Although the article New Kiln is Key to our Future is now over week old it really deserves a response given the high level of public interest (25,000 signatures to the Welsh Assembly) and now, 13,000 signatures concerning the Wrexham HLC incinerator project. I attended the Padeswood Public Inquiry.

In Tony Allen's  advert for Padeswood's new kiln (Evening Leader 11/01/02) he made some important omissions.

    1) He forgot to mention that Heidelberger's new kiln is actually a co-incinerator burning toxic and hazardous waste. The fact that it is a co-incinertor is now
        enshrined in UK and EU law.

       He also forgot to mention this in his technical summary to the Welsh Assembly.

    2)Also no mention was made that the new incinerator would be trial burning for five years. During this time emission controls would be very flexible indeed and
        the existing kilns would continue to operate during this period, blighting the surrounding villages with what may still be  the **11th highest level of dioxins in the
        country.

    3)Nor does the flattering photo of the existing works (accompanying The Leader banner headline New Kiln is Key to our Future) include an impression of the
       new plant which would be a third again taller and many times the mass of the existing chimneys.

    4)Worst of all perhaps is that the Environment Agency *(who is supposed to be safeguarding our health) regularly grant variation orders when polluting industries
       cannot meet new regulations. They simply move the goal posts. Check out what happened at the Clitheroe plant.

    Finally, I would draw your attention to Alan Dalton (Environment Agency board member) blowing the whistle on Environment Agency imcompetance and
    failure. In his courageous report, page 22 para 2, he states: "With regard to the Byker incident I would conclude that, based on my experience of the
    Environment Agency's lack of concern about their own inactions at Byker and elsewhere, I have no faith in the Environment Agency's ability to
    regulate the current domestic  and toxic waste incinerators in England and Wales  let alone the 50 - 177 proposed by the Environment minister
    Michael Meacher in 1999." (Wrexham readers take note.)

The publishing of Alan Dalton's chilling report has gained the attention of Jeremy Paxman and the Newsnight team and, whatever the decision of the Welsh Assembly, this saga is far from over.

Mr A Mack
Parkfield Road
Broughton
Chester

CANK Notes:
Castle Padeswood General Manager
**Castle Padeswood has now been reclassified as the 7th worst dioxin pollutor in the country and the WORST dioxin polluting cement plant.

With reference to the letter from Mr Mack on  28/1/02. We are very grateful to him for making all the points against the planned incinerator at Castle Cement and totally agree with him.

The Welsh Assembly have a huge responsibility to make the decision and we fervently hope that 'No' is the answer.

The opinions of 25,000 residents must be seriously considered - as the outcome could affect us all. there are grave doubts about 'fall-out' that is why we say 'Don't'!.

Most letters and opinions for the plan seems to have vested interest in Castle Cement Company, for which you can hardly blame them, but, 'minorities' should not rule.

There is no reason for the company to close their Padeswood plant should the decision go against them as cement can still be produced at a profit, as at present. Surely common sense will prevail despite the saying 'money talks'.

Again, thank you Mr Mack for representing the majority.

Terry & Hilary Eccleston
Hawarden Road
Pen-y-ffordd

As we near the completion of the long drawn out saga called Padeswood Kiln 4 Planning Application, some of the 'spin' that people seem to want to put in an application to upgrade a 54 year old works that directly employs more than 200 local people really beggars belief.

One writer claims he attended the Public Inquiry - if he did, he will know the truth about how many residents wrote to the Welsh Assembly.

At the Public Inquiry it was established that approximately 5,000 pieces of correspondence were received by the National Assembly, of which 50% were for the project.

Another writer calls the project an 'incinerator' even though the Inspector again  stated at the Public Inquiry that the kiln will only be used to make cement. One wonders if the writers would be prepared to call their central heating systems 'gas incinerators' or even their cars 'petrol incinerators'? The description is as apt as when applied to a cement kiln.

We need energy to make cement, cement that is used to build houses, roads such as the A55, schools and hospitals in Wales. I appeal to the letter writers, rather than make up stories about a real attempt to reduce emissions and safeguard jobs, to come and visit the works and to find out what these emissions really are and the facts behind the application. This inviation also applies to the letter readers. We operate an Open Door policy - give us a call on 01244-550330 and come and see us.

Tony Allan
General Manager - Production
Castle Cement Ltd
Padeswood
Mold

I would like to respond to the letter written by Tony Allan, general manager of Castle Cement, and printed in he Friday February 8th edition of The Evening Leader.

He says the recent readers letters were composed of 'spin'.

Well he should know as he seems to be the master of it. Of all the correspondence sent to the Inspector & Welsh Assembly Members, by letter and e-mail, the vast majority were opposed to the incinerator/kiln as were the 25,000 signatures handed in. Mr Allan must think the public are very gullible if he thinks they do not know that a kiln has to be fired by something and in this case will be an incinerator.

Our family have lived in the direct line of fallout of dust from the "kiln" at Castle Cement for over 30 years which is bad enough, without adding to the pollution with an incinerator and by the way I would call my car a petrol incinerator as that is just what it is, also it does not matter how high the temperature is it's still an incinerator.

I think there is a directive out now or in the near future which states that in future a kiln which is fired by an incinerator is going to have to be referred to as a "Co-incinerator".

What would be the good of my visiting a plant which has been listed 7th in a league table of the fifty worst dioxin polluters in the UK just to be palmed off with how clean they are?

Yours faithfully,

T.L. Eccleston
via e-mail