Thursday, February 16, 2006

Yet MORE questions from the public

RIP, New Bilton Against Tyre Burning, Sustainable Rugby, are ONLY A FEW of the groups and individuals asking questions.

Another set of questions from concerned Rugby residents has been sent to Jeremy Wright MP; Karen Stone RBC EHO; Helen King Director Rugby Primary Care Trust; Carlos Uruchurtu, Manager Cemex plant Rugby; Rugby Advertiser; as follows:

ON reading the Article "I'm impressed says MP at cement plant" in the Advertiser 15th December 2005, the following questions and comments spring to mind:

1. We note that the plant in Staffordshire has been burning tyres for ten years (as a substitute for coal). Does this mean that the Rugby plant will follow suit? Or is the 40% mixture as has been suggested a non-runner?

2. The headline suggests that Jeremy Wright MP was impressed with the plant
near the village of Cauldon. We would like to know what the prevailing wind is in the area? Also how often is its plume directed towards Cauldon?

3. The nitrous oxide level is mentioned and we are told the amounts have not caused problems. However, what about toxic particulates? Further, have questions been asked about respiratory diseases that have occurred over te ten years at Cauldon?

4. It mentions the fact that there is no direct comparison between the two plants, but obviously the environment is of great importance. If it is a rural district around the Cauldon plant, are the crops and animals being affected by the discharge?

5. Other substitute fuels have been used at the Staffordshire plant. Are similar experiments being carried out at Rugby?

6. What will happen when the supply of high-grade tyres runs out? It seems that there must be other methods of disposing of the tyre mountain!

7. We realise that the companies are in business to make profits, but why has it to be to the detriment of the health of the Rugby and the surrounding area's population?

We await replies. Will keep you posted.

1 comment:

Cauldon pollution watch said...

Hi there! The Cauldon cement plant is a dry process plant that does not have the plume grounding problems you suffer in Rugby. We have seen your site, and the stack cam that you had last year.

Our plant is in an isolated rural location about 2 miles due south of Waterhouses. It is near the supply of raw material, and is as far as is possible, in an ideal location for a cement plant. There are only a few houses anywhere within the vicinity. We are amazed to see the Rugby cement plant, with its great big wet plume, located to the west so that obviously all the plume blows onto the town for much of the time.

Emission limits are set by the Environment Agency for cement plants "in rural areas", and it says in the BREF (Euopean Guidance) cement guidance notes that there is no need to consider anything else as that is where kilns are "always" located. Except in the case of Rugby where it seems residents have been singled out for "punishment"! No one knows how they got away with it as we understand that there is no raw material in Rugby, and no train link or roads either, except through the town centre. Someone told us that Rugby Cement deliberately built on the railway that used to go into the works and that Warwickshire County Council gave them permission to shut the railway to build a baging plant on it to increase the lorries by 400 a day, and to save the cement works money. Is this true?

Do you not get coal dust all over from the unloading at Rugby station? Can you put a picture of that on line? In the meantime contact me and we will be delighted to show you round the works at Cauldon. There is another works at Hope as well, and we can show you that also. It is similarly isolated, and is similarly a dry process plant.