Sunday, December 17, 2006




(Peter Aengenheister)
(Rugby Advertiser 14 Dec.)

Tonight (Thursday) there is a public meeting to further discuss Cemex's report justifying tyre burning. (see below). Members of the public are able to speak on the basis of having produced submitted questions - all except Lilian Pallikaropoulos, and anyone from
Rugby in Plume! Anti cement works campaigner and RIP stalwart Mrs. P. although now unable to attend was told she was barred from making any vocal representation.

Mrs. P. had submitted seven written questions but Sean Lawson Head of EHO at RBC says the questions were not relevant to the issues on the Agenda. The aim of the meeting was to scrutinise a Cemex report which justifies tyre-burning and Mrs. P. Claims the Council is trying to GAG HER!

That WOULD APPEAR TO BE THE CASE - at least that is the way it appears. It also APPEARS that the Council is being DICTATORIAL and MANIPULATING, and not in the most constructive way. It might give the Council a smoother meeting, but, true or not, it will be considered WHITEWASHED WITH SPIN, and the DEBATE STIFLED and UNREPRESENTATIVE!

We will be there tonight at the Town Hall at 5.30pm to see whether the Council's jack-booted storm troopers are forced to eject Mrs.P's GANG of AGITATORS, DISSIDENTS and INSURGENTS from Rugby in Plume? I hear on the grapevine that RBC may soon be investing in a PR man - not before time!

(Lilian's footnote: What, a PR man to tell people "nicely" to "shut up and go away!"? A fat lot of good that will do them, but maybe they can get one from the Environment Agency - or Cemex? They have plenty!)


(Philip Hibble)

An anti-tyre burning campaign group claims it has been "gagged" after being told none of its members are allowed to speak at a crunch public meeting about Rugby Cement (tonight). Rugby Borough Council has defended its actions to SILENCE pressure group RUGBY IN PLUME, claiming the questions it has submitted were not relevant to tonight's debate. But the group's spokesperson, Lilian Pallikaropoulos, believes the decision will anger many residents who are concerned about tyre burning.

However the group said it had been lifted by an independent report that advises the Council to tell the Environment Agency NOT to allow tyre-burning at Rugby Cement. The Report written by Dr Mike Holland for RBC's Sustainable Environment Panel said that Rugby Cement owners Cemex has not provided enough information to prove tyre burning is safe for the residents of Rugby.

Mrs Pallikaropoulos said:

"The report only says what I have been saying all along - but it is ridiculous that I am not being allowed to say it myself. It seems I have been gagged and silenced and the people of Rugby should realise what's happening here is very, very serious. I admit that I have got cross and become rather 'insulting', but this has been totally justified by the Council's treatment of me."

But Sean Lawson, Head of Environmental Health for RBC said his (and Chris Holman's) decision is totally justified, as the questions RIP wanted to ask were not, (in his view), relevant to the meeting. He said the public meeting has been arranged to specifically scrutinise Cemex's report on its tyre-burning trials, and recommendations will be passed on to the Environment Agency, who has the final say on whether tyre burning should happen in Rugby.

Cemex, who have been trialling tyre-burning at its Lawford Road plant claim the report shows that the alternative fuel method is both economically and environmentally friendly. "There was an open invitation for anyone to make their submissions and speak to the meeting" said Mr Lawson, "but the questions RIP put forward did not address the issues that will be debated. However anyone is WELCOME to make their comments directly to the Environment Agency. Anyone is welcome to attend tonight's meeting which will be held at the Town Hall at 5.30 pm."



I rang RBC today to ask about benzene emissions during the recent tyre trial at the cement works in Rugby. The officer I was put through to suggested I make any representations to the Environment Agency. I pointed out that the Borough Council is responsible for Air Quality Management, including benzene levels, by Law.

I asked if the benzene levels outside the works were monitored and recorded during the burning of tyres. He said if I wanted detailed information I could visit the Public Register, or contact Mrs Lilian Pallikaropoulos.

Finally the officer I spoke to - Mr Sean Lawson - admitted that NO low level measurement of benzene had been carried out, to his knowledge, during the tyre burning. As the only monitors were in the stack (which recorded benzene) there must be a whole raft of emissions missed from the calculation.

Perhaps the Council could employ Lilian to explain about LOW LEVEL FUGITIVE EMISSIONS and EFFECTS on HEALTH from benzene etc - preferably BEFORE RBC puts in its submission?

Mrs M Horner

(letter of the week)

If you were hoping to attend the RBC meeting tonight regarding plans to turn the Cement Works into a CO-INCINERATOR for London's refuse, and watch democracy in action, or perhaps dive in with a question, then think again! It would seem that unless your question was at the Town Hall by last Friday to be scrutinised, vetted, or discarded by council officers to ENSURE NO DISSENTING VOICES ARE HEARD then YOUR VIEWS ARE NOT WELCOME!

Here's one question you will not hear answered. Why is it that vast amounts of data relating to the chimney emissions are simply left out of the published figures simply because they do not provide the sanitised view that both the Environment Agency and Cemex want us to believe?

When the kiln is lit it's similar to starting your car on a winter's morning with the choke fully out, but they don't count that. When they switch the kiln off it's pretty much the same, and again that's not included in the figures: ONLY when the KILN is STABILISED does the clock start ticking!

Now you may say to yourself "that can't be right; I still live under it, and breathe the air that it contaminates, and how can this be allowed?"

Well just so you are in no doubt about how skewed the figures they want us to believe are, the chimney is allowed to run for a total of 60 hours per year with absolutely no filtration at all as a government provided loophole, just so that the figures do not rise during the frequent emergencies at the plant.

While all this is going on 90,000 residents - that's you and me - are breathing this cocktail of chemicals. We can't don breathing apparatus during these periods. Just when are we going to get some honesty in this debate?

At the present time the Warwickshire County Council wants the INCINERATOR: The Borough Council wrings its hands and refuses to STAND UP and BE COUNTED, and the Environment Agency has NEVER REFUSED A LICENCE IN ITS HISTORY.

Just what do we have to do to ensure the HEALTH and SAFETY of future generations?

Gareth Prewett.
Long Lawford.

"Nothing" - struck dumb as usual. Refuses to answer any questions.
Attended 14th December Council meeting. Why? As observers?

In 13,000 Community Matters December Newsletters delivered somewhere (?) near you:

"The company’s final report to the Environment Agency shows that six out of seven critical success factors were met during the use of chipped tyres. The seventh factor involves an acceptable assessment by EA officers which is now awaited. Those already achieved include the fact that, using EA methodology, the overall environmental impact of the plant was lower when using tyres as an alternative fuel.

# In particular there was a significant reduction in oxides of nitrogen emissions.
# The plant complied with emission limit values set. (oh??)
# The energy efficiency of the process was unchanged.
# Operation of the plant was stable.
# Stability was achieved between fuel changes.

Alternative fuels are important to us in reducing costs and remaining competitive without which we could not stay in business."

"Sean Lawson; Chris Holman and Carolyn Robbins (have I heard those names somewhere before?) "Flew to Germany to see for themselves a Cemex plant that has been using tyres and Climafuel for some years. Also involved were neighbours whose garden (SINGULAR) backs onto the plant."

"Cemex UK has announced that it is appealing against the £400,000 fine the company was ordered to pay by Warwick Crown Court for a "dust incident" in Rugby in October 2005. While Cemex UK deeply regrets and takes full responsibility for the incident the company feels the level of the fine is excessive and disproportionate. It is expected that an appeal could be heard by the High Court in London in early 2007."

"£6.5 MILLION bag filter to be connected in February shut down. Cemex UK have confirmed that, regardless of the outcome of its application, it will not use tyres on a permanent basis until the installation of the new bag filter has been completed" in February 2007.

(Footnote: How magnanimous of them! What is that supposed to mean? So if the answer is "NO to tyre burning" they will not burn them until after the bag filter is fitted?)

"2,000 tonnes a day of clay is now required to be transported by road from Southam to Rugby. In order to minimise the impact of the traffic a circular route has been devised. In addition the "small amount of dust" produced at Rugby that have to be disposed in landfill at Southam can be carried by clay lorries returning to Southam by a different rout.

Prior to despatch the dust undergoes a heat treatment process which creates nodules that cannot be wind-blown. The nodules are still hot when they leave the plant and it is QUITE COMMON to see STEAM rising from vehicles as they travel to Southam."

(Footnote: This dust is hazardous waste called BYPASS dust. Many people have
experienced the white spots all over their cars on this route as the dust
escapes from the clay-lorry covers, dropping in the town and villages
along the 13 miles to Southam. RIDICULOUS: Rugby has NO RAW MATERIAL and has not had any for many years LONG BEFORE the new plant, which opened in 2000, was even at the planning stage. At Southam they have clay, and a landfill, and a pipeline with the chalk from Kensworth, so there was no NEED AT ALL to dump the POLLUTION and the cement plant on 60,000 Rugby residents - where there are NO RAW MATERIALS: NO ROADS: NO RAILWAY CONNECTIONS: NO LANDFILL: They dug up a bit of clay temporarily in desperation at Lodge Farm Rugby, after Southam quarry was suspended in 2003 due to a shortage of suitable consented reserves.)

Concluded that the consultation draft by Cemex did NOT PROVE THAT ANY OF THE SEVEN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS HAD BEEN MET, and that there are significant deficiencies in the Cemex report, and many gaps in the data. This group was formed by the RCCF and will meet again on January 17th at the RCCF meeting.

Find out on 17th January 2007 when they will meet, with members of the public also allowed to have their say, before a final reply is given to the Agency on the "Final Cemex Tyre Report".

This is still in draft from 14th December CLOSED meeting, but they try to exorcise any mention of the TYRE TRIALS that were taking place 11th October to 20th October 2005, and which included the 14/15 October pollution incident and £400,000 fine. The Chair did his utmost at the 14th December
NON-INCLUSIVE meeting to get any reference to that incident REMOVED from the draft Report of Dr Mike Holland. We will soon find out how much the Chair (fresh from his visit to Cemex Germany with Cemex Rugby managers, and Sean Lawson and Carolyn Robbins) managed to sway the Councillors who attended. It is worth re-iterating at this point that it was Sean Lawson and Chris Holman who decided to exclude me, and any or all member of Rugby in Plume from the meeting - presumably in order to ENSURE that ALL REFERENCES to this INCIDENT and TYRE BURNING get removed. We will see if Dr Mike Holland has done the bidding of Cemex and Chris, and cleansed and santised the report, or if he will add a disclaimer? His draft report is very clear on this issue "INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PERIOD 11-20 OCTOBER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AND IS ESSENTIAL FOR ANYONE TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF WHAT WAS DONE DURING THE TRIAL AND WHEN IT WAS DONE. NO EXPLANATION IS PROVIDED FOR OMITTING THE PERIOD 11-20 OCTOBER FROM THE TYRE BURNING TRIAL, ALTHOUGH IT IS KNOWN THAT TYRES WERE BEING BURNED AT THIS TIME. THIS IS IMPOTANT AS THERE WAS AMAJOR INCIDENT AT THE PLANT ON 14TH OCTOBER 2005."

As we survey the scene from our vantage point, on the moral high ground, we watch the other players down below scratching in the mire of their own making. We have always behaved with propriety, and have followed a proper, open, informed, professional course of action. Rugby in Plume are not prepared to fight the Chinese army in hand to hand combat. Why should we attend the Town Hall when we were told we would be most unwelcome? Just to give them the pleasure of evicting us from the Council Chamber? It is clearly in RIP's best interest not to argue with idiots, who drag you down to their level and beat you on experience - of which they obviously have plenty!

Time is on our side as we have until the end of January to make our submissions, long after the meeting of the RCCF, the TBRG, and after studying the final report of RBC. I am sure the Environment Agency is in no hurry to make yet another unworthy, unwarranted and unjustifiable decision?
After all if they have learnt anything from their past mistakes they will not want to repeat the same misdemeanours and be tied up for years in yet another JUDICIAL REVIEW?

No comments: