CANK Note:
What follows do not claim to be verbatim reports but rather a summary of the main points made.

Cllr David Messham - Personal statement in support of Castle Cement
A firm endorsement of the company's application, on the basis of the jobs it would secure.
It was clear from his statement and subsequent cross-examination  that Cllr Messham had chosen not to look at the available independant evidence on possible health impacts or at the experience of residents at Clitheroe, preferring to rely on Castle's reassurances.

He also took the opportunity to characterise the opposition, collectively, as an intimidatory group, bent on misrepresenting the facts.
Under cross examination he stated he had been personally vilified in public but did not specify by whom.

Dr Kathryn Kelly (Castle - Health) - continuation of cross examination
Tom Hill (Cank's Barrister)
Cllr Mia Jones
Elizabeth Shanklin (Dodleston Parish Council)
Dr J Varley (Phoenix)
Mary Horner (Green Party)
    Oxygen Content
    Mercury
    Thallium
    Zoning

Tom Hill (CANK's barrister)
It has been difficult for the writer to extract any key points from this examination.
For approximately six hours, under intense cross examination, Dr Kelly repeatedly:
    Refused to answer any question directly, preferring to give long replies drifting from the point to the extent that the
    original question often had to be repeated several times;
    Stated that she didn't understand the questions put to her;
    Would not answer because the questions 'were beyond my level'

All this to the evident irritation of the public attending the day.

Topics, discussed, ranged over:
    The validity of comparing the emissions from the new kiln with the old, when the old will have to be upgraded or closed;
    The TACB letter (raised Friday) KK reconfirming that it was prompted by political pressure;
           'I don't know why these all get so political, but they do'
    Whether KK had placed total reliance on Dr Roberts for local health data;
    Comparison of air modelling programs;
    Dispute over the validity of a report cited in Dr Howard's proof.

It is a great shame that, despite Mr Hill's best efforts, what should have been a testing of evidence ended up as a very muddy encounter, reminiscent of the notorious Paxman/Howard interview on the BBC's Newsnight several years ago.
 

Cllr Mia Jones
Discussion on the exposure of workers which KK alleges, would be greater than for the off-site populations.

Elizabeth Shanklin (Dodleston Parish Council)
Stress related problems - KK stated that would not be surprising given the information to which the population was exposed.
KK also confirmed that she had not looked at health impacts for those over the English border, relying only on Welsh data, even though that border was within her 5km stated area of interest.
ES pointed out that health impacts on the large population of Chester had, therefore, not been considered.

Dr J Varley - Research Scientist (Phoenix)
JV recalled her experience monitoring the incineration of animal carcasses, pointing out the need, there, to exactly taylor the fuel mix, depending on what type of carcass was being burned, if pollution was to be minimised.
How then could the proposed kiln cope with the widely varying fuel mixes proposed without detrimental emissions?
KK stated that there was no comparison between crematoria and the extreme temperatures and long residence times of a cement kiln.

Mary Horner - Green Party
KK  stated that 5 new full permits to burn hazardous waste in cement kilns had been issued in the US in the last 6 years.
Also confirmed that of the 120 kilns in the US, 20 burn hazardous waste.
MH  highlighted the differences she had seen between the theory of health impacts and the reality of living close to hazardous waste burning kilns in Clitheroe for eight years.
    Oxygen Content
    KK would not comment on the likely emissions deriving from a burn in 2% oxygen against the recommended 6%,
    suggesting that the question be redirected to a process engineer.
    Mercury
    KK did not know how much Mercury would be in the feed or how much would come out
           'What goes in comes out'
    When pressed, KK agreed that the volatility of Mercury ensured that virtually all of it would be released as stack emissions.
    Thallium
    MH pointed up concerns over thallium:
        Sweden refuses to burn in a cement kiln;
        Unless tested for specifically, it cannot be detected;
        Thallium was volatile, like mercury;
        Despite requests, she has not been furnished with Thallium emissions at Ribblesdale since 1984 (sampled twice yearly)
    KK would not speak specifically of this metal.
    Zoning
    Some discussion of the rule in the US which prevents industrial plant being sited within specific distances of residential
    populations

Continuation of Dr Kelly's cross examination
    G Butt
        Validity of EPA Data
        Dioxins Emissions Increase
        Cladding the Pre-Heater Tower/Fugutive Emissions- Risk to Employees
    Mr Tester (Inquiry Assessor) Questions
        Metals Standards
        Consumption of Cow's Milk
        Incomplete Combustion
    Tom Hill (CANK's Barrister)
Continuation of cross examination of Mr H Moggeridge (Castle - Visual)
    Tom Hill (CANK'S Barrister)
        Screen Planting
        Alternative Sites
        Totum Effect
    Shelly Booth (Phoenix)
        Lights on the Tower
        Tree Planting
    Cllr D Darlington
Mr S Salt (Castle - Planning) Summary Proof

EVENING SESSION
    Supporters
    Objectors
        Irene Jones

Continuation of  Dr Kathryn Kelly's cross examination (Castle - Health)

Mr G Butt (Audience Member)
Parish coucillor from Christleton, Chester and retired Chemical Engineer
    Validity of EPA Data
    GB firstly asked for the background to KK's concerns over certain EPA data when rebutting Dr Howard's evidence.
    KK replied that EPA reports dwelt on point sources rather than all sources of dioxin emissions.
    Dioxin Emissions Increase
    GB then went on to examine Ketton figures for dioxin emissions when burning coal compared with alternative fuels to test
    KK's assertion that there was little difference between the two. After persistant pressing, KK reluctantly agreed that the
    average alternative fuels figure for dioxin emissions was close to 100 times higher than for coal alone, though she contended
    that the doubling was not significant because the dose rates were very small.

    Cladding the Pre-Heater Tower/Fugutive Emissions- Risk to Employees
    GB reminded KK of Mr Walpole's (Castle-Emissions) argument that the cladding on the tower would keep fugitive
    emissions in. KK confirmed that she had never seen a pre-heater tower clad in this way at any other plant.
    GB calculated that any fugitive emission would consist of 600C gases carrying a heavy burden of non-respirable harmful
    particulate matter. Anybody in the tower would be at risk and there could be fatalities.
    KK contended that the risk of fugitive emissions was small and that this was an aspect that she had not looked at.
    The Inspector stated that this would be a matter for the HSE (Health & Safety Executive).

Mr Tester (Inquiry Assessor) Questions
    Metals Standards
    A aked for 2003 standards for various metals that the proposed kiln would have to comply with.
    KK had relied on Mr Walpole's standards/guidlines in her proof.
    Citing Lead as an example, A reminded KK that her 'standard' had been quoted as 2 whilst the 2003
    standard would be 0.5 reducing to 0.05 by 2008.
    Consumption of Cow's Milk
    KK confirmed had looked only at adult consumption and not children.
    When asked why - no data for Padeswood - why not use Ribbledale information?
    Again KK's answer vague:

Tom Hill (CANK's Barrister) further question on new tyre burning tables
Comparing new  tables furnished to the Inquiry, with Dr Howard's evidence, KK was obliged, under pressure, to confirm that oxides of sulphur showed a 7 to 12 fold increase but:

Continued Cross Examination of Mr H Moggeridge (Castle - Visual)
Rebuttal Evidence

Tom Hill (CANK's Barrister)
Covering the beauty of the adjacent countryside and the fact that the plant is surrounded on three sides by residential communities, TH went on to point out that parts of HM's environmental statement (submitted as part of the planning application) had been criticised by the County Council's officers as poor and did not accurately portray the information that was asked for.
Turning to HM's proof:
    TH   Because you say we should be taking the proposal as a whole, as Wales, you are saying that the impact is
            not great?
    HM  Yes

Discussion of the size of the tower and mass of the buildings (42,000 cubic metres) HM reluctant to call them 'dominating and looming'.
HM agreed the new kiln would be considerably different from the existing ones but tried to put the structure in the context of European plants which are much bigger.
    Screen planting
    A tree will be available for planting to anyone who wishes to obstruct their view of the new kiln.
    HM agreed would not be effective on hillsides.
    Alternative Sites
    HM - only Cefyn Mawr quarry looked at - nothing else.
    Totum Effect
    Tower will remind people of hazardous waste effects

Shelly Booth (Phoenix)
    Lights on the Tower
    May be needed for aircraft use.
    Possible general light spillage at night
    Tree Planting
    3 -4 years for view to be disguised
    Panoramic views disrupted.

Cllr Derek Darlington

Mr S Salt (Castle - Planning) Summary Proof
The day finished with Mr Salt reading his summary proof ready for cross examination the following day.

Supporters of the Kiln 4 Project
In all, eleven people spoke, all bar one being Castle Cement employees, pensioners, or wives.
They emphasised the quality of Castle as an employer, both in terms of career support and wages, and the many projects that
their cement had been used in.
Those that expressed an opinion were convinced that there were no health risks associated with the new kiln.

The only non-Castle supporter was a pensioner from Broughton who resolutely attributed the public's fears to scaremongering, saying that he had not found a single shred of evidence to suggest that the planned kiln was unsafe.

The Inspector cut short the presentations when it became evident that all were coming from Castle employees.
He specifically asked if anyone further, outside of the company, would like to speak in support but nobody came forward.

Objectors
Altogether 15 people spoke including County Councillors;  teachers; and one grandmother who had travelled from Stafford to make her point (her daughter's family live in Penyffordd).
There were many eloquent statements but, perhaps one of the most moving was from Irene Jones, an asthmatic. Although a member of Phoenix, she made it clear that she was at this meeting on behalf of her family and not any pressure group.
Her speech ran to three pages - here are a few representative extracts:

Cross examination of Mr S Salt (Castle - Planning)
    Tom Hill (CANK's Barrister)
        Definitions
        Proximity Principle
    Mary Horner (Green Party)
    Shelly Booth (Phoenix)

Cross Examination of Mr S Salt (Castle - Planning)
Tom Hill (CANK's Barrister)
SS agreed that in siting a polluting industry, residential amenity was a consideration in planning.
Also visual concern; the potential for pollution; and people's concerns.
TH argued that, if the plant was not already there, it would not be a suitable location, given it's rural surroundings.

Mary Horner (Green Party)
Endeavoured to ask environmentally based questions but was reminded by the Inspector that they were not relvant to this witness.

Shelly Booth (Phoenix)
Questioned on waste disposal within the EU framework.

SS stated in his evidence that Cemfuel is a fuel.

Dr Shah's Personal Statement
Cross Examinantion of Cllr Mia Jones

Opening remarks included a discussion on the nature of Cemfuel with the Inspector pointing out that a change from cement kiln to cement kiln incinerator would be a material change in the application which was the subject of the Inquiry..
He proposed that, to overcome the uncertainty over co-incineration,  a condition be imposed along the lines that the kiln shall not be fired for purposes other than for testing procedures or the manufacture of cement clinker.

Brian Wake, solicitor for CANK emphasised that, from their perspective, the burning of alternative fuel is material to the application.
This concern was echoed by the other Objectors, in particular, Cllr Armstrong-Braun who asked for clarification that since Cemfuel is hazardous waste according to the Hazardous Waste Incineration Directive, Castle must be incinerating waste when they use it.
The Inspector deferred that question to submissions at the end.

Dr Shah's Personal Statement
Resident of Penyffordd and Geriatric Consultant at Wrexham Maelor Hospital
After reading his statement, in which he objected to the erection of the proposed kiln on health grounds, Dr Shah was subjected to intense cross-examination by Vernon Pugh QC for Castle Cement, much of which centred around the use of alternative fuels.

Vernon Pugh then questioned Dr Shah closely on his knowledge of toxic emissions even though DrS had prefaced his cross exam by stating that he was not a toxicologist.

Despite further pressure, Dr Shah refused to be moved from his position, which he repeated several times:

Cross Examination of Cllr Mia Jones, Lib-Dem Counsellor for Dodleston Ward, Cheshire
This exam centered around the anticipated visual impact of the new kiln from Dodleston, Cheshire with VP implying that Cllr Jones was putting visual amenity above 200 jobs. There followed angry exchanges and interruptions from members of the public.
Finally VP suggested that there were differences between Cllr Jones' Summary and actual Proof. When challenged on what they were, however, he did not elucidate.

Cross Examination of Flintshire County Council Witnesses

Mr D Heggarty
by Tom Hill for CANK

Tourism
Established that FCC director of Tourism in February 2000 was concerned that the visual impact of the tower would have a detrimental effect on any tourist developments in the future.
Location
Confirmed would expect chemical and waste industries, as potential pollutants, to be sited around the Dee estuary.
Jobs
Confirmed that the Director's professional view was that the jobs issue did not outweigh the visual impact of the kiln.
 

Mr C Thomas (FCC Assistant Director of Planning in Feb 2000)
by Tom Hill

Visual Impact
Not considered acceptable in Feb and this agreed by all  senior members of planning team - that professional opinion still holds.

CH also confirmed that the scale of the new development was 'excessive'.

Public Health
Confirmed that was decided the opinion of Dr Roberts as the physician for the area should carry more weight when compared with Dr Howard's (CANK expert - fetal toxico-pathologist) contrary views on the likely health impact, which had been submitted to the planning committee.

Use of Fuel
CT was placed under some pressure when he was unable to explain why there had not been any formal analysis of the use of waste fuel and the implications of the proximity principle in the year long report into this application.

Cross examination of Mr Thomas by Other Objectors
Cllr Mia Jones
CT emphasised several times that the Council view was that the waste material to be used would be classed as a fuel.

Shelly Booth (Phoenix)
Raised the matter of disused mine workings underneath the Castle site and the possible threat to buildings sited above, especially in view of the anticipated vibration levels. CT confirmed that had not been looked at.

Cllr Armstrong-Braun(Green Party)
Again raised the question of whether the proposed kiln was burning hazrdous waste and not fuels.

Cllr Colin Bithell
Elizabeth Shanklin (Dodleston Parish Council)
 
 

Statement by Cllr Colin Bithell

Councillor living in Penyffordd for many years, who has served as Chairman of the Health Committee, highlighted the poor house-keeping of Castle Cement at Padeswood and the extreme concern of local residents over the proposed new kiln:

Cllr Bithell's statement in more detail

    Vernon Pugh (Castle barrister) cross examination
    VP took Cllr Bithell's statement as a submission in support.
    Cllr Bithell confirmed that he would be in favour of the works continuing provided it was operated within safe limits.
    He firmly reinterated, however, that the burning of Cemfuel was the major cause for concern and that he wanted a cast iron
    guarantee that the invisible particles won't affect health:

Statement by Elizabeth Shanklin (Dodleston Parish Coucil)
ES read from her summary proof and other documents during which she questioned the fact that figures in two different  Castle Cement  tables  showed identical figures:

Overall, ES believed that Dodleston will receive increased fallout from the new kiln. She pointed out that she had asked for a continuation of Ian Walpole's (Castle - Emissions) maps to Dodleston but, so far, they had not been provided.

Should the application be approved, monitors should be installed in Dodleston:

    Cross examination by Vernon Pugh (Castle)
    Most of VP's  examination related to health concerns, questioning ES's sources.
    VP:     'if there is more up to date information then that should be relied upon in place of your evidence'
    ES:    Only provided it is an update of the previous evidence and the previous evidence is considered.'

    VP referred to Belgian government's decision to dispose of dioxin contamination through incineration in cement kilns:

    Discussion of unauthorised and shutdown emissions (combustion under non-optimum conditions).

    ES:    I also find it hard to believe that the emissions will remain the same if the fuel mixes change'

    Some discussion then of discrepancies between ES information on dioxins in cow's milk at Clitheroe (derived from Dr van
    Steenis) and a MAFF report which Castle undertook to provide.

    Finally, disagreement on wind direction with ES contending that it is generally from the west, so placing Dodleston downwind
    of the plant. Castle will provide air modelling data from Dr Kathryn Kelly to refute this.

Alan Watson (for TCC - Objector)

Cross Examination of Dr Richard Roberts - Consultant - North Wales Health Authority

        By Alan Watson (TCC)
            Existing Kilns
            Chronic Effects

        By Tom Hill (CANK Barrister)
            Reliance on Data Supplied by Castle Cement
            Baseline Health Study
            Current Health of People Living Near the Plant
            Deaths Brought forward
            Management of the Plant/Fugitive Emissions
            Differences in Data Analysis
            Cancer Data
 

Alan Watson - partner in Public Interest Consultants(for TCC - Trefnu Cymunedol Cymru).

Mr Watson, who has appeared at a number of public inquirys representing both local authorities and private clients, read a summary of his proof of evidence in which he had highlighted:

    his belief that the proposed Kiln 4 would breach the Human Rights Act (Articles 2 & 8)

    Kiln 4 would be an unacceptable point source of toxic pollutants about which much has still to be understood;

    that there was public fear of the proposal which was real and justified, often being supported by the scientific literature.
    He also pointed out that, even if unfounded, that fear would still be a material consideration in the planning process;

    the general distrust the public have for both company and government statements, adding to the anxiety

    the poor record of the Environment Agency

In a surprisingly short cross-examination by Vernon Pugh (Castle barrister), Mr  Watson demonstrated his depth of understanding and held firmly to his assertion that any death that might be brought forward as a result of this proposal would be unacceptable and a direct breach of the Human Rights Act.

Mr Watson reminds us in the Conclusion to his Proof that:

Cross-Examination of Dr R Roberts - Public Health Consultant
    North Wales Area Health Authority

CANK Note for reference:
Dr Roberts November 1999 Report
 

Dr Roberts was cross-examined over a period of almost two days. What follows is a brief summary of those examinations.

Please remember that where passages are quoted, they are not intended to be verbatim but rather to give a feel of the proceedings, as they unfolded:

By Alan Watson - Public Health Consultant (TCC)

    AW   Public concern persists in spite of your attempts to reassure
    DR    The kiln has given people a fear of harm. Facts do not influence people

    DR    Air pollution in itself is not a factor for deaths, there has to be a pre-existing disease

    DR   Any loss is a tragedy. My job is to avoid death at all costs.

    Existing kilns
    AW    What is your view on the existing emissions.
    DR     You could take the view that it is unacceptable. Can't see any reductions being made in the emissions.
    AW    Do you think they are acceptable?
    DR     Not for me to decide. Any health effects are my concern.

    AW    Have the EA approached you to say that the existing kilns have impacts on health.
    DR     Not formally, no. But I have been discussing issues with Mr Morris for two years.

    DR    I resent the implication that I am not concerned about people's health.

    Chronic Effects
    DR    Comparing exposure from the kiln with tobacco smoke - background pollution. My approach is to put the
              risks in context

Cross Examination byTom Hill (CANK barrister)

    Reliance on Data Supplied by Castle Cement
    TH     It is fair to say that so far as the quantification of emissions is concerned you simply accept and comment
              on Castle Cement's levels
    DR    That was based on data, yes.
    TH    You swallow whole the material that is provided by Castle Cement and reproduce it here? Please
              understand, this is not intended as a criticism.
    DR    Absolutely so.

    TH    In this report there is no examination of the baseline health of the population
    DR    There is not

    TH   Before you wrote this report, did you consult with local GPs.
    DR   No, I did not

Dr Roberts was then referred to a letter he had written to the EA requesting further information, including an explanation of the term 'pulverised fuel ash'. When pressed, he initially confirmed that he had not had a reply from the EA although changed this mind under further questioning and agreed to furnish the Inquiry with a 'general reply' he had received.

Baseline Health Study
When questioned further on whether he had considered the cost and resources necessary for a baseline health survey, Dr Roberts admitted that he had looked at cancer rates around the kiln; asthma in children; respiratory and cardio-vascular deaths but that this information was not yet available to the Inquiry.
Dr Roberts confirmed that this data could be available once it had been checked but would not be drawn on how long that would be.
He also stressed that the results would be 'exceedingly difficult to interpret' and did not disagree with Mr Hill's conclusion:
'So the information may never come forward'

    TH    There is indeed local concern about industrial emissions
    DR    A study wouldn't be helpful.
 

    Current health of people near the plant:
    TH    Many of these residents have been living in the shadow for 50 yrs and have been subject to the deposition
             of matter  over that time?
    DR    Yes
    TH    Notwithstanding that, nothing in your evidence addresses their health?
    DR    I haven't neglected to do that, it is just impractical.
 

    Deaths brought forward
    TH    Your conclusions are that unfortunately we have little knowledge as to the extent to which deaths are
             hastened. This accords with the air quality information we were looking at earlier?
    DR    Yes

    Management of the Plant/Fugitive Emissions
    DR    Fugitive emissions are normally low level emissions contained within the site.....
    TH    That conclusion assumes fugitive emissions will be minimised by good management
    DR    It depends on good management.

    TH    You say no data is available on the impact of such releases (unauthorised emissions) and that is why you
              don't factor it  in to your calculations
    DR    Yes

    TH    The residents have been subjected to a great pollution burden over the last 50 years
    DR    I have looked at the potential health effects of the burning of fuels in Kiln 4. Why do people worry
              about  a system  which will improve the air quality? I think that their anxiety is rising unnecessarily.
    TH    Ah but you've heard about Castle Cements local record over the last 10 years.
    DR    It needs to be discussed.

Differences in Data analysis
Reference to differences in data analysis between Dr Roberts and another health consultant, John Simpson at Westbury both facing similar situations, with the latter concerned at the reported increase in pollution levels following the burning of tyres and wishing to complete studies before such burning is permitted.

Cancer Data
Discussion then turned to 'unfair statements'  made by Dr Roberts' in his supplimentary proof regarding Dr Busby's (CANK contributing medical expert) study of cancer distribution in Wales , before the Inquiry adjourned.

Continuation of Dr Roberts cross-examination by Tom Hill (CANK Barrister)
        Use of Cancer data by Dr Busby
        Reliance on data supplied by Castle Cement
        Discrepancy in Cancer Figures
        Availability of Cancer Data
        2km Radius

Cross Examination of Dr Roberts by other Objecting Parties
        Cllr Mia Jones (Dodleston)
            Dr Roberts' Report
            Cheshire City Council
        Elizabeth Shanklin (Dodleston Parish Council)
            Deaths Data
        Lucy Thomas & Shelly Booth (Phoenix)
            Lack of Consultation
            Unauthorised Releases
            Cemfuel
        Cllr Derek Darlington (Penyffordd)
            Failure to Attend February 2000 Planning Meeting
            Stress Levels
        Mary Horner (Green Party)
            Sulphur Concentrations
            Safety
            Precautionary Approach
            Lack of Confidence
 

Tom Hill (CANK Barrister) continuing cross examination of Dr Roberts

Use of Cancer Data by Dr Busby
Mr Hill continued with the discrepancy between cancer data used by Dr Roberts and Dr Busby raised yesterday.

    TH    No suggestion it had been used improperly by Dr Busby .......I want you to confirm it now.
    DR    Unfortunately it is not possible to identify the source of the confusion
    TH    That does not answer my question. The Inspector needs to record your response and, in fact, your attitude
              to my question
Further intense questioning before:
    DR    Dr Busby should take critisism, so do I
 

Reliance on data provided by Castle Cement for the 1999 Health Report

Dr Roberts confirmed again that he had relied on the information supplied by Castle Cement to complete his 1999 Report, had not subjected it to peer review, but had depended on the EA to do  'whatever checks were necessary'.

    TH    There is no correspondence asking for clarification of the facts you received from CC?
    DR    I rely on others professionalism
    TH    It is a simple question. Did you specifically seek any individual checks of the CC data before writing the
             report.
    DR   Relied on others who were competent to assess the facts.
 

Discrepancy in cancer figures between reports relied on by Dr Roberts and Dr Howard

    TH    Can we understand what degree of independent peer review has taken place?
    DR    No reason to believe it is inaccurate. The public domain is the ultimate peer review.
    TH    You must simply answer my questions.
    DR    The work has been peer reviewed by the cancer group.
    TH    I thought they produced the report.
    DR    Several different statasticians checked the work.
    TH    I think the answer is no, that there has not been any independant peer review.

Availability of Cancer Data
Discussion over the timing of cancer data during which it was established that Dr Roberts wrote his proof before having that data available to him.
TH requested more refined cancer data from Dr Roberts than that provided to Dr Kelly and, subsequently, to the rest of the Inquiry but which he had had access to. Without such access TH was concerned that Dr Roberts and Dr Howard would be working to two different sets of data. Dr Roberts expressed serious concerns that the data would be misused if released.
    TH    I would like assurance from Dr Roberts that he will not stand in the way of WCISU  (Welsh Cancer
             Intelligence Statistical Unit) releasing the information.
    DR    It is up to them
    TH    You could ask them to....
    DR    I couldn't do that.....I think an independant person should be chosen to validate the data and I could
             chose someone.
    Member of the Public:

Finally it was agreed with the Inspector that a meeting take place between interested parties  'to sort this out'

2 km Radius
TH  pressed  Dr Roberts on why he had chosen the 2km radius around the plant to assess emissions levels when 'it is plain that high levels of exposure go beyond 2km. After asking for an answer three times:
    TH    I think I have your answer. Emissions do not rely on radii drawn on maps ...more complex.
    With no response from Dr Roberts the Inspector concluded that the answer should be'Yes' .
 

Cross Examination of Dr Roberts by other Objecting Parties

Cllr Mia Jones (Dodleston)
Discussed the limited resources available in Dr Roberts and the fact that he 'does not have time to deal with all matters'.
Compared fear of MMR with fear of emissions
    MJ    It is a choice. People here do not have a choice about whether they are exposed to emissions

    Dr Roberts Report
    DR    I am satisfied that the information is satisfactory and that I have put forward a robust case
    MJ    I am rather disturbed by the fact you say it is a robust case
    DR    That whole section is about what we do not know....I  have tried to have caveat statements.
    MJ    Exactly, you are caveating the statements and so the public is concerned about the impact of what will
             happen, not what might or might not happen.

    Cheshire City Council
    DR    I received that letter recently (from Cheshire CC)
    MJ    The comment was that 'it was an odd judgement' - on the likly effects of the kiln.
    DR    Yes
    MJ    Are you aware of this conflict on your view?
    DR    Yes.

Elizabeth Shanklin (Dodleston Parish Council)
    Deaths Data
    ES    Deaths data has impacts and you hold that data, on respiratory deaths. Would you know that the death
            rates are higher than the national levels?
    DR  I have difficulty .... I cannot make conclusions. I don't want to make any comment and regret it later on.
 

Lucy Thomas  & Shelly Booth (Phoenix)
    Lack of Consultation
    LT    Very real worries. We did ask 6 months ago to see you - asked for a meeting. You told us we couldn't have
             a meeting with you. How can you be aware of them, you haven't even met with us.
    DR    I make it a policy not to meet with any groups.
    SB    You have said that you are more than willing to meet with people and yet you now say you cannot. You
             have met and discussed things with Dr Kelly.
    DR    I would be delighted to have spent more time with local residents. If you could write to ask for more
             support for my department.
    SB    We wanted information and you would not reply or agree to meet with us.

    Unauthorised Releases
    P      Where in your proof of evidence did you mention unauthorised releases?
    DR   So?
    P      You have not taken the fact that these plants go wrong, into account?
    DR   I agree, but it doesn't take a doctor to tell people that.

    DR   I have gone out of my way to help the Inquiry at considerable personal cost and I don't appreciate being
             sniped at in the press or having my impartiality questioned.

    Cemfuel
    P      What are the risks of explosion
    DR  There is no possibility of explosion at Padeswood
 

Cllr Derek Darlington (Penyffordd)
    Failure to come to the Original Planning Meeting in February 2000
    DD    Why weren't you at the meeting
    DR    I think I was in Cardiff and I received very short notice to attend.

    Stress Levels
    DD    What is your opinion on what will happen to stress levels if  Kiln 4 goes ahead.
    DR    No idea

Mrs Mary Horner (Green Party)
    Sulphur concentrations
    MH    If I smell Sulphur in the air, what concentrations would that already be at?
    DR    I don't know
    MH    How would that affect mt asthma?
    DR    It would exacerbate it although you could use your inhaler more.

    Safety
    MH    If the conditions and fugitive emissions that occur in Clitheroe occur at Padeswood, could you guarantee
              my safety?
    DR    No, I can't guarantee something that is out of my control.

    Precautionary Approach
    MH    Why didn't you use a precautionary approach in your report to protect our health
    DR     I did. In this case there was sufficient data for me to come to this conclusion.
              A precautionary approach is to minimise emissions.

    Lack of Confidence
    MH    Are you aware of the lack of confidence that this community has in you?
    DR    Environmental pollution is incredibly emotive and political.

Cross Examination of Objectors
                    by Vernon Pugh (Castle Cement's barrister)

Cllr K Armstrong-Braun (Flintshire Green Party)

The Inspector asked KAB if there were any points in his evidence that he would like to highlight:
    Castle Cement's initial claim that jobs would be lost if their application were refused;
    The company's poor housekeeping as evidenced by site visits and the prosecutions against them;
    Dr Roberts failure to take proper account of the independant academic reports that are available.

VP, before starting, advised the Press present not to quote KB 'as it will be patently libellous'
KB confirmed that he accepted the recommendations of Flintshire County Council's officer following the original application but refused to confirm that he agreed with the whole of their Report.
The brief cross examination concluded with a discussion of the Black Brook oil spill and confirmation that Mary Horner would also be appearing for the Green Party at a later date.

Phoenix
Dr Max Wallis
Dr Wallis confirmed that he has specialised in Atmospheric Science since obtaining his doctorate  in 1963; has done a lot of work for Friends of the Earth; and has been elected to the Air Quality Forum.
First, summarising his concerns, Dr Wallis pointed out:
        NOx will exceed recommended eco-system levels;
Ozone
        'a big killer' had not been considered by Mr Barrowcliffe (Castle - Air Modelling) in assessing air quality around
        Padeswood. Data had been taken from distant sites only (Aston Hill & Liverpool).
        The 'stress' on the Snowdonia National Park from both Ozone and acidity.
        Dr Wallis suggested there were two solutions:
            1)    move the plant to Norfolk where stress levels were less;
            or
            2)    fit NOx abatement technology to the stack.
        Mr Barrocliffe's figures 'don't seem to give any indication of plume grounding'.
        Ultra Fine Particles, cannot be assessed with reference to PM10s.
        Michael Meacher's comment that emissions from incinerators are carcinogenic and should be eliminated altogether.

Meteorological Data
In cross examination VP discussed MW's concerns over the use of 1970's meteorological data from Speke in Mr Barrowcliffe's proof. In particular:
        Air patterns around the mountains of Wales would be quite different from the flat lands of Speke on the other side of the
        Mersey estuary;
        Age of Data
        MW said that he would have expected met data from 1990's to be used, especially given the dramatic climate changes
        being seen recently. ('This November has been the wettest since records began')

Snowdonia Effect
    VP       'is there and documentation which says that Snowdonia influences the weather conditions at
                Padeswood?'
    MW    'Nothing I can point to but you ask any meteorologist about the differences between North Wales &
                Manchester'

Reduction in Emissions
MW agreed that the reduction of emissions would be a good thing:
    VP      OK, so it would be good to close down Kilns 1 - 3 and build Kiln 4
    MW   Provided it wasn't built in a rural area.

Aintree Incinerator
    MW   'The deaths were mostly throat and lung cancer which are very unusual.'

Health Problems at Clitheroe
    COMEAP Report - £500,000 study
    CANK Note:See 'Misleading the Minister'
    VP     '(study) didn't provide any data to support the claim that the incinerator in Clitheore is causing any ill
              health.'
    MW   'a lot of health problems have sources that are difficult to locate and pin down.'
 

    VP     Where is there evidence that some of the population of Clitheroe are suffering horrendous health
              problems?
    MW  It was in the Observer and from people I know

Fall in House Prices
    VP     Where did you get the information relating to the fall in house prices?
    MW   Somebody else wrote it?
    VP     Who was it sent to?
    MW  Not sure - not the general public.

Summary
    VP     In general, do you support the new kiln if it will reduce emissions?
    MW  No, because it is burning toxic waste, which will be transported through our towns and villages. There
              are a number of issues which need considering.

    PI      Putting aside the technical evidence, Castle Cement wants to increase the production of cement clinker.
              If the proposal is a cleaner alternative, is that an acceptable option?
    MW   There is not a simplistic answer to that question. If it was just a straight change, but they are changing so
              many different things at once.

Phoenix Cross Examination continued
Graham Booth (Transport/Visual)

Visual Impact
    VP    What is wrong with the proposal
    GB    It is out of scale and character
    VP    Do you accpet that it is pleasing in shape
    GB   Not at all

Cement Kiln Dust (CKD)
On a satisfactory site for the disposal of CKD:
    GB   The Cefn Mawr tip would be satisfactory but the leachate problem needs to be sorted.
    VP    If you had the opportunity to read the EA's report, then you would see that there isn't a leachate problem.
 

    GB    Our principal concern is that this dust has been put on agricultural land and in animal feedstuffs
    VP    Not by Castle Cement
    GB   They have muted that they have looked at these routes in their Environmental Impact Assessment.

Rail Transport
Discussion over use of rail as a preferred transport alternative although it is understood Castle do not propose to use the available railhead at Padeswood.

Road transport of Cemfuel
    VP    Would you agree that that there are hundreds of petrol tankers on our roads every day and that it is much
             more inflammable than Cemfuel.
    GB   Yes, but the operatives are more experienced in dealing with petrol, whereas Cemfuel is a newer product.
 
 

Ian Turvey (Castle Transport)
Presentation of Rebuttal 2 evidence and cross examination by Graham Booth (Phoenix)

Rail Transport
Why the Padeswood rail head is not to be used:
    IT    The suppliers need to have rail access as well. That can be a major limiting factor

Transport of Cemfuel
    GB  Clearly, Padeswood is turning into a much bigger industrial site, especially if, as I imagine, the
            distribution and production of Cemfuel moves there as well. Can you think of any disadvantage, in terms
            of transport, if the site is moved?
    IT    It is likely that traffic flows in the vicinity would increase.

The cross examination finished with a discussion on the effect the fees Castle will receive for burning different wastes in different regions will have on where it is brought in from and, therefore, the overall transport impact.

Re-examination of Ian Walpole (Castle - Emissions) by the Inspector and Assessor
Cross examination of Mary Horner (Flintshire Green Party)
    BATNEEC
    Health Effects
        Lung Cancer
    COMEAP Report
    Cemfuel
        Introduction at Clitheroe
        Specification
        Testing
 
 

Re-examination of Ian Walpole (Castle - Emissions) by the Inspector and Assessor

IW was questioned on aspects of a new table of emissions, submitted by Castle Cement, which required further clarification and additional amendments were requested.

 Assessor:     The Inspector and I have been discussing the possiblility of a malfunction at the plant and we
                       wondered whether there was a list of potential malfunctions at Ketton which you could be prepared
                       for. For example: what to do if emissions go over the limit.
IW:                Yes, we have one for that'
Assessor:      I think it would be reassuring for us and the public to see such a list.

Assessor:      In the lab at Ketton, I noticed that there was an analysis of the components of Cemfuel which I
                      hadn't been aware of and the guys there didn't seem to be aware of how to use it.
Inspector:     Yes, we asked questions about it when we were there with regard to the mixing of the components. It
                      was clear that the analysis wouldn't pick up a faulty mix until it was burnt in the kiln. That seems to
                      be a problem for us. Could something be done about this?
IW:               Yes, we could do something about that?
 

Cross Examination of Mary Horner (Flintshire Green Party)

Mrs Horner began by submitting an amended summary proof, two videos of emissions at Clitheroe; and a series of recent papers on Ultra Fine Particles 'as they are absolutely vital'.
Reading from her proof, she pointed out:
'there are 98 waste codes that can be included in Cemfuel, including the crushed filters from other industrial chimneys, so it is a much dirtier fuel than is being made out.'

Following a viewing of Mrs Horners time lapse videos, which showed  a variety of  emissions, including a kiln trip and plume grounding,  from the Clitheroe kilns, Vernon Pugh (Castle - Barrister) began his cross examination:

CANK Note:
You will see that we have placed great reliance here on the dialogue between Mrs Horner and Mr Pugh. We felt that this was the best way to portray the cross-examination but please remember the wording is not claimed to be verbatim but rather an approximation of what was said.

VP:     Are you qualified in any kind of engineering, toxic, legal, or meteorolgical areas?
MH:   No
VP:     Well, we will ask you fact based questions. Are you opposed to cement kilns per se or just the burning of
           Cemfuel and SLF (Secondary Liquid Fuels)?
MH:   When we were younger, we had no problems with cement works....
           So I am not against cement kilns per se. I am against cement kilns burning SLFs and now the UFPs (Ultra
           Fine Particles) that cement kilns produce.

BATNEEC
VP:    Are you opposed to a modern cement kiln being built and worked if the best available technique is used?
MH:  No, but it has to be the BEST available technique.
VP:    BATNEEC? (Best Available Technique Not Entailing Excessive Cost)
MH:  Not necessarily. The cost has to be balanced against the cost to the community.

Health Effects
VP:    Do you claim adverse health effects for those who live in the Ribble Valley?
MH:  Yes
VP:    There is nothing in the East Lancs Health Authority Report to indicate that the works are to blame.
MH:  Yes, but no local health authority expert has come out against the works anyway until the press article we
           have distributed today.

VP:    Do you believe that there is a big industry/government conspircy going on?
MH:  Well, the reports are based on data taken from boroughs and areas nowhere near the plant.

VP:    So you are asserting that it has an increased effect on vulnerable groups, not causing it.
MH:  It certainly has an effect on vulnerable groups.

        Lung Cancer
        VP:      Please look at the next table, the figures for lung cancer in the Ribble Valley are the lowest.
        MH:    This was before Cemfuel was being burned in the plant

COMEAP Report
Referring to a passage in the COMEAP Report 1999, VP asked: 'should it be disregarded?
MH:    It needs to be taken in context. There is a connection between the funding for such reports and the
            conclusions of the report. At least two of these professors (and others) sit on the COMEAP committee.
VP:     Are you saying Mr Harrison is incompetant?
MH:   He is absolutely competant and I have a report behind me by him rubbishing the burning of Cemfuel in
           1996.

Introduction of Cemfuel at Clitheroe
VP:    Are you saying local people were not made aware of Castle Cement's intention to burn Cemfuel?
MH:  Yes......
VP:    You said that Castle Cement didn't notify anyone
MH:  I mean the general public

Specification of Cemfuel
VP:    Your statement that Castle Cement hadn't provided a specifiation for Cemfuel.
MH:  No, I said that there are differences in specification.

VP:    You've said that Castle Cement & Solrec have never told anyone what's in Cemfuel
MH:  Oh no, I've said that no-one knows. In you're own statement you've said that Cemfuel 'TYPICALLY'
          contains.

VP (referring to various documents):
          Please turn to page 7, under section 11, dealing with toxicological information. Is that what you were
          looking for that wasn't in the public domain?
MH:  I don't see half of the waste codes that are used in Cemfuel mentioned here. You can't do a safety data sheet
          on a product that is so variable.

Testing of Cemfuel
VP:    You know that it is tested at Ribbledale?
MH:  Only out of the 250 tonne tanks. It is no longer tested on delivery.
VP:    You know that it is tested before  it is put in the tanker and while it is in the storage tank at Ribbledale. It is
          tested every time it is put on the road.
MH:  It still needs testing on delivery.
VP:    Do you think that someone puts something else in half way through the journey?
MH:  It's a point that needs pursuing.