Chronicle Comment
Castle Cement's £48m modernisation plan for it's Padeswood works, which includes firing a new kiln with waste chemicals. old tyres and plastics, has met massive opposition from people worried about health risks.

The company's proposals were approved by Flinstshire County Council in February, but the Welsh assembly called them in and ordered a public inquiry.

In the meantime, the war of words between the company and protestors continues.
 
 

I wish to draw attention to some aspects of the propaganda circulated by Castle Cement together with material in the newspapers aimed at persuading the public its proposal to build a new kiln at Padeswood is environmentally friendly.

Castle is part of a large multinational organisation and its outlay on propaganda is peanuts compared with  the profits that will be trousered by its shareholders if its proposal goes ahead. Opposition groups are less well endowed with cash.

Castle claims to be an environmentally-friendly company. Who is it trying to kid? On July 11 it was fined £45,000 and ordered to pay £74,000 costs after pleading guilty at Lancaster Crown Court to charges of air pollution emanating from its Ribbledale works.

Last year it was prosecuted and fined for persistent dust emissions from its operation at Padeswood. Is this environmentally friendly?

A story by George Tattum in the July 7 Chronicle makes interesting reading. Castle appears to be claiming it cannot deal with existing environmental problems at Padeswood concerning leakage from an old waste tip without planning permission for which it has not yet applied. Is this environmentally friendly?

It sounds to me like a self-imposed Catch 22 situation. How long has this leakage been a problem? How long has Castle been aware of it?

Castle's glossy propaganda also makes interesting reading. Surely a cement kiln that incinerates waste as its main fuel source is also a waste incinerator? Castle claims otherwise! A better example of doublethink is harder to envisage.

One of Castle's own workers is quoted in your newspaper as saying the present Padeswood plant is 'clapped out and needs replacing'.

Bearing in mind its inherent and persistant pollution problems, I ask is it environmentally friendly to continue to operate such a plant?

I appreciate the concerns of Castle's workforce about their jobs and future but suggest any threat to employment is due to the company's poor track record and its unreasonable demands for expansion. It is not due to the legitimate concerns of opposition groups.

In common with its existing operation at Padeswood, Castle's propaganda stinks. I can smell its noxious sulphurous malodours as I write this letter. Environmentally friendly? No way!

D G HALL
Stryt Isa
Penyffordd

Has Castle Cement's Padeswood plant manager Tony Allan lost the plot?

I see in the Chronicle of July 21 that he is directing his anger and vitriol at one of his neighbours, Gilly Boyd.

He goes on to try to spread the nonsense that by campaigning against Castle's toxic plans she must have a secret aim of closing down the existing coal-burning factory. Let us be clear, it is Mr Allan and his company's responsibility who they employ, not that of a local homeowner.

It is his company that wants to tear down the coal chimneys to replace them with a gargantuan waste-incinerating monolith.

It is his company that then uses jobs as a kind of blackmail token to try to get this toxic kiln approved.

I am reminded of a similar attitude in the story of the spoilt little rich boy. If he was not allowed to cheat, he threatened to take his ball away.

Not only is Castle's all-out-bet on toxic waste putting the existing cement jobs in jeopardy, but even if the inappropriate plan was to go ahead it would be hugely detrimental to hopes of greenfield jobs and tourism in the region.

But then it is profit not jobs that totally motivates Castle owner Heidelburgs. And it seems unable to resist the money it would be paid to pollute our region with other people's hazardous wastes.

Of course the appalling record of illicit emissions from the existing coal plant has a bearing on the toxic kiln proposal.

Maybe if the company is so keen not to scare local people it might have indicated it would change the management that presided over these offences?

But no, it will not even acknowledge the truth let alone apologise for the suffering caused, with Tony Allan going on television to brazenly declare there have never been any problems in the running of the plant.
Does he think we are all fools?

ROBERTA OWEN
Flintshire Friends of the Earth
Hillside Court
Holywell

As a spokewoman for Phoenix I cannot let the comments in your article of July 21 go unchallenged.

You quote Castle Cement general manager Tony Allan as accusing Phoenix of making light of the future livelihoods of its workforce. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The comments about transferable skills and golden handshakes were not intended to mean jobs do not matter. Of course they do.

But we want a community that is healthy as well as economically viable.

You quote us correctly as saying 'Our concerns are for the well-being of our community as a whole. Our future health, our children's health, and our environment needs to be safeguarded.' This of course includes Castle Cement workers and their families.

Mr Allan is also quoted as saying our 'real agenda is to close the works'. Not so. The only one who has threatened this is Castle itself.

It has publicly said that if the application fails it may have to close the plant. It has also been reported that in the past Castle has also said the same thing about its plant at Ketton when it wanted to make changes there.

We, on the other hand, have always been totally open about our agenda - it is to protect the community and our environment, not to close the plant.

We are getting rather tired of being accused of blatant scaremongering. All our statements are based on recent, peer-reviewed, well established research, as the forthcoming inquiry will show.

GILLIAN BOYD
Secretary
Phoenix
Chapel House
Penymynydd

I read with amazement the incredible statement from Tony Allan, manager of Castle Cement at Padeswood, where he accuses Gilly Boyd, spokewoman for the Phoenix campaign group, of scaremongering.

Does he also believe the American government has a hidden agenda to get at him personally when it stated that dioxins from incinerators cause cancer?

Perhaps the cancer cluster discovered next to an incinerator in Liverpool was also scaremongering?

There are lots of countries looking to export their toxic waste abroad for incineration. Apparently, it is bad for their health!

Castle Cement had no qualms about making almost 200 workers redundant in 1991. Was Mr Allan enraged by that?

Last, but not least, Mr Allan unbelievably accuses one woman of trying to close the works. No one has mentioned closing Castle other than Mr Allan himself when he threatened closure if planning approval was not given in February.

We have tried to live in harmony with Castle Cement. It is only the threat to our health from this massive incinerator that has drawn tens of thousands of us together to stand up and say no.

Why should we have this forced on us? We have nothing to gain but everything to lose if the incinerator was to be built on our doorstep.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

The Chronicle of  July 28 observed that although a planning inquiry will examine the merits of the Castle Cement company's kiln plans, the war of words continues.

However, the Phoenix protest group seems to have hit a raw nerve because in my opinion the impact of the 1998 Human Rights Act has not yet been fully appreciated.

Even the legal experts agree this new area of UK human rights legislation is a potential minefield.

Under Section 6 of the Act it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a human rights convention.

I have confirmation a planning inquiry is a Section 6 public authority.

It is also worth noting Flintshire County Council and the Welsh Assembly, which make the final decision, also comes under Section 6.

Stripped down to its essentials, Castle intends to incinerate toxic waste and construct a chimney which, including the emissions plume, will be more than 500ft.

There will be massive ancilliary buildings and the health concerns will be aggravated by the additional pollution from increased heavy goods vehicle movements.

People living some distance from Padeswood have genuine concerns.

For the people living close to Padeswood the prospect of Castle's proposals are a nightmare and a violation of their human rights.

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act has been used sucessfully against industry in Italy and Spain.

Compensation has been paid by both companies and public authorities to the injured parties.

Article 8 says: 'Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life'. The question is, will the inquiry or the Assembly veto Castle's plans as a potential violation of Article 8?

The challenge to either of these public authorities will be legitimate one under UK law. For those people worried they may not get the chance to have their say at the inquiry, then quote Article 6: 'Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing.'

Finally it is to the Chronicle that we are indebted for upholding Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: 'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.

'This right shall include freedom to hold opinions without interference by public authorities'.

JOHN ELLIS
Pen-y-Garreg Close
Bryn-y-Baal
Mold

Castle Cement has said it will consider closing its Padeswood plant if its kiln application is not granted.

The same ploy was used at both Clitheroe and Ketton plants.

Now Castle has applied for planning permission to build eight silos to store coloured cements at Padeswood - apparently these are still necessary if the proposed incinerator is turned down.

The new proposed plant would produce up to 10,000 tons of cement kiln dust a year, which if not classified as special waste may be disposed of at its existing site  - Cefn Mawr near Loggerheads - so local residents need to be aware.

It is no good just hoping everything will be monitored.

The Environment Agency cannot protect us - it only fines companies after the event.

Noise and vibration levels would increase dramatically, possibly equivalent to an eight lane motorway. Is this wise in an area riddled with old mines?

As a resident I am extremely worried about the health of my family. I also run a small business and intend to move away if this is passed.

The time for us to stand together is now - this is our last chance to safeguard our families, our jobs and our environment for future generations.

We have everything to lose and nothing to gain if this goes ahead.

We cannot afford to lose this inquiry. Surely all concerned can write one letter of objection.

The inspector at the public inquiry needs to see written evidence of public concern.

If you have doubts and concerns then write immediatly to G Boyd, Phoenix Coalition, Chapel House, Penymynydd CH4 0IJ

Every letter counts.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

CANK NOTE:
Alternatively, you may wish to write directly to the Inspector - see our partly completed specimen letter.

It is worth reminding readers that Flintshire County Council planning officials recommended refusal of the Castle Cement company's Padeswood proposals which include the incineration of toxic waste.

In a briefing note to our elected councillors sitting on the planning committee the advice was: 'The pre-heater tower and associated chimney would be seen from a wide area of the surrounding countryside including parts of the Clwydian Range area of outstanding natural beauty, heritage sites and parts of Cheshire.

'By virtue of their height and mass, the pre-heater tower and associated chimney would form an unacceptable visual intrusion into the landscape and create an impact in their own right and cumulatively with the existing works which would be detrimental to the character of the area and to visual amenties.'

The council officials advice note goes on to quote the various developement plans agreed by elected councillors and demonstrating the fact the proposals were contrary to developement plans for Flintshire.

Despite the advice, councillors approved the Castle plans and opened the door to future industrial developement in the Padeswood area. Nobody can now legitimately claim the area is protected Green Belt or zoned strictly residential.

Having advised strongly against the Castle proposals, council officials now have the task of presenting evidence at the October public inquiry supporting the Castle plans - an interesting quirk of local government procedure.

The Castle application is defined as what is known as Schedule One and as such the pollution monitoring role falls mainly on the Environment Agency. Following the publicity of the last few months most people are aware the agency is ineffective in carrying out it's designated role of protection of the environment.

Just this week a new director of the Agency has been appointed together with the instruction to 'breathe some life into the agency'.

The House of Commons press notice in May this year said: 'We continue to have serious doubts about the performance of the agency in it's waste management function'.

The report from the Commons Committee savages the agency and it is obvious the public will not be protected from the polluters.

With Flintshire Country Council already strapped for cash, its effectiveness in monitoring air quality is a cause for concern.

In summary, I believe Britain is a pollutors' paradise and the number of people whose health is affected by pollution will bear witness to this fact.

JOHN ELLIS
Pen-y-Garreg Close,
Bryn-y-Baal,
Mold

Letter 1
I imagine most of you know of Castle's plans to incinerate hazardous Cemfuel and other wastes in its new kiln at Padeswood, plans over which the National Assembly has called a public inquiry to begin on October 13.*

Of the five issues identified, the first is the effect on public health - an issue of vital concern to the people of Clitheroe, where perhaps the largest of Castle's plants, Ribblesdale, has burned Cemfuel officially since 1992.

Castle was the first to burn toxic waste in UK cement kilns, with no public consultation or planning permission requirements, and there have been health problems from the start - coughs, dry throats etc - which initially people dealt with themselves.

That situation has changed, with pockets of serious illness occurring in areas covered by emissions from Castle and other plants situated just to the north and east of Clitheroe.

The precise long-term health effects are unknown and will remain so as long as the effects of hosting one of the biggest emitters of dioxins and furans in England and Wales are unresolved.

Successive House of Commons environment committees have savaged the Environment agency stewardship of Castle in Clitheroe, but it remains in charge.

An earlier committee call for a health survey was dismissed by the Government on the advice of COMEAP - the industry-dominated Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution.

It may be you believe the Environment Agency will give you all the protection you need. We say it will not.

The history of Cemfuel in the Ribble Valley is set out on our group website www.bhrvfoe.fsnet.co.uk, from which you can see the extent to which so many agencies and representatives have other interests than ours at heart - not least profit.

The people of North Wales and Cheshire have an opportunity we continue to be denied to expose the true environmental benefits conferred on us by incinerating hazardous toxic wastes in cement kilns with characteristics which, rather than destroying them, can do the very opposite.

We have been campaigning for eight years to get the facts debated, but have been blocked at every turn. It is all too easy to claim there is no evidence of links to health problems when no effort has been spared to ensure no evidence is sought.

We have always feared the public would take no notice until people were directly affected and that is now starting, with one of our GP practices expressing grave concerns over Castle's emissions.

It is well-nigh impossible to fight this kind of thing once it is in being. Our message to you is do not let it happen.

J D MORTIMER
Chairman
Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Friends of the Earth,
Green Drive,
Clitheroe

CANK Note:
*    Actual start date - 11th October 2000
 

Letter 2
Dioxins are among the most dangerous chemicals known to man.

They are known as gender-benders. They disrupt the immune system. At least one dioxin, TCDD, is proven to cause cancer.

It is so deadly it is commonly recognised as one of the most poisonous substances known to man.

Research on other dioxins strongly suggests many of them may also be carcinogenic.

They pose such a threat the World Health Organisation has dubbed them 'environmentally repeat offenders' - a group of chemicals known as persistant organic pollutants.

They are all virtually man-made as accidental by-products from the manufacture of chlorine-based products like PVC.

The crunch for Flintshire is these get released into the environment when these synthetic materials are burned and we absorb them through water and air into our bodies.

The worst culprits are toxic waste incinerators - the type proposed at Castle Cement in Padeswood.

Dioxins pose a long term threat as they accumulate in body fat and stay there for years.

As we are at the top of the food chain, they tend to accumulate in our bodies in larger volumes than the plants or animals we eat.

The world first learned of the devastating effects of dioxins during the Seveso incident in Italy in 1976.

An explosion at an acid factory scattered only several kilograms of dioxins across the countryside.

The result was the death of thousands of wild animals and livestock over the weeks to follow. The impact on the human population is still being assessed with the level of cancer relate illnesses suspiciously high.

How would Flintshire cope with such a catastrophic explosion at Castle Cement? How long can you hold your breath and not eat or drink? A sobering thought don't you think?

DAVID BLACKWOOD
Lower Common
Buckley

I write regarding Mr Mortimer's unfounded claims about Castle Cement's operations which he has made for many years in Lancashire and now appears to be spreading to North Wales.

The facts are that the use of Cemfuel and other alternative fuels improves the environmental performance of our cement kilns.

Emissions are reduced and energy is retrieved from material that would otherwise go to landfill or be incinerated.

This has been proved time and time again and the evidence is for all to see on the public register but still Mr Mortimer is intent on making unfounded claims against Castle Cement.

Castle's operations do not cause ill-health. This has been backed up in two reports on our plant in Lancashire issued by COMEAP, part of the Department of Health, as well as a £500,000 air quality survey carried out by the Environment Agency.

Regarding our Padeswood works near Mold, Dr Roberts of the North Wales Health Authority said in a report about proposals to build a new kiln fired with alternative fuels: 'Individuals living in the area of the works are very unlikely to suffer any harmful effects from authorised emissions of any pollutants, including dioxins'.

TONY ALLAN
General Manager
Castle Cement
Padeswood

I was shocked to see that our neighbours in Flintshire are planning to build a 360ft incinerator as a source of alternative fuel for the Castle Cement plant at Padeswood.

They propose to burn a highly toxic cocktail of Cemfuel, old tyres and any other rubbish they can import.

These have already been linked with respiratory health problems in America and Germany, where this practice has now been outlawed.

What's more, the Welsh Assembly look set to approve this on October 11 at a specially arranged inquiry at Shire Hall, Mold.

Surely we in Cheshire should have a voice in this matter?

By almost doubling the size of the existing coal-fired stack, they will allow them to disperse fallout further afield. From what I can see it's right on top of us in Chester.

The emissions have the potential to reach over 45 miles. It is common knowledge that toxic incineration has strong links with the productiuon of dioxins, probably one of the most dangerous chemicals known to man!

What I don't understand is how a Welsh county can sanction such a potentially dangerous development without considering the health implications of the surrounding English councils.

T BRADBURY
Summer Meadows
Upton
Chester

Our congratulations and thanks are due to our MP Barry Jones for his tremendous efforts protecting the jobs of the workforces at BAE and Shotton Steelworks.

I am, however, concerned no one appears to know if Mr Jones is in support of the cement kiln planned for Padeswood or if he is against it.

I understand the new kiln will protect the long-term employment of the Padeswood workforce of more than 200 workers and their families plus up to a further 400 local contractors and suppliers who work indirectly for the company.

I am also sure Mr Jones will be very much aware of the rates paid by the company to the local area and the other benefits resulting locally.

Surely Mr Jones owes it to the Padeswood workforce to make his views known to them so we all can decide how to respond to him when he shorty seeks our votes.

Mrs J K EVANS
(Address supplied)

Along with higher than average cancer rates, North East Wales apparently has more hazardous factories than the Black Country of the English Midlands.

Yet when other industrialised countries are phasing out incinerators as a way of dealing with waste, here we are facing the prospect of two huge new incinerators - one in Padeswood and one in Wrexham.

When pressure from concerned citizens' groups in the USA forced the government to pass a law requiring private manufacturers to report annually the total amount of each of 654 toxic chemicals they were releasing into the atmosphere, nearly everyone who read the first report in 1989 was astounded.

It revealed billions of pounds of toxic chemicals were being routinely released into the public environment. No wonder cancer rates were rising.

It is one thing to be vaguely aware factories are emitting unpleasant substances but quite another to see the actual amounts printed in black and white.

This is especially when one reminds oneself the people most at risk from these invisible toxins are babies in the womb.

'What goes up must come down' is as true for rubbish being burnt as it is for a dice being tossed.

Nothing in this world simply disappears - and we need to be aware that when assorted rubbish including plastics and heaven knows what else is burnt, an incinerator acts as a chemical laboratory synthesising new and dangerous chemical compounds which have to go somewhere.

ROBERTA OWEN
Flintshire Friends of the Earth
Hillside Court
Holywell

Last week a letter asked the position of the Alyn & Deeside MP and Assembly member on the Castle Cement kiln application.

I think it would be helpful if the two representatives came out in support of the residents.

It would be fitting for both Barry Jones MP and Tom Middleshurst AM if they gave a strong statement in support of the residents who object to the development.

This is the biggest development to affect this area for many years and they should come out to support the people who elected them.

WILFRED HASTING
Morley Avenue
Connah's Quay

There is increasing evidence of the consequences of building the new kiln at Padeswood and the effect it will have on surrounding villages.

It is now clear that areas as far as Chester including Broughton, The Old Warren and Saltney will be affected.

It would be helpful if the Flintshire Labour councillors for those areas set out an explanation for Labour's approval of this application.

T WALKER
Sandy Lane
Saltney

If you, like myself, live within a 20-mile radius of Buckley, in particular, Castle Cement, Padeswood, you will no doubt have received a glossy brochure from Castle Cement telling you how rosy the future will be when we have a new 361-foot waste incinerator on our doorstep.

I felt compelled to express my concerns over the way they use their financial clout to mailshot half of Flintshire.

I have been following their campaign to gain acceptance for Kiln 4 over the past two years, and it never ceases to amaze me the lengths they are prepared to go to gain public opinion.

When will they realise that the only people who speak out in their favour are those with vested interests, ie those opportunists who see a cheap outlet for disposing of their industrial waste and those who profit from it.

T.I. HUGHES
Byrn Awelon
Mold