Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Climate Change Levy -fuel for thought


Living close by Castle Cement's Ribblesdale Plant, we are qualified to respond to Dick Boarder's comments in the Concrete Futures supplement (NCE 7 October). The cement industry may be worried about the '[Climate Change] Levy', but the other side to the argument - health - is being deliberately sidelined.

Castle was first to trial cemfuel in 1992, after which the Pollution Inspectorate produced guidelines for 'alternative fuels' in cement kilns.

A basic tenet of these guidelines was that trials of alternative fuels should not be considered if there was plume-grounding, as here.

Two House of Commons' select committees strongly recommended a health survey. This survey was rapidly squashed by COMEAP (Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution), a body which includes several firms which might welcome a cheap means of disposal of their 'unwanteds'.

In February, environment minister Michael Meacher carpeted Environment Agency and borough council chiefs resulting in summonses for four alleged breaches of a condition requiring 'no offensive haze or odour outside the site boundary'. Yet no prosecutions had been brought for breaches in April 1998, which drew 149 complaints.

The agency has now given Castle permission to trial another mix of cemfuel in kiln 7. Approval was heavily dependent on an air monitor on the Chatburn School playing fields, located such that it regularly shows zero when Chatburn village is stunk out; and on a scrubber on the kiln 7 stack which will neither stop plume-grounding nor filter out the heavy metals.

Yet COMEP used these factors and a 1994 health survey as reasons for rejecting the select committee's health survey demand, as did the Agency when approving the kiln 7 trials.

J D Mortimer (M), ME King (M), 'Brogden Farm', Worston, Clitheroe

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.