Is it not time to look at other alternatives?

In response to the comment by the chief executive of Marlborough District Council, Mark Wheeler, in the Express on October 18, where he stated that it was the residents democratic right to oppose the pyrolysis plant.

We all understand that anyone has the right to apply for resource consent for all kinds of projects. However, some things are totally inappropriate and should have been considered and this is one example.

This is not just another application for consent. This has been council-led from the start as a means of dealing with the poison treated grape posts, which are generated as waste, from the very wealthy wine industry, many of which are based offshore. Why should Blenheim ratepayers be lumbered with this problem? We accept that there is a problem with these posts because of the toxins they contain but it is the wine industry’s problem not Blenheim ratepayers’.

Mr Wheeler says there is no plan B, that shows how little they have looked at the problem. There are several options. This is bad enough but to allow this plant to be adjacent to the subdivision they promote as the ultimate place to live in the district and right in the heart of all the prime recreation areas for the town is beyond belief.

As ratepayers and residents of Marlborough we would expect the district council ‘‘to act in the best interests of the residents of the town’’. It would appear that they have lost a bit of focus somewhere .

One of our committee is a chemical engineer and has a professional understanding of the effects of this timber treatment. He has made a few points available which we think everyone in the district should be aware of and these are listed below.

The disposal of copper, chromium, arsenic (CCA) treated timber is a worldwide problem and investigations are continuing into how best to deal with it, because all three components are toxic to human, animal and plant life at the concentrations found in CCA treated timber.

Copper and chromium are heavy metals, evaporate slowly during burning and remain mostly in the ash. Arsenic is a non-metal and evaporates extensively into the smoke during burning. All three are released more quickly into the environment from CCA wood ash than from the original CCA timber. For these reasons, the burning of CCA treated timber is prohibited in open flue incinerators and domestic burners in many countries.

Pyrolysis of CCA treated timber is a risky process because, in order to reduce the amount of arsenic escaping through the flue:

• It requires precise heating rate and temperature control at all times;

• It requires very precise control of oxygen (air) throughout the process;

• It requires precise control of the particle size of the feedstock;

• It requires continuous monitoring of the flue gases, to ensure that arsenic release is low, together with flue scrubbing to remove it completely.

These risks are well documented in the scientific press. In the absence of any one of these controls, pyrolysis cannot be regarded as a safe disposal option.

Scientific publications also show that the subsequent burning or landfill disposal of any of the products of pyrolysis will result in the release of copper, chromium and arsenic into the environment at higher rates than simply storing the original CCA timber. Domestic burning of CCA wood charcoal is a particular hazard.

Other (documented) options exist for the disposal of CCA treated timber:

• CCA treated timber can be reused for fencing, landscaping, etc;

• CCA treated timber can be chipped and used to produce

The disposal of copper, chromium, arsenic (CCA) treated timber is a worldwide problem and investigations are continuing into how best to deal with it ... .

composite building materials;

• CCA treated timber can be cut, chipped or pulped and then treated with mild acids or other chemicals to extract the copper chromium and arsenic and produce a nonhazardous by product.

Evidence shows that pyrolysis is the least safe and most polluting option for the disposal of CCA treated timber.

In view of the situation that has arisen over the commissioner’s refusal of the resource consent for the preschool at Burleigh on the grounds of CCA treated timber we must now ask the council ‘is it not time to abandon this plan and rethink the strategy for the disposal of these posts’?