WEEK 1
WEEK 2
WEEK 3
WEEK 4
WEEK
5
WEEK 6
WEEK 7
WEEK 8
WEEK 9
WEEK 10
CANK Note:
What follows do not claim to be verbatim reports but rather a summary
of the main points made.
Appearances
Principle Opening Statements
Castle
Cement
Environment
Agency
North
Wales Health Authority - Dr Richard Roberts
CANK
Summary of the Rest of the Day
Mr Anthony Vaughan, Inspector, appointed by Assembly, assisted by Mr Tester, Chartered Chemist (the Assessor).
Vernon Pugh, QC, instructed by Norton Rose, (Castle Cement) confirmed that the names of their experts are:
Peter Weller
Production Director Castle Cement
Tony Allan
General Manager, Castle Cement, Padeswood
works
Iain Walpole
Emissions
Mr R Barrowcliffe Air
Modelling
Stephen Salt
Hal Moggridge
Visual
Ian Turvey
Transport
Kathryn Kelly
Health
A list will be placed on notice board.
Flintshire County Council
Geoffrey Little, instructed by Flintshire County
Council, Legal and Administration, will call:
Christopher J Thomas
David Heggarty
Environment Agency, represented by Mr PG Tucker,
neutral witness, proposes to call:
Mr James Morris, Inspector at Buckley, North
Wales Area
Dr Richard
Roberts,North Wales Health Authority
No legal representation, willing to be cross-examined.
Neutral witness
Brian Leigh wishes to give evidence on behalf
of Castle Cement.
Donald Hughes, supporting Castle Cement. Mr Buckley
wishes to support it also in his absence.
Appearing for CANK, Tom Hill, Counsel, instructed
by Wake Dyne Lawton, distributed about the room a list of witnesses:
Mr Arnold Woolley, Chairman of CANK
Mr Ian Rogerson, (Cement
Process Engineer)
Mr Malcolm Pratt, (ENTEC)
Dr V Howard,
(University
of Liverpool)
Mr Iain Reid, (DLP)
Dodleston Parish Council, Elizabeth Shanklin, Chair, will not be calling witnesses
Mrs G Boyd, Phoenix, Secretary, representing PANTS,
24 Community and Parish Councils and various businesses.
Intend to call 8 witnesses, including:
Dr J Varley, Research
Scientist
Mr M Tirral, Environmental
Consultant
Other list to be presented to applicants and
Council.
John Ellis will present his case himself.
Councillor Armstrong Braun, will be calling 1
witness
Mary Horner,
and also possibly Dr R Van Steenis.
Eric Owen instructed by Mia Jones, who will be
called as a witness, list handed in.
Castle Cement
By Vernon Pugh QC
The proposed development will secure the future of the plant and workforce, 218 people employed and introduces £10 m into the economy.
Strategic importance, the new kiln will give a marked improvement to the area, represent best practice and knowledge. Designed to meet UK, European and International standards. Alternative fuels … reduce adverse affects. The new kiln will not be able to become operational until it has received authorisation from IPPC. Enable the removal of the stacks currently on site.
10th January 1999 statement supplemented by other material. Full details are in the agreed statement which will be clarified later on.
Inspector: correspondence? Is it agreed ..
Additional issues do not appear to have been a problem.
Concern on Public Health:
1) Whether or not the emissions are to have an adverse effect
2) Composition, concentration and likely reach
3) Predicted emission exceed standards, expose harm
4) No harm, characteristics will not be materially different in the
future. Does it conform with the standards?
Not the role of the Inquiry to decide if the standards are being met. IPPC regulations require a permit. Implement IPPC.
Potential emissions issue can be left to the EA. Use of land is due to Planning Authority. Pollution Control Authority will control emissions.
Location: Not
an issue, used for 50 years
Pollution: No
adverse effects
Use of land: Depends on conclusions
of safety points
Nuisance: Not strictly
a pollution matter, evidence will demonstrate that the modernised plans
are likely to reduce the
incidence of dust.
Public Health Dealt with by IPPC authorisation, in accordance
with standards.
Kiln 4 will be safe and without adverse effects on public health.
Visual
It is an approved zone. Visual concerns relate to size of stack,
will it be materially detrimental? Appearance of the tower is acceptable.
1)
Industrial structure, not materially great in height and mass
2)
No greater in height or mass than other things constructed in the rest
of the UK and Europe. No significant
adverse change in view.
3)
Tower will be either hidden from view, offsite planting, screening the
views of the works.
Mass and scale is different but is not materially different. Will secure employment for current work force and future. Modern, sustainable and for the future.
Transport
The introduction of kiln 4 will not have an adverse effect on the highway
i.e. queuing. Highway Authorities does not raise any objection.
Planning
Proposal is within the development zone and in the development plan.
Submit that the development is within the guidance of all UK, European
and local, development plans.
Environment Agency
Mr Paul Tucker
The application is unobjectionable in terms of the Environment Agency’s regulations. This should be taken in the context that the Agency is neither for nor against the application. The EA is here to assist the Inquiry and also to answer questions that are put by third parties. Not here to merit the evidence. 16.1 Planning Guidance Wales, states that the planning regulations will the enforced by EA.
EA consider there are significant concerns, which are regulated by other bodies. IPC application brought under the Environment Protection Act, four months. It can be staged. Stage 1 submitted in Jan last year, Stage 2 later last year and Stage 3 June 2000
EA cannot determine that this application will be confirmed before the end of the Inquiry.
IPC authorisation carries with it advantages worthy of detailed examination, not to say that we prejudge the outcome. If the application does not meet the legislative requirements, then approval will not be given. Will be overtaken by IPPC issue. IPC application must meet objectives of the system. If the EA is satisfied that it conforms then the IPC or the IPPC application will be granted as an authorisation. Will be subject to appropriate conditions.
IPC and IPPC process, it is the EA’s policy to have substantive public
involvement. People have misgivings about the process; EA does not
operate in a vacuum. Informed by a public consultation process.
North Wales Health
Authority
Dr Roberts (Neutral
witness)
Defined qualifications…. Clinical disease control and health environment. Not here either for or against, entirely neutral. Communicating risks to those making decisions.
Involved in assessing health impacts since Feb 1999. 8,000 people living within 2 km of kiln and others who have serious concerns. Wants to put evidence on health authority web site. Inspector said it might change. Dr Roberts said he would take advice.
Relevant data available in considering health impacts. Hazard is different from risk. Exposure to risk is defined in terms of probability. Risks need to be in context with other risks on every day matters. In terms of background pollution or exposure to background smoking etc.
Have concerns about levels of anxiety from communities. Anxiety in itself has health effects.
CANK
Tom Hill
Opening statement in full
Summary
of the Rest of the Day
Devoted to some issues of protocol:
Running Order
It appears Castle Cement and the Neutral participants are to complete
their evidences-in-chief first.
Their witnesses will then be cross examined
Finally, the Objectors will put their cases at the end of which their
witnesses will be subject to cross examination.
Site Visits
Timing yet to be decided but the Inspector has asked that he be allowed
to make the visits unaccompanied although he is happy to accept recommendations
from the parties on vantage points he should use.
Castle Cement - Evidence-in-Chief
The majority of Castle's expert witnesses were called and read verbatim
from their proofs of evidence.
The only witnesses that remain to be called are Stephen Salt and Dr
Kathyrn Kelly.
Flintshire County Council Evidence in Chief
Environment Agency
North Wales Health
Authority - Dr Richard Roberts
Castle Cement - Dr Kathryn Kelly
CROSS-EXAMINATION BEGINS
Castle Cement
Ian
Turvey - Highways
Vernon Pugh QC, acting for Castle Cement, explained that his two remaining
witnesses were temporarily unavailable:
Dr Kathryn Kelly would be arriving later in the morning whilst Mr Stephen
Salt was currently out of the country and it was hoped that he could be
called later in the Inquiry.
It was, therefore, agreed that the Neutral Parties now offer their evidence-in-chief:
Flintshire County Council
Two witnesses confirmed that the Council supported the application:
Members considered that the benefits of the completion of the scheme
outweighed the drawbacks on the visual impact side.
Health impact was taken into account when deciding. Took advice from the North Wales Health Authority, EA. Decided there were not grounds for objecting to the proposal.
FCC does not consider that the visual impact would be sufficiently great to bring it into conflict with planning regulations.
Business and economic growth are the best for the area and FCC recommend that the application be granted.
Environment Agency
Mr Jim Morris, the inspector responsible for Castle Cement since 1997,
read his summary and selected reports and stated that soil samples had
been analysed which showed that there was no evidence to suggest that there
would be an increase in contamination from the proposed kiln.
He also confirmed EA will carry out rigorous air modelling for emissions testing and that it was by no means a forgone conclusion that Castle Cement would be granted the required licence to operate the new kiln. There would be full public consulatation as part of the process.
The Assessor asked about the IPPC regulations now in force. Do
they supplement the IPC or do they replace the current IPPC regulations?
The EA said that CC would have to submit an application for IPPC next June
whether or not the new application was granted.
North
Wales Health Authority - Dr Richard Roberts
Dr Roberts read from his Summary Proof which effectively expanded upon
and endorsed all conclusions drawn in his
original report last November.
As before, he concluded that residents are very unlikely to suffer
harm from the dioxins and the plant expansion might improve the emissions.
During his report, Dr Roberts referred to Dr Vyvyan Howard's proof for CANK which mentions excessive levels of cancer in the Mold area. Dr Roberts said that he had since carried out a separate analysis and said that Dr Howard was incorrect.
This point was taken up by Tom Hill,
barrister for CANK:
…”. Is this document available today? Dr Roberts said it
would be available for the Inquiry. When exactly? Within the
next week. The Inspector asked for this to be given. Tom Hill
said he was keen to see the report asap, as it may raise some questions
pertinent to the cross-examination. Dr Roberts said that there was
some other evidence available, in the form of a memo which could be made
available.
Castle Cement
Dr Kathryn Kelly
Dr Kelly read her summary which summarised her areas for concern
and concluded:
'Based on the weight of available evidence, I conclude that individuals
living in the area of the Works are very unlikely to suffer any harmful
effects from dioxin and metals emitted from the proposed kiln.'
Two points were queried from the floor:
Her reference to the danger of open tyre fires:
'Thus, every tyre burned at Castle Cement represents a decrease in
the average chance that a North Wales resident will be exposed to the known
effects of open tyre fires'
Open fire burning was questioned because this is not relevant in this
case and it is illegal anyway. The Inspector said that this was a
point but that it did not require an answer. Kelly replied that this
was illegal. It was said that this could not be made as it was not
a comparison.
Lucy Thomas said that Kelly had just stated that “some fathers and grandfathers
at Padeswood suffers no more ill effects”. Kelly replied that this
applied generally/globally. Lucy Thomas replied that Kelly had said
“at Padeswood”. No response from Kelly. The Inspector agreed
that this particular issue could be dealt with later.
Castle Cement
Ian Turvey - Highways
Mr Turvey initally added to his Summary by responding to a letter
he had received from Mr Booth, the Phoenix representaive on highway issues.
Some debate ensued with Mrs Booth particularly upset that this rebuttal
had occurred before her husband's evidence had been heard. She was also
concerned that due to programming difficulties, the cross-examination was
taking place without her husband having had enough notification to be there.
The Inspector agreed that Mr Booth could have an opportunity to cross
examine Mr Turvey later in the Inquiry.
Mr Tom Hill, barrister for CANK started his cross examination.
There was much discussion on the detail of Mr Turvey's proof with Mr
Turvey appearing reluctant on several occaisions to answer Mr Hill's questions
directly - so much so that Mr Hill was prompted to mention that he was
gradually 'squeezing' the answers out of Mr Turvey!
Mr Hill identified an error in Mr Turvey's proof:
Taking the calorific values of the proposed substitute fuels: tyres
and Profuel, he had calculated that twice as many wagons would be needed
to carry those fuels in order to meet the planned 750,000 tonnes output,
than Mr Turvey had stated.
After some confusion, the Inspector ordered a 10 minute recess so that
Mr Turvey could check Mr Hill's calculations.
When the Inquiry resumed, Mr Turvey confirmed that the projected Profuel/Whole Tyre lorry movements in his proof should be doubled and agreed to provide an amended table.
Cross Examination of Tony Allan
Unauthorised
Emissions
Employment
Community
Support
IPPC Authorisation
Questions
from others
Cllr
Darlington
Lucy
Thomas
Shelly
Booth (Phoenix)
Being a Friday, this is a half day with proceedings due to finish between
12 & 2 depending on where a suitable break can be found.
The day started with a short discussion on procedural matters and then
moved on to the cross examination of Tony Allan, Padeswood works General
Manager.
CANK Note:
The sequence recorded below are highlights only and not the full
conversation. There was much discussion of procedures and specific
evidence, which has been omitted. However, care has been taken to preserve
the essence of the cross examination.
Key:
TH - Tom Hill TA - Tony
Allan PI - Anthony Vaughan - Inspector
Introduction: review of management history since joining Castle in 1996 including the acquisition of environmental management standard ISO 14001 in 1999
TH: It is clear that over the last 4 years, during the period
you had overall responsibility, that the site has produced in your own
records, that the plant has produced over 250 unauthorised releases.
TA: That is correct
Discussion of procedures for measurement and reporting of releases
TH: In excess of 250 unauthorised releases during the last 4 years.
TH: History of regular complaints about the plant.
TA: Yes
TH: Also true that the EA have sought to try to address the problems
that Castle have brought to the local community.
TA: We work closely with the EA, yes.
Discussion on a particular complaint
TH: 19.9.98 letter refers. Letter refers to an enforcement notice,
a court hearing in November. The EA remains dissatisfied and concerned
about lack of housekeeping. Is this all not a direct criticism of
you?
Mr Hill and the Inspector then pressed Tony Allan for an answer
TA: It was a direct criticism of me and everyone else on the site.
TH: In that year, 1998, you managed to release 1.57 tonnes of particulate
matter into the atmosphere.
TA: Yes
TH: Your criminal conviction in Mold for contravention of a series
of conditions requiring you to minimise problems.
TA: 15.2.99 date is wrong. It should be 12.2.99.
TH: Castle were back in the criminal courts yesterday?
TA: Not that I was aware. Oh you mean the
oil spillage at Blackbrook?
TH: Yes. There are photographs in the Phoenix documentation.
Do they relate to the matter in the magistrate.
TA: There has been a mix up with some of them, but some of the photos
do relate to that matter, yes.
TH: How did that matter end?
TA: Can’t talk about it (in the hands of our lawyers)
TH: I am merely asking if it was adjourned.
TA: I believe it was adjourned.
Further discussion on investigation of complaints
TH: Can I turn to other matters. Employment. 6.1,
page 16 refers. Indicates that 270 people are employed in production
and transport.
TA: Yes
TH: 218 on the payroll.
TH: 220 widows and pensioners in the Flintshire area. Is it right
that employees and former employees have been encouraged to write in support
of this application.
TA: Correct
TH: Do you have copies of communications asking current and former
employees to write in support.
TA: Not on me.
TH: Can I have a sample of that letter?
TA: Yes. If it would help you.
TH: It would help me.
Some discussion on actual number of employees
TH: If the kiln 4 project goes ahead, there will be a reduction at Clitheroe.
TA: Yes, close the 2 wet kilns at Clitheroe.
TH: Loss of employees?
TA: Estimated, 100 people affected.
PI: I need information if Clitheroe is closed. The dry kiln could
be improved.
TA: Mr Weller has been dealing with the fall back figures.
PI: It would be helpful if all 3 employment positions for each
plant could be made available.
TH: Section 10. Community support. Section 6 point 10, page 20.
Gives figures for community support. Spending in 1999 for North Wales.
Do you have information of a comparable nature for say 1997-1998?
TA: I may be able to get that information.
TH: It would be helpful to the Inquiry.
TH: IPPC regime. The EA will be expecting an application under
IPPC for the continuing use for the existing use of the kilns by August
of next year.
TA: Yes
TH: Not very far away.
TA: No its not.
TH: Have you started to prepare an application to bring your existing
kiln or kilns within the IPPC regs?
TA: We have started to consider that.
Questions from others:
Cllr Darlington
Queried the fact that whilst 50% - 60% of fallout from Padeswood came
over Penyffordd (his ward), only 3% of the Castle workforce lived in that
area.
He asked whether there had ever been a policy, by Castle, to
recruit from outside any likely fallout area - this was denied by Tony
Allen
Lucy Thomas
Impassioned discussion over the continuous dust problems experienced
from the plant for the last 52 years.
'We’ve had 52 years of dust. You say you are going to make
further improvements or is it a carrot?'
Tony Allan responded by saying that they were continually striving
to improve perfomance but cement manufacture is a 'dust production
business'
Shelly Booth (Phoenix)
Questions on the delay in unauthorised release documents appearing
on the public register.(batches appeasring after three months)
Also discussed possible pollution problems for children attending the
onsite environmental centre.
Finally, Mrs Booth challenged Mr Allan to substantiate the claim he
made in his proof that :
"Objectors to Kiln 4 may attempt to belittle the importance of
the company to the local community, they may attempt to belittle the very
clear successes achieved by the works in environmental performance, and
they may attempt to belittle the company's proposed £48m investment
by deliberately misleading the local community."
She pointed out that Phoenix were objectors and could he provide an
instance when they had misled the community.
Appearing flustered, Mr Allan said that protestors had stated that
emissions could travel out of the locality and affect Chester when
his air modelling concluded this was not so.
Mrs Booth countered by stating that her technical expert had
found the opposite.
When asked to provide another example, since that instance did not
relate specifically to Phoenix, the Inspector gave Mr Allan the option
of not answering the question, which Mr Allan accepted.
DAY 4
Statements
by Interested Parties in Support of Proposal
Cross Examination of Peter Weller (Castle
Cement - Production Director)
Padeswood
to close if Kiln 4 not authorised
Mary
Horner's Cross Examination on behalf of the Green Party.
Ian Walpole
Dr Roberts pressed to deliver promised
cancer statistics
Statements
by Interested Parties in Support of Proposal
Two of the three people scheduled to appear gave their statements.
Firstly, Mr J Shanklin, the 74 year old retired chairman of Dodleston Parish Council gave a short statement.
He was followed by Brian Leigh, Managing Director and owner of Allan Morris Transport, the primary bulk carrier used by Castle, Padeswood. He gave a most eloquent breakdown of his involvement with Castle in hauling the primary components of cement: limestone; shale and sand and also outlined the effect closure of the plant would have on his business, should the current application fail.
Mr D Hughes (ex General Manager of
Castle Cement, Padeswood) did not appear.
Cross Examination of Peter Weller
(Castle Cement - Production Director)
Mr Weller started by reading a statement in which he advised the Inquiry
thatit was now the decision the senior Castle
management that if authorisation was not given for the Kiln 4 application,
then refurbishing the Padeswood plant was not economically viable and it
would be run down and closed, probably by 2005.
When asked later by Tom Hill (CANK's barrister) whether a similar
statement had been made at the Flintshire CC planning meeting last February
by Mr Allan, Mr Weller said that he had reviewed the transcripts and it
had not.
CANK Note:
This statement, of course, reverses their previous position as
revealed in the Evening Leader three weeks ago which, in turn reversed
Castle's position held and actively promoted by Mr Allan; John Millward
- shop steward at the plant; and employees since the Planning Meeting last
February!
For more information see:
Health v Jobs: Castle's bluff
on closing should have been called (Chester Chronicle 18th February
2000)
Castle Should Come Clean (Chester
Chronicle 25th February 2000)
No job is worth risk
to health (Chester Chronicle 21st July 2000)
New Row over Kiln Go-Ahead (Flintshire
Evening Leader 4th October 2000)
Mr Hill asked whether Castle's criminal convictions would have any bearing on the company's ISO 14001 accreditation. Mr Weller said that it was based on continuous improvement and would be subject to annual review.
Mr Hill went on to establish that Heidelberger Zement (HZ), Castle's owner, was, itself, owned mainly by one family and a bank. Mr Weller will be supplying main shareholder details.
Mr Weller confirmed that the company has 25% of the world cement market, producing approx 50 million tonnes in 60 factories (71 kilns) worldwide.Of that, Castle contributes about 3 million tonnes.
He also confirmed that HZ had been the subject of a cartel investigation and whilst a number of the firms involved had had their subsequent fines waived, HZ was obliged to pay 7 million euros.
Mr Weller was asked and refused to share the company's cement strategy,
in view of it's commercial sensitivity.
Some discussion continued, including the mechanics of cement production
and confirmation of the likely timescale for the Kiln 4 project, assuming
it was authorised.
The cross examination then moved on to the possibility of alternative
sites for this project. Mr Weller volunteered that the Cefn Mawr quarry
had been considered but was dismissed as uneconomic.
He also confirmed a study of alternatives had been undertaken but refused
to release the details to the Inquiry.
Further discussion on the make up and transport arrangements for Cemfuel
and Profuel but Mr Weller refused to be drawn on specific supplier details.
Mary Horner's Cross Examination of Peter Weller on behalf of the Green Party.
Mary Horner questioned Peter Weller on apparent contradictions between the company's demands for additonal quarrying facilities at Clitheroe and their likely useage of limestone over the next 30 years. By pointing out anomalies in the timing of permissions, she endeavoured to show that Castle applied for the quarrying permission on the basis of kilns they knew were soon to be closed.
She went on to press Mr Weller on the make up of Cemfuel and the way
it was tested to ensure it met specification. With little forthcoming from
Mr
Weller she pointed out that only 3% of Cemfuel stock was tested and asked
how, with such a wide range of source materials, could the specification
possibly be met or the make up consistant.
Ian Walpole (Castle
- Emissions) read supplimental proof - was briefly examined on it
by Vernon Pugh for Castle.
Tom Hill, for CANK reserved the right to cross examination once he
had had a chance to digest the additional material.
The day finished with Tom Hill
querying non-receipt of promised cancer data with Dr Roberts
TH: I see that Dr Roberts is in the room. When
we heard the summary of Dr Roberts there was a further paragraph added
which referred to cancer and I asked whether this work would be available.
It was said that this would be available this week. I would wish
that this information be available at the earliest opportunity.
Dr Roberts: Rates for Mold and in areas around the kiln. The
item I suggested might be available earlier, in the form of a letter
from the Health Authority, will not now be available, not prepared to do
this. The other information will be available by Thursday using cancer
registry data.
DAY 5
Programme Timetable Revisions
Cross examination of Ian Walpole (Castle - Emissions)
Key Points
Invalid
Comparison
IPPC Application
Unauthorised
Releases
Ethel
Schmidt
Capacity
of the Kiln
Fuel
Mix - Alternative Fuels
Fuel
Analysis
Profuel
Emissions
from the Stack
Lead
Cement
Kiln Dust (CKD)
CKD
Production - Accidental Releases
Other Objectors' cross examination of Mr Walpole
Mia
Jones
Phoenix
Emissions
Excesses
Incinerating
Waste
Ultrafine
Particles
Dioxins
Derek
Darlington
Green
Party
Mary
Horner
Particulates
Klaus
Armstrong-Braun
David Tester (Inquiry Assessor)
PCB Monitoring
Day started with revisions
to the Inquiry schedule:
The Evening Meeting will now be at the Beaufort Park Hotel, New Brighton
on Wednesday 25th October not Thursday 26th
Thursday 26th will be a half day, also at the same venue.
There will not be any meeting on Friday 27th.
Programme slippage is unavoidable and a revised schedule for subsequent
days will be published as soon as possible.
Note:
In the event that the Inquiry is not completed by November 3rd,
there is a possibility that it will be adjourned until the New Year.
Continuing cross examination of Ian Walpole (Castle - Emissions)
TH - Tom Hill (CANK Barrister) IW - Ian Walpole
Key Points
1)Invalid Comparison
TH - In IW's proof, emissions from existing kilns compared with the
projected emissions from the proposed Kiln 4. This comparison irrelevant
since old kilns are now subject to IPPC so won't be able to operate next
year, anyway, without major improvements.
After pressing - IW confirmed this.
2)Proposed IPPC Application
No draft proposals available to Inquiry
Any upgrading of gas scrubbers - no, in view of excessive cost.
3)Unauthorised Releases
IW asked if things go wrong - IW said No
TH pressed the point: 256 unauthorised releases in 4 years; Castle
subject to criminal prosecution with further one before the court at the
moment and another one pending re injury to employees.
IW conceded things do go wrong
Further reference to CKD (Cement Kiln Dust) releases.
IW denied any release of CKD
TH referred him to relevant appendix showing a release
IW Considered reported release must have been misreported - TH suggested
- by a Castle employee.
IW acknowledged that there will always be fugitive emissions
Also confirmed that it took 5 years to get the Castle plant at Ketton
running properly.
Some talk then on mechanical breakdowns with IW confirming that stopping the kiln would not effect emissions.
4)Ethel Schmidt
IW confirmed all Kiln 4 emissions based on Ethel Schmidt presumptions
which, in turn, are based on conventional fuels only.
5)Capacity of the Kiln
IW confirmed could exceed 750,000 tonnes pa minimum - undertook to
find out MAXIMUM
6)Fuel Mix - Alternative
Fuels
IW confirmed Castle assumed a consistant mix for IPPC application
Also confirmed that they were not tied to that mix because flexbility
is needed.
Inspector requested revised tables on this fundamental point
7)Fuel Analysis
IW confirmed procedure meant that since samples are drawn off as Cemfuel
going through the kiln, it would be too late to rectify any breaches
8) Profuel
IW confirmed only limited info on this new fuel is available, which
is going to account for almost 50% of mix at Padeswood, and that plastics
will be included because they have a very good calorific value.
9) Emissions from the Stack
IW confirmed not possible to accurately monitor SO2; CO and particulates
continiously.
Also confirmed dioxin monitoring would take place only twice a year.
Lead
Limestone - high lead content
(lead mining area), 7 - 8 times the equivalent at Ketton
IW disagreed, intially,
that this dispersed into atmosphere via kiln though, when pressed, accepted
it was so.
CKD (Cement Kiln Dust)
1 tonne ph produced
IW confirmed that an estimated
figure had reduced 40% since May last year.
The Inspector asked whether
the Inquiry would have known about the change if it had not arisen in cross
examination.
IW stated that it had only
just been noticed.
CKD Production - Accidental Releases
IW confirmed that he had only considered minimal releases.
Other Objectors' Cross Examination of Mr Walpole
Mia Jones (Dodleston
Liberal Democrat Councillor)
Discussed effectiveness of filter bags and procedures for replacing
damaged ones.
IW confirmed working compartments had been reduced from 8 to 6 for
economic reasons but stated that performance would not be affected.
MJ also identified heavy reliance in proof on bag manufacturer's guarantees
as an indication of their effectiveness and quality
Gilly Boyd - Phoenix
Established from IW that emissions from existing kilns were measured
twice a year.
Emissions Excesses
GB
In between testing there are emissions that are over the limits and quite
considerably so?
IW
I think it is small compared overall to the year.
Incinerating Waste?
IW said will apply best
available techniques but also confirmed that the required standard for
state of the art cement kilns
was 4 times more lenient
than the rate applied to hazardous waste incinerators.
Also confirmed that, unlike
kilns in Europe, NOx abatement equipment would not be installed at Padeswood,
due to
cost.
Ultrafine Particles
GB Latest research suggests
are source of main damage
IW New kiln will reduce
emissions by 5 times
IW also confirmed that the
sub PM1 particles cannot be measured.
GB
Present levels are unacceptable, would you agree?
IW
It's an unauthorised process
GB
But it is operating to standards?
IW
Yes
Dioxins
GB
Dioxins are measured twice a year. How can you say that you are operating
within dioxin parameters?
IW
There is no requirement for us to measure dioxins
Ian Walpole: WE ARE NOT IN THE WASTE DISPOSAL BUSINESS
Derek Darlington
(County Councillor - Penyffordd)
IW confirmed:
The Kiln 4 kiln tube was
second-hand and at least 9 years old.
The capital cost for the
8 cement silos for which planning permission has just been granted is £0.5
million.
DD
Is it not true that there are hidden costs to the wider community and are
you saying that profitability of
the company outweighs the possible health risks to the community?
IW
We have done an assessment of the best process and that is what we are
proposing.
Green Party
Mary
Horner
When asked if Castle
was going to put continuous monitoring for mercury in the kiln, IW said
earlier tests in Germany
had suggested it was inappropriate.
MH suggested that
this is a process which makes people ill and that the necessary equipment
was available in the US
She also pointed out that
the Ribblesdale plant, near where she lives, was stopped from burning Cemfuel
earlier this year.
She then said that IW's proof
stated oxygen in the calciner will by 2% but that in a waste framework
directive, 6%
is required for complete
combustion.
The Inspector asked for
site of the relevant document.
Particulates
MH What happens to the particle size when you burn coal as opposed
to cemfuel?
IW I expect there would be no change
Klaus Armstrong-Braun
(Green County Councillor)
KAB
Muck, pollution, leachate out of the cement and is that a safe method
IW
It's nonsense, it does not leach
KAB
Does it cause harm to people?
IW
No
David Tester (Inquiry Assessor)
Followed on the cross examination
with extensive questions of his own.
In particular, in trying
to address some of the public's concerns, he asked what would happen if
the plant could not meet
the standards of the Environment
Agency.
IW replied that there would
be any question of not meeting them.
DT then turned to the landfill
at Cefn Mawr quarry and asked about leaching.
IW confirmed that there
is leaching at Ketton
DT
Is it underground?
IW
I think I'll have to take advice on that.
IW confirmed
that he had not read the new Government strategy, brought out in June.
DT suggested that IW might
wish to carefully revisit his evidence in case there is any part he might
wish to
resubmit.
PCB
Monitoring
IW stated that PCBs would not be monitored as routine.
DAY 6
Cross Examination of Mr R Barrowcliffe
(Castle
- Air Modelling)
Tom
Hill
Differences
between models
Heavy
Reliance on information from Castle Cement
Verification
of Modelling Results
Fugitive
Emissions
Inconsistancy
in documentation
Many
assumptions made
Gap
in the evidence
Reliance
on Confidental documents that have not been made available to the Inquiry
Wind
Speed
Other
Objectors
Elizabeth
Shanklin
Phoenix
Derek
Darlington
Green
Party
Cross Examination of Dr Kathryn Kelly
Dr
R Varley
Cancer
Risk from CKD
Cross Examination of Dr R Barrowcliffe (Castle - Air Modelling)
Cross examination on this complex subject took a lot of the day, but
the key points may be summarised as follows:
Tom Hill (CANK's Barrister)
1)RB was instructed in June
this year and, therefore, had no input to the modelling included in Castle's
original
environmental
statement - that was done by Mr Walpole (Castle -
Emissions witness)
Asked
by TH, Mr Barrowcliffe did not know why Mr Walpole had not presented this
proof.
2)There are differences between
the various models used but it was claimed by RB that they were broadly
compatible.
However,
it was accepted by RB that his model was not well suited where buildings
were involved - this seemed
strange
in view of the very large stack and preheater tower considered here.
It was
also acknowledged that there were differences between the figures generated
by all three models used.
3)Heavy reliance was placed
by RB, in the preparation of his proof:
On conversations with Mr Walpole;
On average emissions data provided by Castle
TH established that RB had not appeared to have questioned the validity
of this data..
4)No attempt had been made
to verify the model emissions data by looking at the plant at Ketton where
actual air
dispersion
performance could have been checked.
5)No consideration was given
to fugitive emissions in spite of the 250 unauthorised releases seen at
Padeswood in the
last 4
years.
6)Inconsistancy pointed out between the IPC documentation and RB's proof of which RB seemed unaware.
7)Many assumptions made including: Castle emissions data applied to any fuel (did not look at specific fuels).
8)Gap pointed out in air quality evidence re heavy metals and dioxins;
9)Short term concentrations were not extensively monitored.
10)Reliance by RB on confidentail documents not available for view at the Public Inquiry
11)Wind speed
RB agreed they were not an issue
TH suggested that the CANK expert (M Pratt) could show otherwise, in which
case all of RB's figures were wrong
and would have to be revised dramatically upwards
Other Objectors' Cross Examination
Elizabeth
Shanklin (Dodleston Parish Council)
Widening the modelling domain to show downwind effects - especially
in relation to specific substances.
RB agreed to provide the Inquiry with more data.
Ground level concentrations - no actual test results from the existing kilns.
Phoenix - Graham Booth
GB Given that the wind is from the West , it means that the emissions
will be concentrated in the Penyffordd &
Penymynydd areas.
RB Yes, that is true
Plume grounding was also discussed and RB agreed that, in summer, the plume might be brought to ground more often.
Cllr Derek Darlington
DD Calculates that emissions over Penyffordd could be 3 - 4 times the
average.
RB Range of values in the whole are could be anything between 2 in some areas to 10 times when compared to Buckley.
Green Party - Klaus Armstrong Braun
KAB How are fugitive emissions evaluated in
health impacts
RB Fugitive emissions are
difficult to define. So in order to model them you would have to estimate
their
number. In the new plant, fugitive emissions will be eliminiated or suppressed
by enclosures.
Cross Examination of Dr Kelly (Castle - Health Effects)
Dr Kelly first read the suppliment to her proof, a rebuttal of Dr Vyvyan
Howard's (CANK Health Expert) proof in which
she highlighted what, in her opinion was:
The use of older data;
New reports which are currently
under peer review and therefore should not be cited;
Irrelevant examples
Phoenix - Dr R Varley
Cancer Risk
Dr Kelly pointed out that Agency quantified cancer risk from CKD
(Cement Kiln Dust) as low or negligible.
Dr Varley pointed out to Dr Kelly that, from personal experience, families
affected by cancer might disagree that the
effect was 'quite small'
Dr Varley stated the need for continuous monitoring and assessment of the new kiln, should it be erected.
Some discussuon of particulates and the effectiveness of bag filters continued until the end of the day's session.
DAY 7
Cross Examination of Dr Kelly (Castle
- Health) by Tom Hill (CANK's barrister)
Lobbyist
Texas
Air Control Board
Source
of Evidence
Castle
Cement, Padeswood one of the highest emitters of dioxins in the country
Fugitive
Emissions
Provision
of Raw Cancer Data to Dr Kelly by Dr Roberts
Partial cross examination of Mr H Moggrige (Castle
- Visual) by Eric Owen (Mia Jones' barrister)
Offsite
Planting
Cllr Mia Jones Evidence-in-Chief
Personal Statement by Mrs Lucy Thomas
Cross Examination of Dr Kelly (Castle-Health) by Tom Hill (CANK's Barrister)
The examination started with a short review of Dr Kelly's background:
she confirming that she was appointed by Castle Cement in July 2000. She
did not know whether any UK expert had been approached by Castle beforehand.
She also confirmed that she was not a medical doctor and that her current
company is called Delta Toxicology,
her previous business EDT being sold to ERM, the UK subsidiary of which
employs Dr Barrowcliffe (Castle - Air Modelling).
Lobbyist
Asked if she was a registered lobbyist in the US she explained that
no such registry exists there although she did have to sign in as one once
to comply with Montana state law.
Texas Air Control Board
Dr Kelly was referred to a 1993 letter
from the Texas Air Control Board, that State's equivalent of our Environment
Agency, in which they asked to be disassociated from some of her remarks.
Dr Kelly explained that the circumstances of that letter were very
political, contained very few technical points and that a further letter
was written subsequently which had satisfied all parties concerned.
Source of Evidence re Health Effects
Tom Hill then questioned Dr Kelly intensely about her assertion that
the first group to look at should be the workers in a cement plant before
more sensitive groups in the community - especially the very old and very
young.
TH Are you suggesting that the concentrations that the workers
are exposed to are the same as that which comes
out of the top of the stack
KK Yes
Further questions on the need for baseline public health studies.
TH and it is your evidence (epidemilogical) that there is
no evidence on the burning of either alternative or
conventional fuels in cement
kilns.
KK Yes
Padeswood one of the Highest
Emittiers of Dioxins in the Country
Revealed that a 1999
ENDS report listed Castle, Padeswood as the 11th highest emitter of
dioxins in the UK with Castle, Ribblesdale being in the top thirty.
Dr Kelly asked to project an overhead which showed the relative dioxin
emissions from different sources in the US.
TH Bush fires etc etc - is this information seriously
put forward to answer my question?
KK Information is similar and all these sources...would
indicate that cement kilns would not be considered a
major overall source of
dioxins.
Fugitive Emissions
Dr Kelly confirmed that she believes that the concentrations of fugitive
emissions are similar to those from the stack.
She also agreed that there will continue to be emissions from the kiln
seals.
Dr Kelly acknowledged that there is every potential for fugitive emissions
to move beyond the site boundary.
Tom Hill asked whether, in view of the fact that local communities have
been subjected to systematic exposure to emissions over the years that
it would be wise to consider their effects over a long period and the likely
impact of the new kiln.
Dr Kelly agreed and also stated that she did not have exact information
on past history of adverse effects.
Provision of Raw Cancer Data to Dr Kelly by Dr Roberts
TH Baseline health data needs to be considered before permission
is granted. For example, cancer mortality and
incidence.
The discussion then moved on to local cancer rates and Dr Kelly confirmed
that she had made some local enquiries, as part of her rebuttal to Vyvyan
Howard's proof and Dr Roberts had furnished raw cancer data to her last
Monday (four days ago) without providing it to any other parties to the
Inquiry.
The Inspector adjorned the Inquiry for 5 minutes
All other objectors asked that the same raw data that had been made available to Dr Kelly should now be provided to them Dr Roberts confirmed that the relevant spreadsheets would be provided.
Further points were made about Dr Roberts apparent refusal to meet with some of the objector groups (particularly Phoenix) prior to the Inquiry although he had liased with Castle Cement and Dr Vyvyan Howard for CANK.
By general agreement Dr Kathryn Kelly's cross examination was postponed to next Tuesday (24th October) to allow all parties to consider the developments of the morning.
DD (Cllr Derek Darlington - objector):
Can I ask whether that information given to KK last Monday, was it requested
by her
or was it offered to her?
PI (Inspector)
That is not a matter for answer at this point
DD
Will I be allowed to ask that again during the course of the inquiry?
PI
You may find that you have that answer.
Partial Cross Examination
of Mr H Moggrige (Castle - Visual)
by Mr Eric Owen, barrister for Mia Jones
This cross examination has been taken out of the normal run of events
because Mr Owen was only available for today.
The remaining examiination of Mr Moggridge's (HM) evidence will
take place at a later date.
Much discussion took place on the available viewpoints and perceived
impact of Kiln 4 from Dodleston, Cheshire, Cllr Jones' ward.
Also on the subjectivity of conclusions.
HM agreed that there was no description of his methodology in
his proof.
He also stated that the impact of the new kiln from Dodleston would
be relatively insignificant and:
This provoked mutterings from the public attending the inquiry.
Offsite Planting
If people approach
the County and say they do not like the view, the Council have funds to
buy a tree and
therefore eliminate it (HM)
Cllr Mia Jones
Evidence-in-Chief
Centred mainly around the visual concerns of her constituents on the
anticipated visibility of Kiln 4 from various viewpoints near Dodleston,
some 23% having completed a questionaire on the matter (compared with a
typical response rate of 2-3%).
Some discussion on the relative visual impacts of the proposed kiln
and Eaton Hall.
Personal Statement - Mrs Lucy
Thomas
Mrs Thomas, who has attended every day of the Inquiry as part of the
Phoenix team, asked to make a personal statement today, since she will
not be available for the rest of the Inquiry.
As Mrs Thomas read her statement, she became increasingly upset until
the Inspector adjourned the Inquiry so that she could take a10 minute break.
When she she continued, it was clear that her sadness had was now tinged
with anger.
Many members of the audience appeared profoundly moved and there was
spontaneous applause when she had finished.
Rather than precis such a personal contribution to the Inquiry, Mrs Thomas full transcript is available here.
Inspector: Are you prepared to ask any questions?
Vernon Pugh (Castle Barrister):
Under the circumstances I am not prepared to ask any.