DESIGN faults at a toxic waste incinerator allowed dangerous emissions
to devastate a Stirlingshire farmer's herd of pedigree cows, the High
Court in London was told yesterday.
The design of the ReChem plant in Bonnybridge was altered as it was
being built, allowing it to process more solid waste. But the new design
and the way the plant was operated allowed deadly dioxins and PCBs to
escape into the atmosphere, it was alleged.
Dairy farmer Andrew Graham, 60, and his wife Irene are seeking
compensation from international waste disposers, ReChem.
In a trial expected to last six months, the Grahams will allege that
toxic emissions from the ReChem incinerator at Roughmute, Bonnybridge,
wrought havoc on their cattle.
The court was told how their pedigree Ayrshire milking herd was
devastated by the alleged pollution, with some dying of ailments
resulting from contamination and others having to be put down because
their milk yield was so low as to be uneconomic.
Fumes and oily residues caused by smoke coming from the incinerator
also made life for Bonnybridge residents a misery on many occasions, the
court heard.
Residue alleged to be toxic landed on grass at the Grahams' farm,
where it was eaten by their herd of 296 prime milking stock, it was
claimed.
In the months before the ReChem plant closed in 1984, milk yields from
the Grahams' herd fell from an average of 17 litres a cow to just 4.6
litres.
Southampton-based ReChem deny all blame.
They admit the Grahams' herd suffered illness but claim it was caused
by Fat Cow Syndrome -- an ailment associated with excessive dietary
supplements -- and not toxic emissions from their incinerator.
Mr Graham is seeking compensation for the damage allegedly caused to
cattle grazing on his West Bankhead Farm in Denny, Stirlingshire -- two
miles from the ReChem stack.
The court heard his prize herd grazed on West Bankhead Farm during the
summer months, spending the rest of the year on his home property of
Tambowie Farm, Milngavie, near Glasgow.
Mr John Melville-Williams QC, for the Grahams, told the court that as
the incinerator was being built in 1974, the energy crisis prompted a
sudden redesign.
''It was designed to incinerate liquid waste but before it was built
they wanted to adapt the incinerator to burn more solids, and that was
done as it was being built.''
To be rendered harmless, the PCBs need to be incinerated in controlled
conditions at temperatures of at least 1100 degrees, counsel said.
''Burners are switched on if the temperature drops below a certain
level.
''Temperature indicators were positioned too close to the sides of the
burning chamber so they were measuring heat from the sides and not from
the gas flue.
''It was found in reports by experts for the Grahams that the
temperature was not being correctly recorded, which makes it quite
difficult for proper control to be organised,'' he said.
The method of loading the solid wastes into the incinerater were also
negligent, counsel alleged.
''Our submission is that the method of loading was that a door had to
be opened and there would be an uncontrolled ingress of air.
''There was a recommendation for a mechanical handling system that
would do away with this problem but that never happened.
''It is like putting a large lump of something on a household fire --
there is a burst of flame but the centre core does not get incinerated
properly. That is a crude example of what we say happened here.''
The hearing continues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article