Friday, June 15, 2007


As widely reported in the RUGBY TIMES, (Rugby's excellent new weekly) a Judicial Review has been commenced in a bid to the courts to put an end to costly, time wasting, sham consultations, as carried out by the Agency and cement company, as Rugby Borough Council endorses Rugby in Plume's view that the whole TYRE TRIAL was a scam. The Agency have acted perversely and unreasonably, and still after seven years of asking cannot define what they mean by the words "unstable" and "stable", and "significant" and "insignificant" - the words they use in their own IPPC permits for the control of the cement plant's emissions. If the Agency does not know what they mean - then who does? And why do they put them in? We were charged with deciding if the plant had become more "unstable", and if the increased emissions were "significant" etc etc.

These second Judicial Review proceedings have been issued against the Environment Agency, as the tyre trials are branded:

# inconclusive,
# case not proven,
# 7 Critical Success Factors not met,
# essential data with held,
# Tyres Protocol not adhered to,
# plant more inefficient during trials,
# net environmental detriment increased,
# 1,000 hours baseline produced 240,000 tonnes clinker,
# 1,000 hours tyre trial produced 190,000 tonnes clinker,
# hazardous waste bypass dust increased with tyres,
# reject clinker increased with tyres,
# public not informed as the trials went along,
# data given too late, in wrong format, and too little.
# no data provided at all until 10 months after trial started,
# no data provided at all until 5 months after trial finished,
# Tyres Protocol requires public to be informed as the trial proceeds!

The list is endless, and all this was UNANIMOUSLY agreed in a report by the Tyre Burning Review Group, set up by the Environment Agency specifically as a COMMUNITY GROUP to evaluate and review the tyre trials and the data, and to decide if the trials had met the seven critical success factors that the cement industry had proposed itself as the criteria for success - or failure - as in this case! It consisted of 12 people, facilitated by consultant Dr Mike Holland, who expertly guided the group as we studied the CEMEX DRAFT TYRE TRIAL REPORT. The representatives included the Rugby Primary Care Trust, the Health Protection Agency, Rugby Borough Councillors, Local Parish Councillors, Agenda 21, Rugby in Plume, the Rugby Cement Community Forum, New Bilton Community Association.

Now the Agency considers allowing Cemex to carry out a "pseudo trial " of tyres in combination with London's household and commercial waste - the RDF being disguised under the friendly name of "CLIMAFUEL".

Rugby Council fully backs the findings of the Tyre Burning Review Group, and endorses their findings.

See link to Committee Papers of CABINET 8th January 2007.

SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF MUSHROOM SYNDROME : CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR NUMBER ONE : to be applied for new household waste "trial" as Rugby residents are to be kept in the dark, as usual, with bucket loads of manure tipped on their heads - along with tonnes of gaseous pollutants and toxic chemicals.


Anonymous said...

You can read more about it on the Committee Papers for the Sustainable Environment Panel meeting 14 December 2006 on RBC web, and Resources 2 January 2007. Note item 18 : "Officers were asked to investigate whether or not tyres were being burned on the actual day that the pollution incident was reported." And....

Note the NAMES of ALL councillors who have agreed that the Tyre Trials are not satisfactory, and who oppose their being burnt at Rugby Cement.

RESOURCES AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE:Shera;Edwards;Bell;Collett;Elson; Kaur;Holman;Leigh-Hunt;Mistry;Roodhouse;Sandison;Sewell;Watson;
ENVIRONMENT PANEL:Holman;Sandison;Bragg;Cassedy;Day;Kaur;New;Parker;Watson; Williams.

So why did they all agree this report against Cemex and the Agency?
Is it just a lot of hot air?
Do they not have the courage of their convictions?
Or do they not truly believe what they say?
They should put their money where their mouth is!
And FUND and SUPPORT Lilian's action, and back up their own claims in the RBC REPORT against the Agency.

Anonymous said...

Rumour has it that the gang of three - Cemex, RBC and Agency - are trying to shut down the Community Forum and get it moved back to the cement plant where it can be "properly controlled".

Check out RBC Cabinet item 13 of Sean Lawson on 27 June. It says the RCCF was only set up as a "short term action when the initial application for the use of tyres was submitted", presumably in order to get the cement plant turned into a CO-INCINERATOR, by the carrot of "promised consultation and full and open and honest dialogue"?

This is yet another pigs CAN fly in Rugby story!