THE hundreds who objected to Castle Cement's application to burn the hazardous toxic waste Cemfuel in kiln 7 at its Clitheroe works can now attend two surgeries on July 2 and 3, when the Environment Agency will justify its 'proposed decision,' to be followed by a four-week period for further comments.

Six months on, we should perhaps take another look at the objectors' four points:

Point 1 argued for this to be considered as a new application. A re-application would mean accepting Castle's argument that it voluntarily withdrew Cemfuel from kiln 7 in 1994, rather than HM Inspectorate of Pollution imposing a ban two days earlier, which was what actually occurred.

The way would then be cleared for the application to be judged on the 'revised' Bedford Protocol (the guideline) which conveniently omits the basic condition in the original Protocol that trials of 'alternative' fuels should not even be contemplated where there is endemic plume-grounding, as here.

Point 2 emphasised the new Cemfuel's far greater toxicity and lower calorific properties, making it more of a waste than a fuel, a point also made by Ribble Valley Council. The agency's June 14, 1999, press release states "the substitute fuel is categorised as a hazardous waste," which not only confirms this but also invalidates the county council's view that it was a fuel, not a waste, and thus did not require planning permission. The county council should also take note of the tiles and foundry sand in this application. At what stage does a cement works burning any old waste become an incinerator, for heaven's sake?

Point 3 argued that kiln 7 could not operate within limits, particularly plume-grounding, and:

Point 4, that the Monsanto scrubber's efficiency was non-proven.

Correspondence shows that kilns 5 and 6 are not operating within limits, even with the agency moving the goalposts, so would kiln 7?

The plumes from all three kilns ground, with those from kiln 7 more than ever during the massive white discharges from the stack, of which the agency inspector was unaware. These, plus the occasional huge cloud of red dust from the base, together with the fact that kiln 7 never operates alone, cast doubt on how the agency can possibly assess its efficiency.

It is also fair to ask if, with one court hearing on July 12 for breaching the requirement that there should be no haze or odour causing offence outside the site boundary and, more hopefully, in the pipeline for breaches before and since, the application should proceed at all.

Finally, those who glory in the beauty of Pendle Hill, and who may be inclined to give the agency the benefit of the doubt, might care to reflect on the repeated remark by an agency staff member when called out recently on a day when Pendle was enveloped in Castle fumes: "There's no members of the public up the hill complaining."

I rest my case.

J MORTIMER (Mr), Green Drive, Clitheroe.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.