Sunday, August 20, 2006


In the USA tobacco companies are being forced to advertise for a whole year: "WE HAVE LIED TO YOU ABOUT THE HEALTH IMPACT OF OUR PRODUCTS", because they have been racketeering, and have actually LIED to the public about the health impact of their products.

When can we expect the same about the CEMENT companies, who STILL tell the gullible that the plants "ONLY GIVE OUT WATER VAPOUR AND HARMLESS CARBON DIOXIDE"? See Rugby Cement propaganda leaflet.

Has 18 POINT SOURCES all emitting "dust" - health damaging PARTICULATE - in addition to the MAIN STACK. These dusts are largely unmonitored, and the gases are largely unmonitored, and not reported. The Cemex company and the Environment Agency STILL REFUSE to answer any questions about these emissions. The Environment Agency's dispersion models of these "low level point sources", known as AQMAU 1 and AQMAU 2, contained the information that was HIDDEN by the Environment Agency when they decided to permit the Rugby Cement plant to become a CO-INCINERATOR. The Public IPPC CONSULTATION in 2001-2003 was a complete and utter SHAM as the information needed, and requested, by the public, the health authority, the Rugby Borough Council, the MP Andy King, the Rugby Cement Community Forum, Faber Maunsell the air quality consultants and by RUGBY IN PLUME was HIDDEN.

This failure to comply with the Law, failure to consult openly and honestly, has lead to the COURTS, where it was found by the High Court in March 2005, and confirmed in June 2006 by the Court of Appeal, that the Agency had indeed breached the common law duty of disclosure and had acted unfairly - in order to get the cement plant changed to a co-incinerator. As a direct result of the Agency's actions Rugby residents are now told the CO-INCINERATOR plant is to burn petcoke and tyres together, and soon to co-incinerate London's household and commercial waste. The 27th July Public Question Time Debate witnessed a refusal to answer many technical questions, and STILL they go on in the same mode. This abuse of power, and failure to consult properly, has now lead to a PETITION of the HOUSE of LORDS.

Rugby in Plume have finally discovered, after years of investigation, that the Rugby Borough Council colluded with the Environment Agency to HIDE the initial 1999 IPC application and consultation (request to operate at all), from the public, to keep the information off the Public Register even up until May 2006, and to give no response to it at that time, when they had a one month consultation period. RBC officers made NO EFFORT whatsoever, then or at ANY STAGE, to try to PROTECT Rugby residents, to LIMIT the harmful effects of the plant, the emissions, the volume of traffic - the TOTAL BURDEN! They did NOTHING !! and an investigation is now going on to find out IF the officers decided to do this "nothing" all by themselves, and if so under what authority were they acting, or did some RBC Councillors have a hand in it, and is that why the elected long-standing Councillors REFUSE to answer any questions?

The Director of the Clean Air Program for the Sierra Club reports: In the USA over the last decade, several thousand commercial, public and industrial waste incinerators have had to shut down due to new federal Clean Air Act regulations to reduce stack emissions, public pressures to reduce waste streams at generators, community pressures against nearby existing incinerators, escalating costs to comply with new federal regulations, serious accidents & explosions, legal actions by citizens, operational problems, political pressures, citations for violations & enforcement, whistle blowers revealing major problems, alternative options like recycling and other factors.

As far as I'm aware, almost no new municipal waste incinerators, no new hazardous waste incinerators, no new medical waste incinerators and no new cement kilns that are seeking to become incinerators are being built in the USA. Thousands of existing municipal and medical waste incinerators have permanently closed down and quite a few hazardous waste incinerators. Commercial facilities have had major challenges staying in business with almost no new ones being built. Even plasma incinerators have had a steep challenge trying to sell the public on these new contraptions.

In Houston, Texas, one of the last proposed commercial hazardous waste incinerators (American EnviroTech) in the USA in 1991 finally obtained its federal RCRA permit years about 1998 after applying but the incinerator has never been built because of vehement public opposition in Houston and a legal fight over who owned the property where it was to be sited; the permit is now voided. And a large commercial medical waste incinerator (EnviroGuard) near Houston was finally permitted but never built because of escalating economic costs and factors not anticipated when the permit application was submitted.

The number of incinerators in the USA continues to sharply decline. Nearly 6,200 medical waste and municipal waste incinerators or 97-98% have closed down and this trend continues for several reasons: new federal MACT standards and public opposition are probably the two biggest reasons. The number of North American commercial hazardous waste incinerators has dropped from 26 to 12 with more than 50% permanently closed since the mid 1990s. Several hundred new proposed medical and municipal waste incinerator projects never got past the early phases due to intense public opposition. More existing facilities are permanently closing down every year in the USA!

2006 USA Cement Kiln update:

A decrease of more than 50% in the number of cement kilns (CKs) and smaller lightweight aggregate kilns (LWACKs) commerically burning hazardous waste has occurred in the USA since 1990. However, 14 cement kilns & 4 LWACKs are currently burning varying volumes of hazardous waste with some relatively small amounts. At least 14 other cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns and a processor have stopped burning all hazardous waste since 1990. Another one-two dozen cement kilns and LWACKs were prevented from burning hazardous waste in the 1990s when they sought federal and state permission; several burning HW illegally and most were never prosecuted. The result is that the number of cement kilns and LWACKs burning or seeking permission to burn HW has dropped from over 40 sites to 18.
Tell the pyromaniacs that there is a distinct downward trend in pyromania in the USA.

As you are all very aware the pyro-maniacs are hitting us with everything they have got. Politicans are falling over themselves to grant industry its every wish. In many countries cement kilns are being put forward as the answer to industries hazardous waste problems. What is the point in groups campaigning against hazardous waste incinerators when the industry is using cement kilns to dispose of this waste if these groups dont support those fighting this 'inicneration by th eback door' practice?. The cement industry throughout Europe is almost writing its own legislation/regulations and poses a very real danger to the environment and public health.
In the UK after a 16 years fight the community of Belvedere is looking odds on to be getting a huge MSW incinerator. The people of Cheshire are facing a proposal by PEEL HOLDINGS for a 600,000tpa MSW (although Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough council have objected to the plan) but another danger is Cheshire County Council are very, very keen to build a 500,000 tpa MSW on the industrial estate.
The people of Hull who defeated an application for a hazardous waste incinerator in the early 1990s, after celebrating a successful battle against a proposed MSW incinerator only a couple of years ago, are once again the target of the industry.
'Democracy' is abused every day by arrogant birds of passage politicians, and every planning proposal granted shows how hollow "by the people for the people" really is.
I would like to encourage you and your organization to join the GAIA 2006 Global Day of Action Against Waste and Incineration. We need to seriously amplify our call for a healthier/toxic-free environment - especially with the resurgence of incineration technologies throughout Europe and USA.
incineration flies in the face of a genuine Zero Waste community. A company needs a 25-30 years contract signed before anyone will put up the money to build them. If communities recycling and reuse etc, the waste will not be there and the contracts will not be signed, so pursuing a Zero Waste policy is good.

We need to fight every inch of the way to safeguard our childrens future.
There are alternatives to incineration. We have won every argument put forward by the pyro-maniacs for burning. We have shown the technology to be seriously flawed, (just look at the amount of industry reported incidents at the UK's new generation of burners); the enormous cost not only of building a plant but of running one; how polluting the process is; what a waste of valuable resources it is; the amount of jobs it provides compared to recycling/composting the same amount of waste.

We should not forget the lies the industry and its supporters have churned out over the last 3 decades about the impact of incineration and its efforts to play down the toxicity of many of the chemcials emitted daily by their so-called safe - strictly monitored machines.

No comments: