Friday, October 03, 2008

PLEASE PLEASE help us - New Bilton and Newbold will be poisoned...


To construct this monstrous plant at Southam's rural site - or in urban Rugby - where the cumulative total of pollution from the Cemex co-incinerator plus this 500,000 tpa Refuse Processing plant may well turn out to be "overwhelming" for the local residents during the "short term pollution incidents", and to have long term health effects. The plant is to have a 91 metre stack if built at Southam, in order to "safely" disperse the pollution over a wider area - but at Rugby in order to disperse it "less safely" and closer, over more local residents, they are only to have a 45 metre stack. Of course it is not actually about the BPEO (Best Practicable Environmental Option) that they decide to vent more onto Rugby, it is because it is cheaper, as they already have a 91 metre stack at Southam. CHEAP SKATES!

Who ever first coined the phrase certainly knew what he was on about. And of course we will pay WCC to collect the waste from us, and then we will pay Cemex to process it, and then pay Cemex to burn it, and to pump it back out over our heads, dumping our own waste back on us. That is better than landfill - pumping it into the air I suppose? Is this RECYCLING, or the BPEO?

say 21 days is all they are prepared to give local residents and all they are legally required to "give" us in which to comment, and then if we are not happy with the decision, which is to be made on 15 December as a nice CHRISTMAS GIFT to the lucky winers, we can take them to JUDICIAL REVIEW, and waste another EIGHT years of our lives, and ALL OUR OWN MONEY, battling them in the court trying to get JUSTICE for RUGBY RESIDENTS. Maybe WCC should manufacture some WCC sticks of rock for suckers?

Not only are they holding this gun to our heads, but also this planning permission is dependent on a doubling of the waste burning at Rugby, so it seems we are to get it all ways. And of course there was NO PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION as is supposed to happen, only a "scoping" which did NOT tell the truth! And a few secret village meetings held in backrooms with a very small handful of specially selected local peasants invited. Rugby residents were not even informed and there was NO MENTION of DOUBLING the waste burning in the Cemex Co-incinerator, much less of tumble drying 250,000 REFUSE over our heads. They even said there was no need to have a chimney as it was to be ever-so environmentally friendly - and so very CLEAN - the "clean pollutants" could all be vented out at roof-top level.

Rugby has the co-incinerator and now we have to be polluted more to fuel the beast! Read the Health Protection Agency web site for more details about the dangers of RDF and how the COMEAP committee can guarantee nothing, but they are HOPEFUL that the pollution from waste burning will be "no worse" than the pollution from coal - as long as all is going "well". The Environment Agency POINT BLANK REFUSE (and have for FIVE years) to answer why they have to stop burning wastes and to start burning coal when things go wrong! And when it doesn't go well - and emission limits are not met and fugitives are oozing out - well that is a different story, and it doesn't take the HPA's "emminent body of so-called experts" to inform us that it will NOT be BENEFICIAL TO OUR HEALTH!


Anonymous said...


It appears to be the least sustainable, most environmentally damaging location for this half million tonne monster. Why transport all this waste and then dry off 30% of it in the urban area?
CEMEX should withdraw the Rugby application. How many more tonnes pollution can they dump on Rugby each day?

Dr Smog.

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir, (ian southcott)

I am grateful to you for sending me a copy of the Community Matters: October 2008.

You have requested feedback about your waste processing facility, which I am happy to provide.

· You state that MBT is in extensive use in Europe so I would be grateful to receive facts and figures on its use elsewhere.

· Although it appears that the process is about recovery of energy, I would be interested in the amount of energy recovered and the amount used in that recovery.

· You imply that recyclables extracted in the process such as paper, cardboard and plastics will be added to the climafuel as opposed to being recycled. Why?

· You state that recyclables could be recovered. Surely it is better to recycle than recover energy in this way. Will recyclables be recycled or added to the fuel stream?

· You state that a visitors centre could be built. When the current cement plant was built, a visitors centre was also promised. This did not happen so why repeat further empty promises and state clearly whether this will occur. Will a visitors centre be built?

· The land is designated for industrial development. If only 20 jobs are to be created, a greater number will be created through other light industry. Could you comment why this is not a more suitable solution for the site, particularly as the local area is defined as deprived?

· WRR is not a purpose built route as suggested by Cemex. It is to relieve traffic from the town centre, some of which is created by the activities of Cemex. It is actually a benefit to Cemex in vehicle utilization (time and distance), for which Cemex is not contributing. Would you agree?

· Delays in the WRR is a direct result in procrastination by the plants former owners and the additional £26 million cost is a direct result of redirection because of the potential reuse of the railway. This is at the taxpayers expense. How are you contributing to this extra expense?

· Importing waste from elsewhere is not a “local solution to a local problem” so perhaps you could clarify your thinking here.

· It is stated that covered vehicles will be used for importation of waste. Aside from LCV, bulkers are generally covered by netting, not fully enclosed. Can you confirm that bulkers will be totally enclosed?

· Although your experts conclusion are that noise levels for operation of the plant will be less than at present, does this include the noise created by an additional 17 vehicle movements per hour into and out of the plant?

· Why does transfer of fuel have to made by road vehicle, adding to traffic and road transport emissions when given the distance involved (1/2 mile) alternative methods are available (conveyor), which would represent BAT?

· Others have expressed doubts and a lack of consideration in the EIA about issues such as,

o Light pollution

o Dust

o Vermin

o Insects

o Effluent

How do you respond to these challenges?

· The site is on a A1 flood zone and the hard landscaping, access and buildings will undoubtedly add to runoff. This does not appear to be adequately addressed in the EIA. This is somewhat unusual when part of the justification for the facility is to address sustainability issues, a consequence of climate change. One outcome of climate change is the increase in abnormal weather, producing flooding. What methods are you employing to prevent flooding of the site, with the consequential pollution?

· Your record on outages to air do not fill the local population with confidence, as recorded in the SIA. How do you intend to ensure improved performance with regard to air pollution going forward?

· You say that industrial waste will be processed in the facility. Could you provide information on the classification of such waste?

· The application is to co-incinerate 125,000T to 130,000T depending on what source is consulted. Can you explain why as your figures state that 250,000T of climafuel will be produced, what will happen to the extra 100,000T+?

Your prompt response would be appreciated so that I can feed into the consultation process.



Anonymous said...

What utter guff!
Give up Lilian there are far bigger local issues, Rather than spending all of your time and money fighting a company that's been in the town a lot longer than yourself, Rugby is born out of industry and will always be an industrial centre, If you don't like the town and the companies that provide work for it's residents, The solution seems quite simple MOVE

Mr sutcliffe