But, reading further, I see that £15,000 on each of the three breaches was the fine, while £74,000 was Environment Agency costs. So the fines were nowhere near high enough in my opinion.

I was not present at the hearing, so can only go on the reported comments. Mr Andrew Gilbert QC, defending, stated that air quality was very good. I wonder if he knows the area and has compared the atmosphere with elsewhere? My relatives live elsewhere in Lancashire and Cheshire, close to industrial developments, some chemical. When I stay with them, I smell "fresh air", but in Chatburn the air is tainted with a chemical smell on the majority of days.

Mr Sutheran's comments included a reference to "the small number of local protestors" and "is pleased that the judge urged them to note that the breaches posed no threat to health whatsoever".

It may be that only a small number of people make formal complaints to the Environment Agency, but a very large number of people object to what they see as the pollution of the area by Castle Cement.

Does Mr Sutheran not realise that it is often left to the few to take action to try and improve things for the many who remain silent officially, but complain bitterly among themselves? And I wonder on what basis the judge was able to state that there was no health risk whatsoever? Did he know whether asthma sufferers, for example, had severe attacks during the time of these breaches? Of course he did not, and I am surprised that he felt able to make such a statement.

Mr Sutheran's comments are complacent, but that I hope that he will now ensure that the plant is managed and monitored positively; the matter rests in his hands, but, if he takes action only after complaints, I hope the Environment Agency will use the stronger action of a prohibition notice on the plant - perhaps shutting it down until management shows willingness to comply on a day-to-day basis is the only way to get proper action by them.

DETERMINED
Chatburn

Castle Cement pleaded guilty to creating a persistent odour on March 4th, 1999 along with two other guilty pleas.

Both sides blamed sulphur dioxide for the odour.

I enclose photographs (one of which is reproduced above) from a video my son took of the plumes that morning, as I took both my children over Waddington Fell, on the way to Clitheroe Royal Grammar School. I did not leave them to breathe in those fumes but took them straight back home again.

It was complaints from many residents on Green Drive, adjacent to the school, and the video, which resulted on the prosecution of March 4th. I understand that pupils played rugby in the blue fumes that day on the grammar school field, adjacent to Green Drive.

The judge specifically asked the Environment Agency lawyers if any health risk was involved. They said most definately not and this was agreed by Castle Cement's lawyers. The seriousness of the offence was therefore assessed simply on the basis of harmless odour which was of no risk to anyone's health whatsoever.

I believe that neither the Environment Agency nor Castle Cement acted properly.

I have the proof. The N W Regional Director of the Environment Agency, Justin McCracken, confirmed in a letter dated 20th April 2000, that most people cannot smell sulphur dioxide below 450ppb.

The air quality regulations require the concentration of sulphur dioxide in the air to be below 100ppb as a 15 minute average for 99.9% of the time

This standard takes into account the known effects on health of sensitive individuals.

The agency is aware of the above, but totally disregards the health damage which can be caused at concentrations of sulphur dioxide in the air between 100ppb and 400ppb, that is when odour is not detectable at all.

The agency also ignores complaints which it records as faint or transient, but which residents identify as strong. This discrepancy is dismissed as residents having become "sensitised" - as though that does not matter, even though a faint odour indicates a strong presence of the gas. Residents have repeatedly complained of health effects caused by the plumes. Many have been when no odour was identified.

Who gave the Environment Agency permission to ignore Air Quality Regulations?

I brought this matter to the attention of the Environment Agency inspectors and solicitor in the recess before the judge came back in to sum up, and before sentence was passed.

I brought this matter to the attention of the junior barrister of the prosecution during the same recess. He told me he could only act on the instructions given to him (by the Environment Agency). I understand that his first duty is to the court. No one told the judge. Surely, it was important for him to know about the true relevances of the health issue, before he summed up and passed sentence?

Will the Government instruct Castle Cement to stop using kilns 5 & 6 now, immediatly, or will they allow this predictable harm to continue? No future prosecution can surely be brought under a clause which by definition allows harm to health before it is breached?

Castle Cement said themselves that kilns 5 & 6 were to be mothballed - will that happen now with immediate effect?

MARY V HORNER
Heights Farm
Bolton-by-Bowland

Those of your readers who care about the environment may be interested in the latest developements concerning Castle Cement, Ribblesdale.

The company has begun the legal process to have the hazardous toxic waste "Cemfuel" reclassified as a fuel. This would put it in the same category as coal and outside the reach of the EU Hazardous Waste Incineration Directive, where it would be subject to far less strenuous controls. If successful, it is anticipated that Castle will not just be able to burn the 137,000t/annum of hazardous waste presently proposed, but as much as they want, whenever they want, and wherever they want.

This action follows closely on Castle Cement's application to recommence burning "Cemfuel" in kiln 7 (stopped in September 1996 due to persistant plume-grounding). There are also plans to restart burning "Cemfuel" in kilns 5 & 6 once continious monitoring equipment is in place (stopped on June 30th 2000 as Castle were unable to comply with the new EU emission limits).

On July 10th at Lancaster Crown Court, Judge Proctor concluded that there was no possible solution to plume-grounding at Ribblesdale and that he expected futher prosecutions to follow.

In short, Castle cannot meet the conditions concerning plume-grounding, nor can they meet the EU regulations concerning emission limits when "Cemfuel" is being burnt, so their solution is to get it reclassified so that the rules do not apply.

Over the past few years, local campaigners have fought long and hard for legislation to safeguard health and protect the environment; it is a basic human right to have clean air to breathe.

Readers who are concerned about the implications of these developments have the chance to raise them with Castle representatives at their "open day" on September 6th in Clitheroe Parish Church Hall.

J.D. MORTIMER
Chairman
Friends of the Earth
Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

I moved from the suburban area of Manchester to my idyllic country cottage at Bolton-by-Bowland just over 18 months ago for clean and fresh air.

Over the past 12 months, I've read with ever increasing interest the devloping row between the residents of Chatburn, West Bradford, etc with Castle Cement and how it's production process is affecting the quality of life. As a fairly successful businessman, I appreciate probably more than most what positive economic effect a successful company like Castle Cement will have on a local community.

However, I have also suffered with either the longest cold on record or my lungs are under attack from something in my new environment. It's not fair to expect the local community to suffer at the hands of a potentially environmentally unnfriendly neighbour but, likewise, we should not have to become aggressive towards a local company if it is not to blame.

From conversations I've had recently, most of my community are suffering the same symptoms I'm suggering from, eye problems, chest problems, etc., and we cannot all have suddenly started to suffer from hay fever en-masse. My eyes start to smart as I travel down the A59 by-pass.

The council and, more importantly, the public health officer, have a duty to get to the bottom of this issue. If we were all suffering from typhus, as a for instance, they would soon find the root cause of it. "How green is my valley" should encompass a lot more than the aesthetic value.

EXTREMELY CONCERNED

Wednesday, October 11th, sees the opening of the public inquiry called by the Welsh Assembly into Castle Cement's plans to incinerate the hazardous toxic waste Cemfuel at it's plant in Padeswood, North Wales. The first of the five items for consideration is "the effect of the proposed development on public health".

Wednesday, September 6th, saw a grand total of 26 people attend Castle Cement's "Open Day" at the church hall in Clitheroe where the "benefits" of incinerating Cemfuel in Kiln 7 again were extolled.

Friends of the Earth members were present outside for all 10 hours, offering a statement of our views to visitors. They included several councillors, and 12 members of the general public, who seemed the most interested in the environmental aspects of the company's proposals.

Whether the low attendance reflected lack of publicity, support for Castle Cement or the usual apathy is hard to say. But it is hardly the vigourous approach taken by the reported 30,000 residents of North Wales and Cheshire, who forced Rhodri Morgan to take notice of their refusal to play host to another Clitheroe lying down.

We who are concerned about the health of the Ribble Valley have no access to the publicity resources enjoyed by major players in the international cement market. We must therefore rely upon the interest and good offices of the local Press in seeking to respond to the points made in Castle Cement's widely-circulated August "Open Door."

It is only Castle Cement's opinion that the Kiln 7 Cemfuel trials have been a success. The results are currently being assessed by the Environment Agency.

Castle Cement says it withdrew Cemfuel as a goodwill gesture in 1994, but I believe evidence in our possession proves this was after it was banned by the pollution inspectorate, now covered by the Environment Agency.

The judge at Lancaster Crown Court was not told that there had been no survey or investigation into the health effects of incinerating hazardous toxic waste.

The Environment Agency's agreement to Castle Cement's plea of guilty to pollution by sulphur dioxide only meant that the court did not consider other Cemfuel by-products.

The Environment Agency say that the scrubber on Kiln 7 will not reduce dioxins, furans, or heavy metals, all of which are produced when incinerating Cemfuel.

It was legally established in court that there was no way of preventing Castle Cement's plumes from coming to ground or any way of forecasting when it would happen.

"Open Door" made no mention of Castle Cement's recent application to have Cemfuel re-classified as a fuel, which would put it outside the Hazardous Waste Incineration Regulations and allow Castle Cement to incinerate as much as it wants.

Why not? Wasn't it Adolf Hitler who said: "It also gives us special pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them?"

Two last points - Castle's formal application to recommence incinerating Cemfuel in Kiln 7 appeared in your newspaper on September 14th, after which there were 28 days for any objections. The man who wrote of the "continious cold" the other week might like to consult our website, www.bhrvfoe.co.uk, where he can see for himself what the tourists don't see in the Ribble Valley.

J.D. MORTIMER
Chairman, Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley FoE,
Green Drive
Clitheroe

I would like to refer to the article in your paper last week headed "Once again we are in tip-top condition."

Whilst I am in no position to contradict Dr Morton's remarks, I feel I ought to draw attention to the concerns he expressed in a letter dated July 16th 1996, as follows:

"It would appear that plume grounding has been recognised as an appreciable problem from the Ribblesdale cement works and this will result in localised increased concentrations of emissions from the plant, even when the kilns are operating satisfactorily.

"However, a number of residents have expressed the view that the cement kilns frequently malfunction and by the time the operating procedure has been shut down sufficient quantities of excess emissions have been released into the plume to cause very serious localised pollution, albeit for a very short period.

"There is some evidence that even short term deteriorations in air quality may have an adverse effect on a small sub-set of individuals with co-existent chronic disease, particularly cardio-vascular and respiratory disease . . . My worry is that a very small sub-set of individuals suffering from chronic respiratory disease or heart disease might be at greater risk of transient localised pollution episodes than the general population. Because of the relatively sparse population  and the very localised nature of these attributed espisodes, we would be unlikely to detect any significant adverse health effects from population level
data, but this does not preclude a risk which may be important to a very small sub-set of the population."

I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions from the above, except to say I think it is unworthy of some people living locally to give the appearance of being very dismissive of the genuine health concerns of others. After all, none of us knows when or why he might himself have the misfortune to become a member of "a very small sub-set."

DAVID FARNHILL
Denbigh Drive
Clitheroe

NO, we didn’t misinterpret the figures (Dioxin danger allegation last week.)

The point of our alert is that these horrendous figures were only measured at that particular monitor, at that particular wind direction and at that wind speed.

Our observers report that the obnoxious emissions can spotted at least 50% of the time, day or night, meaning that such figures can be measured with the right instruments somewhere in our valley.

This has at least three consequences:
First, we believe that anyone with a respiratory defect or illness is at risk of serious harm.
Second, the vegetation in the area must be absorbing high levels of a dangerous substance.  As these dioxins also accumulate in the fat of grazing animals, farmers and their customers are being exposed to increasing risk, in our opinion.
Third, the average figure for the 24-hour period, according to our information is one of the highest ever recorded in England. Surely it would not be tolerated in any of our most polluted cities.

We do not wish the people in our valley to be treated as guinea pigs any longer, serious health disabilities in, say 20 years time can be prevented by prudent use of the environment now.  When weather conditions are not conducive to high level exhausting of dangerous gases, will someone please stop the pollution until they are.

Bill Kembery
Chair
Friends of the Earth

I WISH to respond to your article last week headlined “Dioxin danger allegation is a 'misinterpretation', claims Castle Cement”.

In this article, Castle Cement accuses Friends of the Earth of misinterpreting the results of the Ribble Valley Lillands air monitor on March 20th, 2001.

Friends of the Earth only sought to give the facts when they were interviewed by your reporter and were fully aware of the Government advisors standards for air quality which, for reasons best known to them, are based on 24-hour averages.

The monitor issued 19 WARNINGS and eight ALARMS.  This signified that levels of PM10s, particulates said to contain cancer-causing dioxin, were considerably above 50ug/m3 safety figures listed on the monitor report sheet. During the day the monitor recorded average readings for PM10s of  91ug/m3 over a three-hour period, and an average of 128ug/m3 over two half-hour periods.  Figures of up to 155ug/m3 were recorded during the day.

The average PM10 reading up-wind from Castle Cement during the above-mentioned period was 6ug/m3 in much cleaner air.

Dr Stephen Morton, the Director of Public Health for East Lancashire, stated in a letter, which is on the public register at Ribble Valley Council offices: “We do not know of any threshold below which we can say that particulates are not harmful”

Castle Cement stated that Friends of the Earth “misinterpreted” the figures from the monitor.  I am sure that when your readers see these statements they will  realise that there was no “misinter-pretation” of the facts.

The readers of this letter now have these facts as I see them and can make up their own minds as to why the Environment Agency defends Castle Cement in the pollution of our Valley, as was so clearly demonstrated in last Week’s publication.

ALAN EGAR
Waddington

IN response to the article by Mr John Turner concerning air pollution from Castle Cement on March 20th, the PM10s were at very high levels for over three hours; the video evidence from that day shows that  only part of the main plume of smoke was passing the Lillands monitor, so the readings would have been even worse if it had been recording the centre, not the edge of the smoke.

I have a copy of a letter from Dr Morton, Director of Public Health, East Lancs, in which he quotes from a paper who have existing health problems being at risk from “short-term deterioration in air quality”.  Short term and transient are phrases favoured by the Environment Agency in letters to complainants to excuse themselves from taking action.

Of course we understand the law pertaining to pollution levels being averaged out over a 24-hour period, but this is of no comfort to anyone who has to endure levels such as those recorded on March 20th.

Mr John Isherwood told the newspaper that the incident on that day was investigated by an officer from the agency. I have a copy of a letter from Mr Shatwell, saying the agency “did not undertake incident investigation due to a foot and mouth outbreak in the 10km area.”

So who is getting it right? I would like Castle Cement to be more pro-active – after all these years it should be aware which weather  conditions cause plume grounding and action should be taken before any member of the public has to suffer.

According to Mr Isherwood, the complaint from Friends of the Earth is a “red herring”.  Maybe he should transfer to sea pollution, because he is not being very helpful about air pollution.

Lynda England
Worston