A CEMENT works could face legal action after figures revealed kilns burning the controversial Cemfuel exceeded emission limits for dust and sulphur dioxide.
Statistics submitted to the Environment Agency by Clitheroe's Castle Cement show that two kilns broke their limits for dust on three occasions in December and six in February. Levels for Sulphur Dioxide exceeded restrictions on eight occasions.
Today a spokesman for the Environment Agency said they had the power to prosecute, were aware of the breach and were considering their next step.
He added: "It is too soon to say whether we will be taking legal action against Castle Cement."
Clean-air campaigners made fresh calls for a ban on Cemfuel following the new claims about pollution levels at the Ribblesdale works.
They claim the new figures for emissions show that burning Cemfuel causes more pollution than burning coal. No breaches of limits were recorded from the coal burning kiln.
And the levels - compiled for the Environment Agency and now on the public register - show certain emissions from kilns burning Cemfuel were higher than from the kiln burning coal. However, a Castle Cement spokesman said: "Unfortunately, the information available on the public register has been misunderstood. What the group is trying to do is relate emission results to fuels when, in fact, the differences arise from different cement making processes."
He said the company had reported to the agency the occasions when emissions exceeded the permitted level and had provided it with information about the incidents.
The Environment Agency spokesman said it was aware that different kilns in operation at the site released different levels of sulphur emissions.
But Ribble Valley AirWatch representative Mrs Mary Horner insisted: "Castle should return to burning only coal in kilns five and six immediately. I want to see an immediate ban on Cemfuel."
Mrs Horner said that, as she understood, the agency only allowed the burning of waste fuel if it was shown to cause less pollution than burning coal.
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article