Traffic poses a greater risk to public health than the proposed incinerator at Ince Marshes.
So says Myles Kitcher, development manager at Peel Environmental, as the firm puts the final touches to the plan before submitting it to Cheshire County Council.
The proposed incinerator has met with stiff resistance from campaigners in neighbouring rural communities including Helsby, Frod-sham and Kelsall.
Protesters argue that the tonnage of waste would harm the local environment, pollute air quality and pose a danger to their health.
But Mr Kitcher says it will be 'good for the environment'.
The 100m high stack would burn 600,000 tonnes a year of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) formed from non-recyclable materials to create 95MW of electricity.
Recycled materials including glass, textiles, chemicals, tyres, timber, plastics and electrical goods may be reprocessed on site.
And Mr Kitcher said: 'The incinerator will be a renewable energy source which encourages a reduction in greenhouse gases.
'There will always be material you cannot recycle and this will be good for the environment and divert waste from landfill.
'It's an approach approved by the Environment Agency.'
Mr Kitcher said DEFRA research had concluded there was no link between incineration and health, despite fears emissions could cause cancer.
'The evidence demonstrates there's no unacceptable risk,' he said.
Chemicals produced would include oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride and carbon monoxide.
'Traffic produces more oxides of nitrogen than this incinerator would,' said Mr Kitcher.
Mr Kitcher said an environmental impact assessment had been conducted on a worst case scenario basis by consultant Fichtner Engineering.
It showed emissions - continuously monitored by the Environment Agency - would be within EU limits, while air quality standards would meet Government regulations.
Of 108,000 tonnes of ash left, 32,000 tonnes produced by flu-gas treatment and classed as 'hazardous' would be taken securely to landfill sites.
The rest would be landfilled or used by construction industries in block-making.
Mr Kitcher described Cheshire County Council's aim of recycling 50% of waste by 2020 as 'ambitious'.
He said fears contracts would make the incinerator 'a monster that needed feeding', discour-aging recycling, were unfounded.
'There will be flexibility so that if recycling targets were exceeded by, say 5%, the plant could burn a reduced amount,' said Mr Kitcher.
'The greater risk is that we will have too much fuel.'
Of the waste burned, 270,000 tonnes will come from Greater Manchester, 140,000 from Merseyside and 90,000 from Cheshire, half of which will be produced on site.
Mr Kitcher could not rule out serving Lancashire in the future, but said the plant would not process materials from outside the North West.
The draft Cheshire Waste Local Plan - likely to be the subject of a public inquiry this summer - earmarks incineration for just 215,000 tonnes of waste.
Peel has lodged an objection to the plan because Ince Marches is earmarked for development by petrochemical industries rather than waste management.
Asked why Peel wants to build in Cheshire when almost half the waste burned will come from Greater Manchester, Mr Kitcher said 150 sites across the region had been investigated, including Stanlow.
The 100 hectare Ince site - 58 hectares of which would be developed as an ecology park to protect wildlife - had offered the best transport links.
A major concern is the traffic impact. But Mr Kitcher said only materials from Cheshire would be transported by road.
Those from outside the county will come by rail or sea, with a new dry cargo berth planned.
Mr Kitcher said 250 HGVs would enter the site daily, with another 138 leaving.
They are likely to use Pool Lane and the A5117, joining the M56 at junction 14.
But a traffic assessment conducted by JMP Consulting has concluded the impact would be acceptable, with no significant effect on queuing.
'There will be an increase in traffic on Pool Lane which people use to go into Ince and Elton, but it will not exceed the road's capacity,' said Mr Kitcher.
'Vehicles will not go through the villages.'
Mr Kitcher said staff would be encouraged to use public transport, adding bus services to the site might be temporarily subsidised.
Fall-out concerns for surrounding villages >>>
Fall-out concerns for surrounding villages
OPPONENTS say 'fall-out' from the incinerator could affect a 10-mile radius and claim Peel has not consulted widely enough.
But Mr Kitcher said: 'We don't know what the basis for this radius is - it's illogical.
'The pre-application consultation - outside the statutory process - has been successful in alerting people to the development. Some developers would argue we have done too much.
'We are totally happy to talk to anybody and consultation will continue.'
In November, Peel admitted the number of jobs created would be 1,100 - less than a third of the original 3,500 estimate.
Asked if the firm could be trusted in light of the revelation, Mr Kitcher said: 'We first consulted Ince, Elton and Helsby two years ago and people asked about employment.
'But at that stage we had not developed the details of the scheme, and based our estimate on a similar concept in London.
'Now, after market research, we have a more detailed breakdown.'
Mr Kitcher said there had so far been 'specific expressions of interest' from three companies, and other 'general interest', with around 20-21 firms likely to occupy the park.
But he added that a permanent Peel management structure would remain in place.
'This is an exciting opportunity to develop a whole range of new businesses and technologies in Cheshire,' he said.
'It's a first for the UK in terms of the model as a whole and is in line with what the Government wants to do.'
Alternatively see this week's Chester Chronicle and fill in the form in paper offering your support.