David Levy’s Account of the public meeting at Westbury Town Hall
7th July 2008

The meeting was called to help explain the rogue dioxin emission recorded in February 2008 to the town council. The following notes arise from attending the meeting:

Lafarge – Have confidence in our monitoring agencies’ competence and have to go through rigorous testing procedures to be accredited.

Lafarge – We have looked at this result and although the production process was running normally we have no explanation for why this high result happened therefore we ask you to believe us that this result must be a false reading.

Could it be that the company are unaware of the contradiction in their evidence?

TATWBG have asked the Environment Agency (EA) about the dioxin testing done by AMESA both in this country and also around Europe and so far it has been un-forthcoming…

…YET, Dawn Moore of Lafarge had that information tonight and more she had a Mr Tipping from the EA saying that the results prove that this system is not necessary for the cement industry.

Dawn failed to mention the system is used in cement companies across Europe. and that Tim Loveday site inspector for the Agency said in a liaison meeting with TATWBG that these rogue results are happening throughout the industry [as if that was a reassurance!]. This had an opposite effect on me and made me wonder how frequently these results occur, especially as there has been only 33 extractive tests done in 7 years. Hardly reassuring to the public when measuring such nasty chemicals.
In our view this is because those at senior Agency level are doing all in their power to have business as usual without precautionary principles applying.

Public involvement was limited but the issue of plume grounding was a real hot topic. There were those in the audience who have written and complained about odour and being overwhelmed by emissions. This represented a cross-section of those who attended.

I have asked those people to send samples to the Agency for chemical analysis and I will ask the University of The West of England to verify by analysing duplicates put into sterile containers.

It is about time two things happened:

1. Firstly the Agency sponsored by the HPA should insist on AMESA being fitted to Westbury as standard so we can have more data about dioxins and shed some light on the inadequate dioxin data.
2. Secondly the issue of plume grounding can be settled by the Agency reasonably easily. By using LIDAR on the emissions they can establish the chemical composition of what is coming out of the stack and where it comes down. That is known by the Agency, so why have they not delivered this for the public they should be there to serve.

Unfortunately the answer lies in the regime of Government appeasement of industry. The Environment Agency have the power to insist on Lidar and AMESA – these means are inexpensive ways to reassure the public about their concerns and it exposes the unknown.

One resident asked me how long he had to be in plume grounding to be poisoned. Good question! I don’t know the Answer and I am sure the Agency and Company don’t either.

The town council failed to suspend proceedures for half an hour to let the public question Lafarge and deferred to another to be arranged meeting in August. Disappointing.

Lastly chlorine and chlorides in the cement kiln dust have been causing a problem about the levels the company can reinstate into the production process. IF SRF from the MBT technologies are used as a fuel the plastics in the fuel mix will affect the levels of that chlorine to higher levels therefore the chemical analysis of the CKD is essential and the issue of CKD disposal is important.

David Levy
Chair TATWBG
July 7th 2008 22.30