Thursday, February 26, 2009

Dead Permit

members declared the "Faulty Towers" IPPC operating Permit Dead, and were dismayed to find the Cemex co-incinerating cement plant has only a long series of Variations to the original 2003 IPPC Permit and nothing up to date. Apparently it would take the Agency a " long time " to write a Permit - so how do they expect the public to be able to follow this paper chase and to piece it all together from years of rambling files - that is IF the public could obtain all the pieces of this "jigsaw"? And how can we respond sensibly to this latest (sham) consultation for "yet another" variation to the "existing permit". They are taking the mickey here! Under the guise of an application for 10 tonnes an hour of tyre burning they are slipping in a few crucial other changes to the chemical content of the RDF (climafuel) which has suddenly morphed into a more contaminated waste. NOW the only difference between the hazardous waste SLF and the non-hazardous RDF seems to be the group III metals - 1800 as opposed to 800.

Then we won't mention the extension of the range of calorific value from the originally consulted 15-23 CV, as in the (invisible) PERMIT, and now "suddenly" to be 10-40CV - allowing "lots of scope!" And a few more hours with no emission limits, and a few more reasons to burn waste during instability. And not to mention the results and trials from last year - starting 28 February in "unauthorised equipment" and supposed to end on 31st August - but the old pals at the Agency then extended the trials for another 4 months. Thanks for telling us guys. And can we see the results of the 15 tph RDF trial - before we respond to the new consultation? In a word "NO!"

according to the Rugby Advertiser, reporting on the RCCF complaint to the Minister for the Environment. This was down-graded (ignored?) as "only an operational matter" according to Director of the Agency and he soon passed it, like a hot potato, to the Midlands office, where three intrepid forum members will "discuss the issues." The complaint centred around a refusal to share/provide information, to answer questions and to attend any meetings in Rugby. "It is true to say there is resentment on both sides and now relationships have reached rock bottom."

"said they were keen to improve existing engagement with the community and stakeholders, (another meeting 10 March) and is working closely with the Environment Council, Cemex and Rugby Borough Council to come up with a more effective way of sharing information". Thing scan hardly get worse than they are at present, the point blank refusing to give us any information, and not allowing us to see the Public Register when we twice drive 100 miles in a week to see it.

was discussed - to be located either at Southam or Rugby. Southam residents after their PUBLIC MEETING had written 170 letters of objection, but Rugby sent only 7. When we suggested a PUBLIC MEETING should be called in Rugby to give the same equal opportunity, a very agitated Councillor Gordon Collett said that calling a public meeting was "SCARE MONGERING" and "RABBLE ROUSING". No the people of Rugby were not to be informed - and this Decision will NOT be taken until after the Local Elections in June - as it is potentially political! Meantime a full contaminated land survey has to be carried out on the MALPASS landfill to see what harmful effects there may be to local people during the construction, if it goes ahead there - never mind the harmful effects in an area of Multiple deprivation after construction.

After two very costly PUBLIC INQUIRIES the disused rail link between Rugby cement and its clay quarry and two hazardous bypass dust landfills, (CELL 3 and CELL 4) was "safeguarded for future re-opening" and the Western Relief Road that was supposed to run on it was re-aligned into the green belt at a cost of many millions, and of forcing unwilling farmers off their land. That is to be appraised again - would get 140 clay lorries off the roads, and possibly another 300 waste lorries everyday - as well as other lorries - save 13 X 500 = 6,500 miles a day (approximately). Then presumably the Southam and village residents would withdraw their objections which were based mainly on traffic concerns? In Rugby concern is pollution and air quality; health; lorry pollution; and more overall detrimental impact on an area of multiple deprivation where life expectancy is already less, and where so many more people would be affected by the pollution.

Is this the very best location? What would they do on this "small site" with the mountains of waste and/or RDF in the urban smokeless zone during shut downs and/or break downs of either plant? They plan to bring in about 1,000 tonnes each day for processing, plus another 360 tonnes a day of ready made climafuel. 1,000 tonnes a day - that is 30,000 tonnes a month all PILED UP? And the RDF is highly flammable as the west Coast main line cannot have a "pipe or conveyor over it because of the fire risk". Not to mention a few hundred tonnes of tyre chips as well. Then there is the Highways charge that was agreed in 1997 - £975,000 Section 106 agreement to develop the site - that is now about £1.7 million. And the contaminated Malpass land, and river Avon, and green belt, and existing high pollution, and air quality management area, and vulnerable receptors, and railway - perhaps they ought to think the LOCATION over again?

No comments: