| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Evans: I would welcome a fuller health analysis of the impact of burning Cemfuel and plume grounding. It is a vital issue for me. [Interruption.] I know that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford(Mr. Burns) may not be interested, but we are discussing a cement kiln in my constituency that concerns the vast majority of my constituents, although tonight's debate is not the right vehicle for debating it.
My constituents are also interested in a number of issues outside the burning of Cemfuel and plume grounding. Mention has also been made of waste incineration plants. Some of my constituents have a financial interest in what is happening at Castle Cement and other cement kilns around the country.
I spoke at the structure plan meeting in Clitheroe on Friday. I was adamant that the Castle Cement plant should not be turned into a waste incineration plant by the back door. If the company wishes to go down that route, it should apply for full planning permission from the local authority so that the case can be judged on its merits.I would fight it tooth and nail. If we were to start again, Castle Cement would not get permission to set up on its present site. However, it is there now and provides jobs to the local economy. I cannot look back 60 years. We have to accept that the plant is there. We have to make as best a job of it as we possibly can and look for ways of improving health and the environment.
I wrote to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. I wanted the Committee to consider the impact of burning Cemfuel. I look forward to a full report from the Minister on the points that were raised in the excellent Select Committee report. I hope that that will arrive sooner rather than later, now that the results of some of the investigations have been returned to the Department.
I am also interested in commercial confidentiality.I would like to see the ingredients of Cemfuel to be made public so that everybody can see what is happening. The sooner that happens the better it will be, not only for Castle Cement but for any other areas where there is burning of secondary fuel. We need to reassure the public. I have always stated that I am not an expert on these matters. I have always relied on Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which is an independent body, to carry out the analysis and the testing.
I spoke to Peter del Strother, the works manager at Castle Cement, on Sunday and he told me that there is far more testing and monitoring at Castle Cement than at any other cement kiln in the United Kingdom because of the interest that has been raised. I am sure that a great deal of information has been collected for the Minister and HMIP to consider.
In April, Castle Cement has to produce its proposals to prevent the plume from grounding. I understand that it is considering a number of possibilities. Castle Cement must join HMIP to find the most effective way of preventing the plume from grounding and ensuring that they stop the smell and any pollution coming from the chimney. They must reassure the public that there are no harmful emissions.
I know that people will inquire about the cost. Whatever it is, it will be worth while if it prevents the plume from grounding, stops the smell and allays public concern as to what is coming out of the kiln. If Castle Cement and HMIP are satisfied that they have found a solution to the problem--for example, introducing scrubbers into the plant--but it will cost millions of pounds, then so be it.
I want to ensure that a solution is found as quickly as possible: I do not know why we must wait until the end of December. I hope that HMIP will be able to use its influence over Castle Cement to ensure that, once a solution is found, work on the plant will start immediately. The recent lengthening of the chimney by 15 m has not solved the problem. I am sure that it cost the company a considerable sum, but it did not prove effective. I hope that Castle Cement will reassure the public that it will take speedy action as soon as a solution is announced.
The area must be cleaned up. I know that there is another problem involving Castle Cement and quarrying. I am sure that it will shortly make another application to begin quarrying across the road. I opposed its initial quarrying application because I felt that it would be detrimental to the local environment. The Ribble Valley is one of the most beautiful areas in the United Kingdom. It attracts a considerable number of tourists and it is the area to which, allegedly, Her Majesty the Queen would like to retire--I hope that that will not occur for a long time. We want to attract many more tourists to the Ribble Valley, but we cannot do so if there is a deterrent to their visiting and staying in the area.
We must clean up the area. Peter del Strother has assured me that, once the current quarry reaches the end of its useful life, the company plans to fill it with water and restore the natural habitat which will attract more tourists. However, we must ensure that any other quarrying applications by Castle Cement are appropriate to the area. Although Castle Cement has enjoyed good relations with the people of Clitheroe, because of the way in which Cemfuel was introduced into the area and a number of other occurrences, that good will has been lost. It must win back public confidence, and finding a proper solution to the plume grounding in April is a good place to start.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison):
I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the debate and to set out the Government's approach on this important subject. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) set out his views in some detail. I am sure that he is generous enough to acknowledge the role that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has played as the Member who represents Clitheroe and the rest of the Ribble valley. My hon. Friend has taken a thoroughgoing and close interest in the subject and has already made numerous representations to my Department and to others on many of the subjects that the House has covered this evening, especially on plume grounding.
The subject is also of interest to another of my hon. Friends, the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale(Sir M. Lennox-Boyd), who cannot be here tonight. He is interested in the subject from a different direction because he represents the constituency in which Cemfuel is manufactured by the company Solrec, to which the hon. Member for Pendle has adverted. My hon. Friend also has a keen interest in the subject and has made representations to the Government.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish(Mr. Bennett) made his contribution and set out his interests as the Chairman of the Environment Select
Committee. Understandably, he raised the question of the Government's response to the Select Committee report, which was also of concern to the hon. Member for Pendle. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish set out fairly the circumstances which appertained when the Select Committee's investigation was first carried out. As he told the House, the Government made an initial response and he is now waiting for the full and considered response from the Government. He will have that response very soon.
Mr. Bennett:
Will the Under-Secretary define "very soon"?
Mr. Clappison:
I am sure that question has cropped up before. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government share his interest in ensuring that there is a proper system of regulation for potentially polluting processes. I am sure that he will understand that the Government want to give a full and considered response to the Select Committee's report. I know that the Select Committee has taken a great interest in the subject.
The system of regulation is a good starting point for me to talk about how cement works are regulated. In 1990, the Government introduced a major new initiative in the regulation of industrial processes--the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That Act singles out complex industrial processes with the potential for significantly polluting the environment and places them under a particularly rigorous regime known as integrated pollution control. I am sure that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is familiar with that. In England and Wales, such processes, which include cement works, are regulated by HMIP.
Integrated pollution control incorporates two main aims of the Government's policy for environmental protection. We aim, first, to ensure that the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost--known by my favourite acronym, BATNEEC--are used to prevent or minimise the release of substances prescribed under the 1990 Act and to render harmless any such substances which are released and, secondly, to consider harm to the environment as a whole.
The 1990 Act seeks to ensure public confidence by making the regulatory process transparent and open to public scrutiny and comment. Copies of the application, of any authorisation or monitoring returns required by the authorisation and, where appropriate, notices of any formal enforcement action taken by HMIP are placed on public registers. The public have full and open access to those registers.
BATNEEC aims to balance the costs of abating pollution against the benefits to the environment of achieving such abatement. BATNEEC does not require or authorise HMIP to seek to reduce environmental impact to nil, whatever the cost. The object is to render the impact to nil, or reduce it, so far as that can be done without imposing excessive abatement costs. It is important to recognise that the responsibility for delivering environmental protection lies with the operator. It is for the operator to conceive, design, build and operate his process in such a way as to meet the requirements of the law.
I refer next to the particular question of the cement industry and its use of secondary liquid fuels in cement kilns. Cement is made by mixing limestone or chalk with clay minerals in defined proportions, then heating the mixture to high temperatures. Cement manufacture is an energy-intensive process in which energy costs represent a large percentage of variable costs.
The cement-making process incorporates several features that make it suitable for burning substitute fuels. For example, it is a continuous process and has high thermal stability suitable for destroying organic materials. Materials are heated for a long time, and heavy metals are trapped in the cement clinker in a non-leachable form.
Cemfuel is a trade name for a type of secondary liquid fuel that is blended to a specification developed by Castle Cement. Secondary liquid fuels are normally a blend of residues from solvent recovery operations and used solvents that cannot be recovered for recycling. They are flammable and, although they contain some pollutants that require control, make excellent fuels.
Cement companies in the United States of America and some European countries have been using waste solvents as a partial substitute for conventional fuels, to reduce energy costs. That practice was started in this country by the Castle Cement plant at Clitheroe in 1992. Subsequently, all major UK cement manufacturers have sought to adopt the practice.
Government policy on the burning of substitute fuels in cement and lime kilns was detailed in a parliamentary answer on 23 June 1994, which made clear the Government's policy that there would be no more such trials than necessary to allow HMIP to determine BATNEEC; the operator must provide satisfactory data on baseline operations before trials commence, which must include emission data and kiln operating data; all trials must be to an agreed schedule; if any trial is adversely affecting the environment, it must stop; HMIP must agree the specification for substitute fuel in advance; and the operator must provide continuous monitors for particulates, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and oxygen.
Having outlined those important considerations, I refer to the specific question of the burning of Cemfuel at Clitheroe. The use of Cemfuel at the Clitheroe plant started in 1992. At that time the plant was registered under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. It is important that the House bears in mind the history of the matter. That registration allowed the company to use Cemfuel in combination with coal. Regulations made under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 required all cement plants to seek authorisations under that legislation by the end of February 1993. Castle Cement duly applied and, after statutory and public consultation, was authorised by HMIP in November 1993 as an existing process. The use of Cemfuel was included in the authorisation as, at that time, the available information from monitoring data indicated that no harm was being caused to the environment.
In July 1994, HMIP developed the parliamentary answer of 23 June into a protocol for the testing of SLF in cement kilns, which was to be applied to all plants undergoing trials with secondary liquid fuel. Although Castle Cement, Clitheroe, was entitled by law to continue to use SLF under its authorisation, HMIP required the company to adjust its operations, so that it could carry out
an emission monitoring trial that, as far as practicable, met the requirements of the protocol. HMIP made it clear that it would review the authorisation once the results of the emission monitoring were known. The company used the monitoring results to assess the potential effects that the use of SLF might have on the environment and reported that assessment in December 1994.
HMIP placed advertisements in the local newspapers to announce the opening of a consultation period on the continuing use of Cemfuel at Clitheroe. The public were invited to comment. In addition, documents produced by the company were sent to the local council, the local borough council, the National Rivers Authority, the local waste regulation authority, the Health and Safety Executive, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the local health authority, the Department of Health, and others.
HMIP carried out a detailed assessment of the monitoring results and found no significant change in the releases of the major pollutants: sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides with or without Cemfuel. There appeared to be an increase in particulate releases when burning Cemfuel, although the concentrations found were within those currently authorised. No change was found in the levels of dioxins released, which are very low whichever fuel is used. Because of the general anxiety about the effect of dioxins on human health, HMIP carried out a detailed study of the fate of emitted dioxins, which covered transfer to plants by deposition, to herbivores in grazing and then to humans via the food chain. It showed that there was no significant difference between coal and coal plus Cemfuel.
Overall, the releases of heavy metals from the process were found to be low and of little environmental significance, although some individual metals were found at higher levels, and some at lower levels, during the burning of Cemfuel. The overall conclusion was that the use of Cemfuel does not result in any net adverse environmental effect.
MAFF analysed milk, as part of the human food chain, from a number of farms in the vicinity of the Clitheroe plant. The results showed that the levels of dioxins, heavy metals and arsenic were within the range normally found in milk in the UK.
The public had expressed concerns about the perceived ill-health effects caused by the use of Cemfuel. HMIP sought advice from MAFF, East Lancashire health authority and the Department of Health on human health effects from the burning of Cemfuel. The advice that it received, which was publicly announced, stated that, first, it is unlikely that there will be any unacceptable effects on the human food chain arising from the use of Cemfuel at Clitheroe; secondly, there is no evidence of increased admissions to hospitals, increased prescribing of anti-asthma therapies or increased levels of asthma and cancer in the area as a result of burning Cemfuel--indeed, the standard of health in the area is rather better than in some other parts of Lancashire--thirdly, it is unlikely that the ambient level of any of the pollutants released from the burning of Cemfuel are responsible for the increase in complaints of eye and upper respiratory tract irritation recorded in the area; and, fourthly, there is no scientific evidence relating to the emissions to support
the assertion that the use of Cemfuel at Clitheroe is likely to be more harmful to human health than the use of coal.
I now turn to a separate concern about the plant at Clitheroe--the problem known as plume grounding, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley is familiar. He has made representations on this subject and has taken a close interest. This phenomenon is where the plume from the plant chimneys may reach the ground prematurely in certain weather conditions. There were practically no complaints about this at the time of the original authorisation. However, as the local public opposition and concern about the use of Cemfuel has built up, the number of complaints about plume grounding have increased.
Plume grounding is not caused by Cemfuel but rather is a consequence of the cement plant and its interaction with local weather and topography. However, there is public concern about plume grounding, and in response to a high number of complaints about the site, HMIP commissioned the National Physical Laboratory to perform continuous monitoring of emissions from the plant when burning Cemfuel in areas that are subject to plume grounding. That exercise was conducted for24 hours a day over the period 7 August to 1 September 1995. As a feature of the exercise, NPL scientists operated a hotline service through which members of the public could report incidents and so provide an opportunity for the NPL to monitor on-going plume grounding incidents as they were in progress.
The full report from the NPL was placed on the public registers. The results showed that accepted air quality limits were not exceeded on any occasion, but the NPL did report some eye and chest irritation effects on a number of occasions.
I have already mentioned that HMIP sought advice on the health effects of burning Cemfuel from MAFF, East Lancashire health authority and the Department of Health. On the separate issue of plume grounding, those organisations advised HMIP that it appeared possible that concentrations of sulphur dioxide in the grounded plume were sufficient at times to induce eye and upper respiratory tract irritation. That seemed to be independent of the fuel used, as the stack emissions--and hence the ground level concentrations--did not differ between the two fuels, coal and Cemfuel. People with asthma might expect to be more affected than others, but ailments such as headache and nausea could not be attributed to substances recorded in the emissions.
HMIP takes plume grounding seriously. The variation to the Castle Cement authorisation issued on 23 January requires the company to advance firm proposals to solve the problem, with the aim of implementing them by the end of the year. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley has taken a close interest in the problem, and in what is to be done about it. Properly designed engineering solutions for large industrial plants take time; in this instance, the tight schedule imposed on the company reflects the urgency that HMIP attaches to the problem. Depending on the company's success in remedying it, the inspectorate will then consider whether the authorisation should be varied yet further, or even rescinded.
In allowing the continued use of Cemfuel at the plant, HMIP has imposed strict requirements on the company. They include a reduction in the percentage of Cemfuel
that can be used, and a lowering of the limits for heavy metals and sulphur. There are also individual limits on the amount of chromium, lead and nickel in the Cemfuel. The use of Cemfuel is forbidden if the plant is working at low loads, when dust emissions are high or when the electrostatic precipitator is not working fully. Limits have been placed on all major pollutants, and, in particular, those on dioxins are the same for chemical waste incinerators.
This is not an easy subject, but it is important. I hope that in the short time allowed to me I have been able to convince the House of the priority that the Government attach to having an overall, proper national system of regulation, and to the specific problems of the Castle Cement plant in Clitheroe. The Government are determined to achieve a satisfactory environmental solution to all the problems.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |