ATTORNEY for the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) Ian Benjamin has argued that the cumulative impact assessment on the proposed Alutrint Smelter in La Brea has been revisited, questioned and investigated ’almost to death’, and it was impossible to say with any rationality there has been no ’hard look’ at the evidence.

Benjamin was speaking yesterday at the Appeal Court in Port of Spain, on the ninth day of a civil appeal brought by EMA, Alutrint and the attorney general, challenging a June 16 High Court ruling by Justice Mira Dean-Armorer which quashed the Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) granted by EMA to Alutrint.

In her ruling, Dean-Armorer said she found no evidence to prove a ’hard look’ by EMA on the cumulative impact of the three related parts of the project, namely the power plant, aluminium complex and port facility.

Yesterday, Benjamin noted there was an assessment of the cumulative impact of emissions, such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, hydrogen fluoride, particulate matter, benzopyrene and carbon monoxide, and the port and power plant were also assessed.

’The hard look allegation is baseless,’ Benjamin said.

He also argued that information regarding health impacts were available from inception and engaged by the public, and the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA)-produced after the public comment period-was to assist in allaying public fears.

Chief Justice Ivor Archie, presiding over the case with Justices Wendell Kangaloo and Allan Mendonca, questioned his submission, pointing out that if the EMA already had information contained in the HHERA, why it would write to Alutrint saying it was required for it (Alutrint) to make an informed decision.

Benjamin said there was a difference between wanting more information on an impact already identified and not identifying an impact at all.

Earlier, EMA lead attorney Douglas Mendes SC spoke about the issue of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. He said while this country was signed on to this convention, the US, the proposed destination for transporting hazardous spent pot liners, is not.

Mendes said the authority’s mandate under the convention did not include the management of the environment in the US, and this country had laws in violation of international obligations that are enforced, such as mandatory death penalty.

Archie responded that if the EMA imposed the condition of transporting to the US and it was an ’impossible condition’ to perform, it was indirectly endangering our environment as this country would be stuck with the spent pot liners.

He also expressed concern about a medical monitoring plan condition in the CEC, in which the EMA requested that Alutrint establish a baseline for the study, normally done by the Health Ministry. The MMP will monitor the health of plant workers and members of the community.

Archie said the baseline information should have been previously acquired and Mendes said the information would be in the relevant documents and promised to present that information in writing.

The case resumes today.