DESIGN faults at a toxic waste incinerator allowed dangerous emissions

to devastate a Stirlingshire farmer's herd of pedigree cows, the High

Court in London was told yesterday.

The design of the ReChem plant in Bonnybridge was altered as it was

being built, allowing it to process more solid waste. But the new design

and the way the plant was operated allowed deadly dioxins and PCBs to

escape into the atmosphere, it was alleged.

Dairy farmer Andrew Graham, 60, and his wife Irene are seeking

compensation from international waste disposers, ReChem.

In a trial expected to last six months, the Grahams will allege that

toxic emissions from the ReChem incinerator at Roughmute, Bonnybridge,

wrought havoc on their cattle.

The court was told how their pedigree Ayrshire milking herd was

devastated by the alleged pollution, with some dying of ailments

resulting from contamination and others having to be put down because

their milk yield was so low as to be uneconomic.

Fumes and oily residues caused by smoke coming from the incinerator

also made life for Bonnybridge residents a misery on many occasions, the

court heard.

Residue alleged to be toxic landed on grass at the Grahams' farm,

where it was eaten by their herd of 296 prime milking stock, it was

claimed.

In the months before the ReChem plant closed in 1984, milk yields from

the Grahams' herd fell from an average of 17 litres a cow to just 4.6

litres.

Southampton-based ReChem deny all blame.

They admit the Grahams' herd suffered illness but claim it was caused

by Fat Cow Syndrome -- an ailment associated with excessive dietary

supplements -- and not toxic emissions from their incinerator.

Mr Graham is seeking compensation for the damage allegedly caused to

cattle grazing on his West Bankhead Farm in Denny, Stirlingshire -- two

miles from the ReChem stack.

The court heard his prize herd grazed on West Bankhead Farm during the

summer months, spending the rest of the year on his home property of

Tambowie Farm, Milngavie, near Glasgow.

Mr John Melville-Williams QC, for the Grahams, told the court that as

the incinerator was being built in 1974, the energy crisis prompted a

sudden redesign.

''It was designed to incinerate liquid waste but before it was built

they wanted to adapt the incinerator to burn more solids, and that was

done as it was being built.''

To be rendered harmless, the PCBs need to be incinerated in controlled

conditions at temperatures of at least 1100 degrees, counsel said.

''Burners are switched on if the temperature drops below a certain

level.

''Temperature indicators were positioned too close to the sides of the

burning chamber so they were measuring heat from the sides and not from

the gas flue.

''It was found in reports by experts for the Grahams that the

temperature was not being correctly recorded, which makes it quite

difficult for proper control to be organised,'' he said.

The method of loading the solid wastes into the incinerater were also

negligent, counsel alleged.

''Our submission is that the method of loading was that a door had to

be opened and there would be an uncontrolled ingress of air.

''There was a recommendation for a mechanical handling system that

would do away with this problem but that never happened.

''It is like putting a large lump of something on a household fire --

there is a burst of flame but the centre core does not get incinerated

properly. That is a crude example of what we say happened here.''

The hearing continues.