I WONDER if readers can spot any connection between the current media blitz by Castle Cement, of Clitheroe, and the pending prosecutions?

As the representative of some of who are 'continually critical,' might I answer this barb and suggest what may lie behind the activity?

Firstly, the Environment Agency decided on August 31 to permit trials of 'Cemfuel 2' in Castle's Kiln 7 six days before Blackburn magistrates met to hear four charges of breaching the 'no persistent haze or odour causing offence outside the site boundary' condition, and to examine the meaning of 'persistent' - matters they referred to the Crown Court.

I wonder what it will make of the company's September 'Open Door' newsletter which said: "This (prosecution) has no relation to the type of fuel used, nor does it mean that the plant has been badly operated or in a manner which would cause harm to our neighbours or employees."

Aren't these matters for the judge and jury?

Our group of Friends of the Earth was 'overlooked' when the Agency announced its decision, despite our formal submission suggesting delaying it until after the judgment.

We organised public opposition, resulting in hundreds of written objections. It was only during a conversation with Agency staff outside the court that it emerged that the far-more-stringent conditions on which the application was being considered had been amended, but that details would not be available until mid-September, when they would be made public. The Agency made great play of the strictness of these conditions and the way they will be applied, but there are grave suspicions that they have been drastically watered down.

For example, Open Door states that "during the trial, the overall amount of Cemfuel...is not expected to increase" and "the trial period will end no later than March 2000." This suggests that kilns 5 and 6 will continue to burn 'Cemfuel 1,' with kiln 7 burning small quantities of 'Cemfuel 2.'

If both are stored on site, there is the risk of the far more toxic 'Cemfuel 2,' or a mixture of both, being used in kilns 5 and 6 and, of course, how can a proper assessment be made of the performance of the scrubber under full load if only a fraction of 'Cemfuel 2' is burnt in the trials? Kiln 7 couldn't handle 'Cemfuel 1' in 1994, so half-hearted trials won't do!

In the battle for people's minds, Castle/Monsanto have the advantage with their money and PR expertise, but in the battle to safeguard the health of the people, those who care and who are not beholden to industry must act for those who care but cannot.

In this, we rely on the interest and impartiality of the press: long may this continue.

J D MORTIMER (Mr), (Group Co-ordinator, Friends of the Earth, Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley), Green Drive, Clitheroe.

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