After substantial delay, “North Lanarkshire Council’s decision to reject a planning application for a controversial medical waste treatment plant in Shotts could result in the loss of 120 jobs.
“Last month the local authority’s planning committee unanimously rejected an application by Healthcare Environmental Services Ltd to build a clinical waste treatment facility on the former mining site at Hassockrigg near Shotts, despite council officials recommending they should be approved.
“Following the decision, HES is now considering relocating and investing millions on a new site outwith Lanarkshire.
“Included within the rejected proposal was an intention to relocate Healthcare Environmental’s existing waste sterilisation plant from within the former Cummins factory building in Shotts to the purpose-built new facility.
“The site would also have contained an advanced thermal treatment (ATT) resource [sic]
“This process involves high temperature combustion to incinerate clinical waste.
“If passed, this would have resulted in waste such as body parts and pharmaceutical waste being disposed of less than a mile from the village of Eastfield.
“The Harthill Environmental Action Group was formed to oppose the Hassockrigg proposal.
“Group member Billy Fisher said: “”The thought of an ATT facility and subsequent possibility of airborne toxins polluting the area was and still is a serious concern. “The fact is there is no proof that the thermal treatment is safe and indeed we have evidence that it is very dangerous.
This is no doubt seen as a success for the Action Group but as the WMW piece points out, the loss of investment in the community will have serious implications. Additionally, we must remember that these wastes must be treated somewhere, and expecting that it should be placed on someone else’s doorstep is simply unacceptable. Even more so is the claim that “we have evidence that it [ATT treatment] is very dangerous”. Where is the evidence for this? That “evidence” should be subject to detailed scientific scrutiny and if proven hopelessly false and misrepresented then appropriate and consequential costs should be borne by those who sought to advance that “evidence”.
http://www.waste-management-world.com/index/from-the-wires/wire-news-display/1575451301.html