20. ReChem’s Meanings
Like most people in 1989, I didn’t have a personal computer at home. Our little Sinclair Spectrum had a printer with a paper roll like a till-receipt machine. I toyed with the idea of an Amstrad word processor but I settled for an electronic typewriter to replace the small mechanical one I’d been using for toxic waste correspondence. The new typewriter meant fewer corrections than the mechanical one, but its memory wouldn’t store more than one line of text so it wasn’t much use for manipulating my defence. That was been a task for a pencil and rubber. When I sent that handwritten defence to Sarah at the end of November, having taken into account the difference made to the writ by ReChem’s Statement of Claim, I added wistfully that there would be more evidence to come. Up until then I’d been ploughing a lonely furrow in assembling the contents, but when Sarah read what I’d done, and then began to question me about it, I could see the flowering of a productive partnership. Her approach encouraged me to build a new filing system for the writ, to match the one for the campaign, and in that new filing system I placed markers for evidence from events that I could see in the future.
Although I didn’t agree that my opponent’s imaginative meanings could be logically read into my BBC words, I knew that they might be accepted by the court as what I really meant. Whilst I was content to take those meanings on board, in the principles of my defence I did want to distinguish between those derived meanings and the clear content of the radio interview. In relation to ReChem’s claim that my words implied “sloppy and inefficient”, I put forward a dual argument:
I did not use either of the above terms. I did not use any term which is synonymous with sloppy. My words do not, in any way infer sloppiness. One major connotation of “sloppy” is that of performing in a careless manner with some lack of regard for standards. This has consistently not been an allegation I have made in relation to ReChem and this can be substantiated by absence of such inferences in my publications and broadcasts. If however we wish to pursue “sloppy” out of interest, then there are a number of incidents and observations which might support such a view e.g. Monday 13th November 1989: Drum fell out of incinerator, etc.
I used the term “second rate,” which I do not agree, in the context of the broadcast is synonymous with “inefficient” and neither is there an inference of inefficiency in the broadcast. I have in the past used the word inefficient occasionally, but I don’t like the inefficient/efficient contrast since efficiency is, to some extent, quantifiable within a continuum. Since the issue has become better understood, I have tended to be more precise in my positioning of ReChem’s incineration process on a scale of efficiency. Again, there is plenty of evidence, that within the international context, “second rate” is a good ball-park portrayal of ReChem’s incineration process from my view. Remember, that the subject was Canadian PCB waste and the proposed destiny for it the open door of ReChem’s incinerator. Epstein, Klepinger and Dundass, for example, have said it shouldn’t be done like that. More generally, the incinerator design does not match more modern higher-performance incinerators
As for the interpretation that I meant ReChem “could not be trusted to dispose of extremely toxic waste in a safe and efficient manner”, I argued:
The alleged inference firstly begs the question of whether it is that the process is, by its nature, safe and efficient, but that ReChem cannot be relied upon to keep it so i.e. the process itself being safe and efficient is a prerequisite of any argument about trust. During the broadcast, the prerequisite was not established and never did the question of trust arise. Trust has two important connotations here; one is personal and in the context of ReChem’s interpretation, seems to be the one meant. In the broadcast I did not, even remotely, invoke the idea of personal trustworthiness. The other connotation of trust relates to the concept of guarantee. Here ReChem does fall down badly. However, if you wish to pick up the personal thing, there are important examples of reasons why I, and large sections of the public, would not trust ReChem’s management to tell the whole truth and, by extrapolation, would not expect them to preside efficiently over the public protection interface. One the other hand, if we ignore the issue of “trust”, we are back to “safe and efficient,” which is of course not how I view the process and so the question of trust is somewhat overshadowed.
In the same paragraph, my opponents claimed I had meant that “in burning the Canadian PCBs” the plant was likely “to release highly toxic matter into the atmosphere . . .” I could hardly believe my luck, finding that the company wanted to take me on in that respect. I knew that legally viable evidence of contamination arising from atmospheric deposition from the plant was not available, but I wondered how well the company’s solicitors were briefed on the current complexities of the subject. Without revealing my full hand, in my submission I provided a glimpse of my secrets about site contamination.
ReChem, by its own admission releases PCBs, dioxins and dibenzo furans, though I did not say this in the broadcast. I did not mention atmosphere.Note that ReChem releases toxic substances into sewage and has high levels of dioxin contamination on site, probably not due to “atmospheric” emissions. ReChem’s incinerator ash also contains toxic substances. I said nothing of this.
Apart from airborne emissions, one undisputable route for chemical releases was in the liquid effluent discharges and although the leaked Welsh Water data went off the boil before it could damage Rechem, some contamination of sewage was inevitable because the company was allowed to discharge a range of substances up to certain consent levels. In my defence, the reference to contamination at the Pontypool site intentionally hinted at the data leaked by the ex-ReChem Special Operations Manager. It had been brought to the public’s attention, but only in part, by LLew Smith and had then been disputed by the company and ignored by the regulators. Llew and I new the full facts about 11 samples taken secretly at ReChem’s site in 1987, together with details of the circumstances in which test results were obtained. When these test results were leaked out to the MEP by the high ranking ex-manager, the initial outcome had been the media skirmish between Llew and the company. In the encounter, the company treated the results as insignificant whilst the Inspectorate appeared happy to stand back from the argument. Nothing developed from it. However, I had been privy to discussions with Llew, the ex-employee Mike Sanger and a few others. Over many months we did hundreds of calculations to show just what the results meant. Although Llew had made some of the figures public in 1988, he was unable to place them in their true context because of Mike Sanger’s fear of reprisals and a TV documentary on the subject was abandoned for that very reason. I now believed that these test results and our calculations would find a new lease of life in my defence in court. Mike Sanger assured me that although he would not be seen to substantiate the information voluntarily, if ordered do so by a court then he would testify. Despite that willingness I was still concerned about the consequences for Mike and I held back from providing more of his story to my solicitor, hoping that just a hint of what I knew would be enough to cause the other side some uneasiness.
Another of the meanings ReChem imaginatively drew from my words was that I meant the emissions were “endangering human life and health.” I didn’t, and wouldn’t, say anything like that due to the absence of standards for safe or tolerable levels of PCBs and their derivatives.So, I responded:
I did not suggest this, though it may be correctly deduced that I am motivated by my concern about this prospect. I feel it is a normal and acceptable concern to have and even to express it, though I did not express it. Neither ReChem the Inspectorate nor the government have shown that it is wrong to have such concern in the absence of “safe levels.”If we want to enter a debate on health, I have personal experience of suffering in the emissions from ReChem, so have many others. Accidents at ReChem have certainly endangered the life and health of workers at ReChem Pontypool. ReChem have also been fined for damaging crops with emissions in Scotland and for harming workers at a nearby factory, with emissions in Fawley.
There was also a claim that I’d calculated words to “disparage the company and their business.” In that interpretation, some real understanding was being shown by my opponents and I replied:
I have no objection to being accused of disparaging the technology, the standards and the regulation of ReChem and related activities, though I would like to frame my allegations in the context of the toxic waste which was the subject of the broadcast.
Finally, in these principles of my defence, when comparing the company’s meanings to my own and wanting to put my comments in perspective, I made some background points.I was only too aware that there was far more risk to an individual who said something misleading about a company than there was for a company saying something misleading about toxicological risks to the public. I felt that there was an imbalance in what was allowable on the different sides of the debate. In that respect and as broadcasters tend to, in its World Tonight broadcast the BBC had enlisted somebody to balance my comments. Prominent Hazardous Waste industry spokesman Henry Pullen was used in the programme. He said of PCB’s “. . . it’s a popular misconception that they’re highly toxic, they’re not.” Now, whatever the arguments about the degree of truth in my own comments, here was an indisputably misleading statement. It was frustrating that he could get away with saying something so wrong on the BBC, simply because his comments could have consequences for public health rather than for company profits. In my general points I wanted to ensure that, in court, it was understood that legal tolerance of the toxic waste trade’s misinformation was far greater than my own scope for getting away with any inaccuracy. In addition to depicting the bias, I wanted to make it clear that my perceptions were shared by local residents, so I wrote:
“Can we contrast the accuracy of my statements with the way in which my adversary in the broadcast gave misleading information about the safety of PCBs, etc?ReChem seem to have introduced the emotive words sloppy, trusted and carelessness. Although there is plenty of mileage in defending such inferences, I do not think such inferences follow naturally from my statements and they divert attention from the arguments surrounding efficiency, safety and control. The main thrust of the broadcast, and of my statements, was the St. Basile-le-Grande waste coming to ReChem, local elation at the course the issue had taken, plus how we view ReChem as a result of our experiences, observations and information together with our determination to protest against the waste in question.”
I appreciated that there were some aspects to my BBC defence that my solicitor might have difficulty in getting to grips with, but as far as the defence against the Evening Standard article was concerned, I tried to overcome the complications by saying:
I did speak of babies born with eye defects, but as usual I did not claim the defects were the result of emissions from ReChem. I have for many years adopted a standard approach to the eye defects aspect. It is this:
(i) There appears to be a cluster of similar, highly unusual eye defects surrounding the Roughmute Incinerator of ReChem and also surrounding the Pontypool incinerator.
(ii) Official surveys said by ReChem to prove no connection have been less conclusive than ReChem suggest.
(iii) Toxicological data tends to suggest a link between such eye defects and certain chemicals
(iv) Whilst it may (or may not) be possible to show a statistically significant incidence of eye defects in the ReChem area, it would be very difficult to show a direct causal link between ReChem and eye defects.
(v) That in view of the causal difficulty, I do not make such claims and I advise others not to.
(vi) Having been associated with some of the earlier publicity about children with eye defects, I, many years ago, decided not to draw attention to this aspect of the issue and I have generally tried to persuade the media not to pursue it. There will be substantial testimony to this effect.
The whole article contains a number of other distortions/exaggerations and the said “claim” is in keeping with the unrepresentative style of the article.
I genuinely believed that eye defects should not be completely ignored and I maintained contact with the uncle of the seriously impaired Buckley Thomas for many years, but I strove to ensure that the media knew where to draw the line. I didn’t expect to spend much more time dismissing the Evening Standard’s misrepresentation of my comments and I didn’t have to, though the matter didn’t quite end there.
Having collated the core of my evidence and having established the principles of my defence, I knew that I would then need to continue to build on it. Here the postage stamps from neighbours were valuable, supporting a continual flow of documents to Sarah as time was grew tighter and my energy in school was running down. Luckily, I was the type of teacher who wasn’t happy at a desk and although an active approach can be additionally tiring, it did at least stop me falling asleep in class.
Fortunately, I was still getting plenty of encouragement, from near and far, and ReChem’s writs were even brought up in parliament following the one-day inquiry of the Welsh Affairs Committee. On that day, early-evening TV showed ReChem having a rough ride when under interrogation by the MPs and the detailed background to the South Wales Argus headline, “Waste study was fixed by ReChem” was provided first by The Western Mail, now one of victims of legal action.The morning newspaper explained the basis for an allegation made by the parliamentary committee’s chairman Gareth Wardell. He took ReChem’s deputation to task over the company’s claims about its own test results for PCBs and dioxins, suggesting that the results could have been deliberately manipulated.MP Dr. Alan Williams supported the scathing stance by saying that ReChem’s submission to the inquiry was one of the most despicable documents he had ever read and was lacking in scientific integrity. A few days after the hearing, another participant in the inquiry, Richard Livesey, spoke-out against Rechem’s injunctions and writs. The Welsh Lib-Dem leader, supported by other MPs, tabled two motions, the first of which customarily asked the Secretary of State for Wales for a Public Inquiry whereas the second motion targeted the stifling of the media by legal threats, with:
That this house notes the justifiable interest in Wales of the inquiry by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs into toxic wastes and especially evidence concerning the ReChem incineration plant at Pontypool, but is concerned that media coverage should not be unduly influenced by the number of writs issued by the company against newspapers, broadcasting companies, organisations or individuals and notes the apparent intimidation felt by local people in the area surrounding the plant who fear that their right to freedom of speech will be impeded by legal action.
It looked as if the MPs were, in a way, elaborating on the comments I’d made to the BBC, by joining together the evidence of contamination, the capability for covering it up and the safeguarding of the position by litigation. An ordinary person would have found it far too risky to place contamination, manipulation and legal suppression together in the same context, but the MPs had the protection of Parliamentary privilege. Still, it meant that I could now use their remarks in my defence and possibly begin to make use of the Torfaen Council’s evidence of contamination too, which the MP’s had suddenly made more respectable by virtue of their derisory view of ReChem’s own contamination results. However, whilst the quest for proof of local contamination had now edged forward alongside the denting of ReChem’s reputation, the final proof I needed was still far away. Furthermore, even if contamination became evident, proof that the plant itself was the cause of it was a challenge not even on the legal starting blocks.
The institutional refusal to connect ReChem with contamination, which the parliamentary inquiry implicitly challenged, lay principally with ReChem’s main source of support, the Pollution Inspectorate.The publicised leak of Pollution Head and suicide victim Brian Ponsford’s revealing report had occurred when the government was about to launch its Environmental Protection Bill.The report revealed a crisis at the Inspectorate, a body which had struggled since its inception in 1987. Serious staff shortages, difficulties in recruitment, the resignation of senior officers, and deficiencies in monitoring came to light. The Sunday Correspondent of 10th December led with: “Crisis grips green watchdog. Exclusive: Report reveals shambles at the heart of UK pollution policy, after director’s death.” Other headlines inside the newspaper were: “Pollution agency in chaos as staff quit” and one to my liking, “The impotent inspectorate?”
Right from the beginning I’d realised the practical difficulties the regulatory bodies encountered in applying adequate controls to the Pontypool plant. Regardless of the leaked report, I had a good idea of how things were going at the Pollution Inspectorate and that’s why I criticised the regulatory system in August’s World Tonight interview, therefore, I was a little disappointed when I didn’t immediately see press reports of the Welsh MPs explicitly dealing with regulation in their December inquiry. A month later, however, Alun Williams returned to the Rechem issue, and his broaching of the subject in the House of Commons during a debate on the Environmental Protection Bill was publicised. He referred to his increased understanding of incinerator regulation and made my criticisms look mild in describing the Inspectorate’s monitoring of the Pontypool incinerator as, “Do-it-yourself pollution control”, or more fully :
HMIP has been visiting the incinerator for sampling only twice a year and it carries out an analysis of the flue gases which looks only for particulates and carbon monoxide. Analysis of PCBs and dioxins is carried out by Rechem itself, and that is appalling. It is do-it -yourself pollution control.
He also compared monitoring in Britain to the better provision in other countries. It was only then that I could assume that the Welsh Affairs Committee inquiry had not just been critical of Rechem but that its MPs were actually getting to grips with the regulatory background too. The whole subject appeared to become infectious, as MPs other than those in Wales grew interested in the technicalities of incineration. I’d always felt that many of ReChem’s proponents had treated the open hearth entry point for waste as an elephant in the room and too implausible to be true. Therefore I was lifted by the comments of Liberal Democrat Malcolm Bruce, who managed to see what others couldn’t see and who, importantly for me, claimed to be unimpressed by the basic design of the open-hearth furnace.
The leaking of the Pollution Inspectorate’s self critical report in December came in parallel with the Governments own depressing announcement on health and safety at work. In Wales, the number of factory inspectors fell by around 20% over the 10 years from 1979. Along with that, workplace inspections reduced and industrial accidents rose. This is precisely what I foresaw when, in Industry, I made my final encounter with a factory inspector. In addition to the deteriorating situation in the Civil Service, local authority Environmental Health departments were also experiencing difficulties with staffing. Whilst the general worsening of health & safety and pollution controls was causing understandable concern for those in a government which was launching the flagship Environment Bill, I couldn’t help thinking that the sad state of affairs had all been part of a plan.