Sunday, August 29, 2010 has moved!

If you are reading this you are looking at the 'old' blog site for

All of the posts that were hosted here on the blogging platform 'Blogger' are now also over at which links to a posterous blogging platform.

The url will now point to the new Site

and don't forget you can follow the blog on twitter at @RugbyInPlume

To subscribe to the new blog copy this feed into your favourite feed reader.

Thank You for your continued interest and we look forward to informing and sharing with you over on

Thursday, August 19, 2010



The Environment Agency has paid £25,000 plus to take the community out of the community forum.
To become a member of this new "forum" (first meeting 9 September) all that is required is: ignorance; agreement; subservience; compliance, and just a modicum of adoration.
Plus an ability to accept "gifts" to recompense the select few.

Cemex's Ian Southcott: the Environment Agency's David Hudson (the officer involved since the unlawful permitting process began in 1995); Warwickshire County Council's "planner" Ian Grace: and part-timer Rugby Borough Council's Sean Lawson all combined with Cllr Claire Watson Borough and County Conservative Long Lawford; Roy Sandison Community rep against burning tyres (Green Party New Bilton); new-comer never been to any meetings Tom Mahoney RBC Newbold councillor; and Diane Pask (used to be Labour. then Lib Dem, then nothing - and of no elected position and having no constituency - lives in Brownsover - coated in coal dust) refuse to allow any of the previous long-standing members of the community to attend the Forum.
Quote: "we don't want anyone who knows anything, or anyone who can read and find out anything!" Unquote. Still after many months of asking they refuse to name the "chosen few".

stored at Cemex goes up in smoke - IN SMOKELESS ZONE - burning for 2 days in June, with 5 fire engines in attendance. Closed nearby industrial estate and offices as the public were exposed to smoke. How does this bode for the planned Rugby Cemex plant where 300,000 tonnes of RDF are to be manufactured from 500,000 tonnes of commercial, industrial and a little household waste - imported from all over? That planning permission granted by WCC has still not been signed, so maybe they better change their minds - or risk poisoning and poluting the Rugby air even more?

BEAUTIFUL BRITAIN magazine says: Pull down the Cemex plant in Rugby - its in top ten of the worst eye-sores in the UK.

How many noughts is that?!

HAZARDOUS WASTE BYPASS DUST DIVERTED via BI-PRODUCTS RECOVERY SERVICE ! No IPPC permit necessary - no landfill tax due if BPD is spread on the land in Cumbria and Lancashire. Of course they use Environment Agency exemptions to escape any controls and regulation - and they claim they "wash it", and do what with the leachate? chr


CONSERVATIVE RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL AT CENTRE OF ROW as the council leader, Craig Humprey, decides to take over the role of Chief Executive as well. Only to "save money" you understand? No application, no advert - no equal opportunities - no qualifications necessary. Surely this is maladministration? Meanwhile the meetings are held in secret and Humphrey's pay packet is not disclose4d even to the councillors.
Smell a rat?

Monday, March 08, 2010

Dr Paul Connett talks Environmental Crime in Rugby

PROFESSOR PAUL CONNETT VISITS RUGBY to find out what all the fuss is about. It doesn't take
long - as the Cemex co-incinerator hits you in the eye!

ILLEGAL and RETROSPECTIVE PERMITS/PERMISSIONS are all there in black and white and continue to be frequently granted by Warwickshire County Council and the so-called "Environment" Agency. Look at the WCC web site and follow the history on the mineral planning site, and in the Regulatory Committee papers. The names of those involved locally in this great environmental disaster are all revealed, and while the Agency obscures its participants, the names of the "partners in crime" can all be found at the Agency office near Lichfield.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY CONSULTATION now begins into MAKING PERMITS AS LAX AS POSSIBLE by setting the non binding ONLY-GUIDANCE "new national standard for cement plants co-incinerating waste" - with as many "get out" clauses as they can muster! The first thing they want to do is to REMOVE MOST MONITORING/SAMPLING - so that should help no end to AVOID any possible "enforcement action." Then they will allow many more hours without any ELV (emission limit values) so that should help even more. The Rugby Permit has now an additional 8 hours without ELVs after the 200 tonnes an hour raw meal feed that counts as a "start up" - because the plant may be unstable for a few hours after start-up , so cannot meet the standards. Although they said waste would not be burned at start up it is now permitted for an extra 8 hours allowing PICs (products of incomplete combustion) to rain down. All they have to do to avoid any sanctions is to say "we were just starting up - or just shutting down" and thus the Agency can do nothing. There is no control at all for much of the time - as the ELVs are not in place. No one is allowed to know what hours the plant is started, nor how many hours a day/week it is running without any ELVs at all.

Oh what a surprise - the ten year old state-of-the-art plant is now found not to be BAT (Best Available Technology) after all, despite all the Agency has claimed about it, both in the courts and to the public and Rugby Community Cement Forum since 2000! "Once this national position is established we will begin to review the IPPC PERMIT at Rugby to see how far the plant is there from the new standard." And then we will give them many more derogations and exemptions to let them get away with it as usual?!

Cemex refuse month after month to discuss the gas flow rate. They say "we do not know what it is" - so obviously they do not know what the pollution is either? As emissions continue to increase year on year the Agency and Cemex both try to hide the reason for this increase. EITHER they are increasing the pollutants in each cubic metre - which goes against the IPPC requirement to PREVENT and where not possible to MINIMISE - OR they are increasing the number of cubic metres of gas flow per second - because of the INCREASED production and the INCREASED waste burning and increased SUBSTITUTION. Now they are on over 100% substitution - i.e they are burning about/over double the tonnage of wastes than they were of coal i.e 1,000 tonnes a day of waste instead of about 450 tonnes a day of coal in the calciner. The kiln (about 240 tpd coal) is not affected as they cannot burn waste in that. All along the Agency said no-one is allowed to look at the TOTAL hourly/daily emission rate of pollutants as they wish to reserve the right to increase and increase the pollution in Rugby. The gas flow rate for sampling and monitoring requirements as set in the 2003 IPPC permit BL7248 (Schedule 3 page 2 of 6). Now the Agency wants only "gas flow, as measured, or otherwise determined to relate concentrations to mass release." Meanwhile the increases in pollutants affect the long term GLC and much more affect the short term GLC in Rugby.

For many years the EA and Rugby Cement argued that the new plant did not need bag filters as these were not BAT for this type of semi-wet huge-steam plume plant and would CLOG UP and would not work and would increase emissions, plume visibility, and cause the plume to fall locally and to ground more. The ESP was working as well as it possibly could and was at a very low level of emissions. Bag Filters were not only unnecessary but also they were a non-starter! Suddenly in 2005, after all the FALSEHOODS that had been told about the plant being BAT, particulate was running at 41.5 NM3 well over the BAT limit, so they NEEDED to rush through bag filters (only only 50-60% of the plant!) to meet the standards of the 2005 WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE for the cement plant that had by stealth morphed into a CO-INCINERATOR! There was no consultation in Rugby or at the Council, and they pushed it through - see WCC Regulatory Committee and Mineral Planning Permissions 22 December 2005. The GAS FLOW RATE in the application was said to be 84.6 NM3. (page 14).

TELEMETRY ESSENTIAL AND INFRA RED CAMERAS for public to know what is happening there! We need them reported live to web and fitted on the main stack and on the other most polluting low level sources such as the cement mills, and on the kiln bypass ESP, where the highly chlorinated polluted gases from the waste burning are diverted away from the calciner, to "bypass the kiln" and its "bag filters", and out into the air via the existing ESP - permitting many more toxic emissions into the air, and on to us. Last night the plume was disgusting, lofting and visibly falling in big chunks for miles across the town centre and hallowed Rugby Close!

Monday, February 22, 2010



Apparently cement co-incinerator plant emissions in WALES Mold Flintshire DO have health effects - even the Environment Agency says so in WALES! EA barrister Barry Berlin, Professor Roy Harrison, and Amanda Gair consultant and the court agreed that the increase in PM10 PARTICULATE increased the risk to health - cancer, respiratory, and cardiovascular disease. The deadly PAH emitted is a genotoxic carcinogen and any exposure can cause cancer. There is increased risk to the public even though they had no evidence of increased ill health." Well they would say that and probably hadn't even looked? In Rugby the PAH is not monitored or measured, but is sampled twice a year, and is "said to be less than 50 kilos as an annual release"??

It all sounds so very familiar : "persistent breaches of permit conditions resulting in dust emissions, smoke emissions from burning tyres and other waste materials and unacceptable noise levels." And "It was quite clear there was a potential risk or harm by virtue of the dust and also the carcinogenic materials in the smoke!" that-could-increase-cancer-risks-51352-25646483/

In the Mold Magistrate's Court Judge Andrew Shaw referred the case to the Mold County Court as his "powers were insufficient." The maximum they can fine at Magistrates (courts of no record - which they love!) they could get away with it lightly with a maximum of £30,000 - and without any transcript!

Compare this to the latest CEMEX Rugby Cement case - EIGHT TONNES of black oily sticky coal dust spread all over, both outside and inside the houses, up to 3 miles from the plant in March 2007.
It took the EA until March 2009 to prosecute them - and then they moved it away from Rugby to STRATFORD magistrates in June 2009 - where BOTH the EA Barry Berlin and the Cemex barrister PLEADED and virtually BEGGED the magistrate to "fine the very maximum £30,000 but PLEASE do NOT refer this to the Crown Court!" We want NO records of this case!!
In Wales "any increase in airborne PM10 can cause cancer and is associated with increased mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases." One law in Wales - and another in England?

Meanwhile on 12 February the EA appealed against the Supreme Court Judgement of 4 December, handed down on 15 January, which was minded to "set costs at nil". (see Landmark Chambers or Supreme Court web site).
The Agency insists in its sworn witness statement that no-one has any concerns about the cement plant emissions, not in Rugby or elsewhere, and that it is of NO public interest.
But although they say NO ONE but MRS P is concerned, they do want :
"information about the applicant's means and about the IDENTITY and MEANS of any who she represents!"
Would that be information about the "identity and means" of the claimed "nobody" - or is it about the 60,000 Rugby residents?

Friday, February 12, 2010



On 21 January WCC officers finally "invented" some "reasons" that they attempted to "back-attribute to the Councillors" for 17 November Regulatory Committee Southam refusal of the Cemex 500,000 tpa waste plant application - in favour of DUMP IT IN RUGBY! Amazingly, for OVER 18 MONTHS planners had not managed to find even one tiny little reason to recommend refusal at either site - claiming BOTH applications were identical and equal and both should be passed!

SUDDENLY OUT OF THE BLUE appears: (1) the long-standing STRATFORD LOCAL PLAN : "SOUTHAM site is NOT suitable for waste and must be used for light and general industries"; (2) the Southam location is NOT "in a preferred location for waste management"; (3) the proposed facility does NOT accord with STRATFORD LOCAL PLAN and " would result in the development of a large building of adverse visual impact"; (4) " the proposal would introduce a significant number of HGVs in the area."

Officers advised : IGNORE Rugby's POOR air quality - AQMA for exceedence annual objective nitrogen dioxide and ignore health-damaging particulate and many daily exceedences of PM10 Objective. Top up to the maximum with pollutants - and rely on that that "great protector" of the Environment to hopefully safeguard Rugby's air. Yes! we are to be protected by none other than the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY that has, by stealth and concealment, permitted massive increases year on year of TOXIC POLLUTANTS in Rugby. No wonder the EA carried out no Environmental Impact Assessment, and desperately hid the DISPERSION MODELS (H1 assessment) and hid the Agency's AQMAU reports (Air quality assessments). The Rugby public would have been THRILLED if they had been told the truth:
"The AGENCY is permitting year-on-year increases in the toxic pollution, and we refuse to tell you how much and of what!!"

IN ABUSE OF PROCESS: No visits were arranged or permitted, (even FROG ISLAND refused to have the councillors on site as presumably did all the (6?) Cemex waste plant RDF producers) so councillors could not get any idea (sniff!) of what was being proposed. WCC planners, either in total ignorance of their own local plans (unbelievable) or deliberately, (equally unbelievable), ignored the Stratford Local Plan and recommended passing both Rugby and Southam to get round the REQUIREMENTS of the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DIRECTIVE, (to compare the two sites) and therefore conveniently ignored the BPEO; and the cost/benefit assessment; the sensitive lorry miles; the proximity principle; the effect on Rugby of all this and another permanent CEMEX PLUME all over the down-wind town; the AIR QUALITY IMPACTS.

They also chose to IGNORE the health effects of dumping it ON RUGBY on vulnerable receptors, in the areas of multiple deprivation, of SERIOUS HEALTH INEQUALITIES caused by several confounding factors, including, no doubt by the hundreds/thousands of tonnes of TOXIC POLLUTANTS emitted annually from Warwickshire County Council's illegal cement co-incinerator - that ALL TOO OBVIOUSLY is an unlawful construction - that never had any valid planning permission or any kind of environmental impact assessment - and of course no PUBLIC CONSULTATION! That's the way they do it!!

MEANWHILE THE TEN YEAR ROW GOES ON! over the unlawfully constructed and operated Rugby Cemex co-incinerator. The EA is mulling over whether to appeal the 15 January Supreme Court judgement (see LANDMARK CHAMBERS) in this crucial and most important test case concerning the prohibitive expense of court action for the public, and NGOs, and the total lack of access to any justice in PUBLIC INTEREST cases in the UK, in Judicial Reviews of poor, and unlawful, government decisions on Environmental Issues.

Warwicks CC granted (1996) an unlawful planning permission, without any public consultation, any EIA, and also subsequently repeatedly amended the grant - in secret. The EA granted (in secret) an unlawful 1999 IPC operating permit, also without EIA and public consultation, followed by another unlawful operating Permit (IPPC in 2003) to turn the unlawful cement plant into a co-incinerator, once again hiding the information about the environmental and air quality and health impact of what they had done.

JACKSON REVIEW: The UK government has so far failed to implement the AARHUS CONVENTION to which they
signed up to in 1998. You can read more about it from the COALITION FOR
ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. And also see LINK about what happens to any
private citizen who gets caught up in any Judicial Review proceedings and who tries to get
any ACCESS TO JUSTICE for a polluted community.

the great British Tax payers ARE SUBSIDIZING INDUSTRIAL POLLUTERS, bailing out CEMEX
to the tune of BILLIONS through our forced subsidy of the RBS and HBOS
to which banks Cemex owes much of its $ billions of debt! Why are the
British tax payers doing this to ourselves and to the environment?