8:41 AM
The Public Inquiry into a waste facility proposed at a site in Saddlebow, King’s Lynn, has been told that the proposal would not have “any significant adverse affects” to the air quality of the area.
Speaking on behalf of the applicants, Cory-Wheelabrator, Daniel Smyth said: “An air quality assessment has been undertaken to predict the effects associated with the construction and operation of the proposal. The assessment has considered air quality effects on specified residual receptors and sensitive vegetation and ecosystems, alone and in combination with other facilities.
“The results of the assessment suggest that the air quality effects during operation would be insignificant. The predicted cumulative air quality effects of the stack and traffic-related emissions are not significant.”
Mr Smyth, who has worked in the field of air quality for about 18 years, went on to say that odour problems were not expected at the facility even in the event of a full plant shutdown.
In cross-examination discussion focussed on the monitoring of pollutants as well as the modelling used in the assessment. Mr Smyth was asked whether a computer modelling method which was more accurate than that used would highlight risks which had not been taken into account.
Mr Smyth said: “A more accurate method would not be able to show anything where a conservative approach shows nothing.”
The dispersion modelling had shown that a 85m high stack would minimise the effects to human health of the facility.
A member of the public, who lives near to the site, drew a comparison to Palm Paper’s facility which she said had a plume which lingered above the factory.
Mr Smyth replied that: “Paper mills use a lot of water so you get a lot of steam. It takes some of the temperature and doesn’t rise in the same way as a warm plume would do.
“In terms of the Willows that is buoyant, it’s 120 degrees, it’s hot compared to the ambient air so it will rise.”
When asked whether an assessment based on estimates could reassure the public Mr Smyth said: “It is a professional estimate based on a very conservative approach.
“The way that air quality regulation works is a combination of monitoring and modelling.”
The facility will continually monitor the release of some pollutants whilst there will be monitoring at regular intervals for some other chemicals.
Costs for the Willows facility could be as much as £500m and a grant of up £169m has been agreed by Defra.
The proposed facility is contracted to treat 170,000 tonnes of residual municipal waste per year but is expected to process as much as 268,000 tonnes per annum.
More than 65,000 voted against the incinerator at a referendum run by West Norfolk Borough Council in February 2011.
The inquiry will resume on Monday morning at the Professional Development Centre, on Kilham’s Way.
Other Environment Articles
- Photo gallery: Act now or risk losing our wealth of Norfolk and Suffolk wildlife, experts warn
- Public inquiry under way to examine Growth Triangle housing plans for Norwich
- Kelling Heath Holiday Park is best caravan park in the country
- Joint Core Strategy hearing could hold the key to Norwich’s growth ambitions
- Rallying call for north Norfolk’s green schemes
- South Walsham landowner in battle over broad
- Friends group collects 15 bags of litter from start of Marriott’s Way
- National Trust’s new regional director hopes to preserve the East’s treasured heritage
- Photo gallery: Bishop’s Garden a ‘gift that deserves to be enjoyed’ in Norwich
- Broads festival ends with green boat show at Salhouse
- Bishop’s Garden a ‘gift that deserves to be enjoyed’ in Norwich
- Hopes for UK’s greenest building to be built in Norwich are approved
Most Read News Stories See all
Police launch probe after motorist tweets she knocked cyclist off bike in Norwich
Police in Norwich have launched an investigation after a woman claimed in a tweet she had knocked a cyclist off their bike.
- Police appeal for help to find missing Norwich woman
- Fakenham Gateway Children’s Centre closes suddenly
- Three arrests after brawl at Sikh temple in Norwich
- Picture update: Overstrand man jailed for one of largest hauls of indecent child images in Norfolk. Offences committed in North Walsham area
- Norwich cyclist speaks about moment he was hit by motorist who tweeted she had knocked someone off his bike
ADVERTISEMENT
10 comments
@ingo wagenknecht incineration in gardens is 'forbidden' - Not sure if burning rubbish on your own land is forbidden, but it would be best to burn your rubbish late at night over the weekend when most council offices are shut to best avoid any troublesome official visits.
Report this comment
popeye
Friday, March 15, 2013
If there is no significant impact of burning rubbish, as claimed by those who have a history of court appearances for exactly that, pollution, then we might as well disperse with all that road polluting transport and burn our rubbish in garden incinerators. How is it possible that such corporate pollution on a grand scale is deemed harmless, but incineration in gardens is 'forbidden'?
Report this comment
ingo wagenknecht
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Have a look at the articles in the Times and more especially the Indie. Excellent and pointing out that there is a high possibility that these incinerators, if built, wont even open because there is simply not enough rubbish for them to burn. They are all claiming the same rubbish. The Suffolk incinerator says it will be burning Norfolk waste, the Norfolk incinerator if built says the same thing. I am going to sell my rubbish to the highest bidder at this rate.
Report this comment
Electra
Sunday, March 10, 2013
At the end of the day Cory Wheelabrator engineered the ComRes telephone poll. Evidence must now be scrutinised by way of contacting the people interviewed. Did they get feedback from ComRes and did they know they voted for an incinerator!
Report this comment
Emma Miller
Sunday, March 10, 2013
No significant adverse affects is not the same as no adverse affects. We are not talking simply about the prospect of a significant one-off pollution incident, but the risk to human health of long-term continual exposure to toxins. Even at trace levels of output per day they will accumulate to dangerous levels in the environment over time. Of course a paid 'expert' rolling up to tell porkies is exactly how they got permission to build the many polluting facilities they have running in the USA. Words and theories are one thing, but their record tells a contrary story.
Report this comment
Police Commissioner ???
Saturday, March 9, 2013
A good piece that highlighted one of the main arguments. It is planning law that is the main topic of discussion.
Report this comment
Dickens
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Yes, that definitely wins the daftest headline of the week, even beating "Farmer attacked by cow in Suffolk" or even "Lotus crashes on A11" as if they were the only cars that count.
Report this comment
Electra
Saturday, March 9, 2013
EDP You really are going out of your way to cloud the issues - with headlines such as this who would read the article?
Report this comment
maryjane
Saturday, March 9, 2013
"lead with wide pic 29cms" another catchy headline from EDP. If you want i will proof read your articles before you post online for a small fee, i can tell nobody has the job already.
Report this comment
ggj666
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Does anybody at Archant actually check any this before they post such bizarre headlines?
Report this comment
Ne Absiste
Saturday, March 9, 2013