Rugby Town.... (Much more than just cement.)

RugbyTown.org has moved!

2010-08-29T18:06:00.002+01:00

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

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

The url www.RugbyTown.org will now point to the new Site http://RugbyTown.posterous.com

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 www.RugbyTown.org

CEMEX UNDER FIRE

2010-08-19T21:57:00.003+01:00

RUGBY ADVERTISER SAYS: BLACK-BALLED!
COMMUNITY BANNED FROM COMMUNITY FORUM!

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY QUANGO SAY NO TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION!
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.

GANG OF SEVEN?
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".

REFUSE DERIVED FUEL
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?

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

CEMEX DEBTS:
How many noughts is that?!

BYKER AGAIN?
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

SMELL A RAT IN RUGBY!

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?

Dr Paul Connett talks Environmental Crime in Rugby

2010-03-08T10:55:00.004Z

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.

RUGBY PLANT FAR FROM NATIONAL STANDARD
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 GAS FLOW PARANOIA
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.

BAG FILTER CON TRICK
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!

2010-02-22T20:30:00.003Z

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!
£300,000 FINE FOR HEALTH DANGER

BUT NOT IN RUGBY - ONLY IN WALES!

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"??

FAMILIAR - LINK.
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!"

http://www.flintshirechronicle.co.uk/flintshire-news/local-flintshire-news/2010/01/21/cement-plant-admits-breaches 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!

RUGBY FOLK ARE TOUGH!
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?

EA INSIST NO ONE CARES IN RUGBY!
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?

RUGBY DUMP TOWN

2010-02-12T08:25:00.003Z

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY PLANNERS OUTFOXED BY COUNCILLORS!

DUMP IT ON RUGBY!
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!

SHOCK-HORROR LARGE OVER-SIGHT!
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."

ALL THIS HAS CREPT UP SUDDENLY
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!!"

COUNCILLORS BANNED FROM WASTE PLANTS!
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.

HEALTH INEQUALITIES INCREASED BY COUNTY
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.

RECAP of INCOMPETENTS
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.

AARHUS CONVENTION - ACCESS TO JUSTICE
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.

http://www.unece.org/env/pp/compliance/C2008-33/correspondence/CEcommentsJacksonReview%20290110.pdf

BRITISH PEOPLE PAY TO INCREASE POLLUTION!
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?

BATTLE OF THE GIANTS:

2009-12-22T21:52:00.003Z

EA; WCC; TREASURY; CEMEX and MRS P: she who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day!

FOUL PLAY AT WARWICKS COUNTY COUNCIL

WCC are STILL in total disarray over waste plant refusal at Southam as the OFFICERS ATTEMPT to "re-write history" - the "exact reasons" why the county councillors went against the officers recommendation and said NO!! to the Southam application. For 18 months WCC officers and CEMEX insisted the two applications were identical, but on the 17 November MOB RULE was theme of the day as the councillors were over whelmed by Southam supporters.

Of course they cannot invent reasons why Rugby is a "better site" as actually it is by far the "worse site" - but cheaper for CEMEX who always get what they want!

DECEMBER 14 REGULATORY CHAOS IN "CARRY ON COUNCILLORS!!" (See WCC web)

WCC Discriminates : by the naming of only one person (no prizes for guessing who) out of all the public present. Why? WCC keeps incorrect/incomplete minutes for 17 Nov - none of councillors' reasons for refusing Southam minuted; motion against Rugby omitted: WCC causes distress to the six Councillors present at both meetings - who were unable to agree minutes/reasons for refusal. (Councillors Joan Lea; Jose Compton; Eithne Goode;Clare Hopkinson; Mike Perry; Chris Williams.) WCC's solicitor P Endall says they "cannot give the reasons for refusal of Southam waste plant today due to intense work pressure." HA!

START A BRAVE NEW YEAR?
One thinking councillor asks "where does this planning decision stand if no reasons have been given?" Jasbir Kaur says "Minutes now public - we only have to give correct planning reasons, correct terminology for the reasons for refusal, that members gave. (hmm!) We are minded to give no reasons, but to leave it over until the next meeting - next year in 2010!" Councillor: "Its about the process, and if it was not formally agreed and reasons given for refusal I cannot see that it is refused and legal?" "I agree! This is an incorrect process and is not minuted - the reasons for refusal - and it is not valid." Rugby Councillors Cllr Robbins and Hazelton then BRAVELY left the room - because they did not want to hear what was said about it. (HOW VERY ODD??)

CLLRS TRAINING - TO REOPEN APPLICATION
Cllr Sweet said " We have training and If you refuse a planning permission you have to give the planning reasons - I was not here - so will the full application come again before this committee to give the reasons?" Cllr Joan Lea Chair said : " that the reasons had been given VERY CLEARLY at the meeting - but just not written down - just not minuted." HOW VERY VERY ODD!! J Kaur said : "the reasons given were traffic, and others things, and whatever they were we have to make them clear and give them to you." P Endall: " Jasbir can correct me if I am wrong; the decision to refuse must be set out. It is complex, therefore not the reasons stated by the councillors in cases of great complexity. This is too complex and sometimes it is necessary to take the reasons given by the members and take them away and re-write them - write them in planning terms that would not be subject to a legal challenge."

CEMEX NOT TO CHALLENGE - BUT PUBLIC MIGHT!
"How many days do they get for making a challenge?" Officer: "I do not think they will challenge as they had the Rugby permission." Cllr Jose Compton: "I appreciate there are pressures on the officers - but now I would not be happy to say that it was what they said. If there is pressure on the officers they should have finished that off, not bring in more things." Cllr Williams: "So what is happening about the Decision Notice?" Officer: "It does not have one yet - they could appeal against non-determination." "We may be in danger of trespassing on legal time limit." Cllr: "So where doe it leave us?" Peter Endall: "This is slightly different because there were 2 applications and given that the other was passed they will not be challenging."

LESS THAN IDEAL - OR COMPLETE FIASCO?
Cllr: "I cannot accept it!" Cllr: "And I cannot accept it!" P Endall: "It is less than ideal not to give the reason." "Do we need an extraordinary meeting to look at it - to look at reasons for refusal. There is a 40 day time limit, and this is dreadfully bad practice." Councillors cries of "Here Here!!" P Endall: "We will go way and discuss and send out an email today to say whether we need a SPECIAL (in secret???) meeting to give the reasons for refusal - if this is necessary?"

OMBUDSMAN - MALADMINISTRATION
I commented that "Such malpractice and maladministration is disgraceful and unacceptable behavior." Mrs Lea shouting me down from the Chair said I was not to speak! BUT she seems to forget that they have a duty to the public as well - not just to their masters - Cemex!!! OMBUDSMAN should investigate this ABUSE OF PROCESS - yet another WCC environmental disaster, in which the officers misled and misinformed the councillors, by trying to "pretend" the two applications were identical so as to get around the EIA REQUIREMENT to compare the applications openly, and honestly, so that the councillors and public had guidance from the professionals involved. Instead the two applications were treated as "completely separate", but as "completely identical". Many public meetings went on in Southam while Rugby residents were REFUSED any public meetings. County Councillor Gordon Collett , still clutching the keys to the £22,500 CEMEX minibus, (he who said of waste burning in the 2006 meeting - "thank you Cemex - if we do not get hysterical we can get this through!" came in very heavy handed to not only one, but two Rugby Community Cement Forum meetings and insisted that there could be NO PUBLIC MEETINGS IN RUGBY! He said it would be "scare mongering" and "rabble rousing" to allow the people of Rugby to meet and discuss the issues. The very limited Cemex presentation at Rugby was ONLY for Rugby and not about Southam - so how could anyone compare? The whole thing was a stitch-up and a con by Cemex and WCC officers and some disreputable councillors.

GAME IS UP!
There was no comparison; no proper Environmental Impact Assessment; no BPEO; no Proximity Principle; no consideration of the full cumulative Cemex health impact; no consideration of sensitive lorry miles; no consideration of alternative transport; no consideration of the CORBY effect of digging up the CKD landfill; no consideration of harm and loss of amenity; WCC officers said to ignore Rugby Boroough Councils 70 page report. Once again Warwickshire County Council bow down to their masters at Rugby Cement and engage in malpractice to the great disbenefit and harm to RUGBY and its 60,000 residents - as 48 Rugby Councillors "run away!"

Environmental Vandalism!

2009-11-25T17:05:00.002Z

Listen!

RUGBY SURVIVAL KIT!

2009-11-20T12:20:00.001Z

CEMEX RUGBY 500,000 tpa WASTE PROCESSING PLANT -

NOISE; DUST; ODOUR; POLLUTION; LORRIES

ALL TO BE CONTROLLED BY HIGH TECH SOLUTION

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL SAYS DUMP IT IN RUGBY!

WITH A GRUMBLE HOT-LINE FOR COMPLAINTS - A PROBLEM SHARED IS A PROBLEM HALVED!

"WHAT IS BAD FOR SOUTHAM IS EQUALLY BAD FOR RUGBY!" said the thinking councillor. These two applications were described by WCC officers as "IDENTICAL IN EVERY WAY" and there was "NO MEANS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THEM!" We cannot make ANY comparison because they are EXACTLY THE SAME - except for - the differences.

DESPITE THE CEMEX OFFER OF £1,700,000 SECTION 106 TO UPGRADE ROADS IT WAS THROWN OUT AT SOUTHAM ON GROUNDS OF: ODOUR; NOISE FROM FANS;

HEAVY LORRIES, NOISE, VIBRATION, LACK OF SLEEP; HOUSES FALLING DOWN; CANNOT CROSS ROADS; CHILDREN ENDANGERED; SCHOOLS INACCESSIBLE; ROAD DAMAGE, ACCIDENTS CAUSED; VERMIN; FLIES; AND POLLUTION, ESPECIALLY NITROGEN DIOXIDE LIKE THEY HAVE IN RUGBY IN THE AQMA - FROM LORRIES!! CEMEX HAS 800+ LORRIES IN RUGBY ALREADY SO A FEW MORE HUNDRED EACH DAY WILL REALLY HELP IMPROVE AIR QUALITY THERE!! SOUTHAM IS NOT TO BE A WASTE DUMP AND WE MUST PROTECT THE VILLAGES!

RUGBY COUNCILLORS FAILED TO SHOW UP

One WCC councillor said he could have had more concern for the people of Rugby if their Councillors had turned up. A planning officer CRITICISED RBC EHO's air quality report against the proposal for contradicting themselves. Councillors should NOT consider air quality and the AQMA for nitrogen dioxide from HGVs as an issue.

The Environment Agency would/could GUARANTEE the emissions in their forthcoming permit - no need to consider POLLUTION as the Agency would take care AFTER IT WAS BUILT! Just as they do with

the Cemex Cement co-incinerator? WCC thought that the "proximity principle" ONLY applied to building the waste plant NEXT to the Cemex plant, and did NOT apply to the proximity to the WASTE ARISINGS. Waste from ends of earth is fine - for Rugby.

LOCATION is very "nice and convenient" on a CKD landfill, next to the historic River Avon and cement plant that had always been there all their 70 years, and was so good to see and and had a lovely view from the tower. "Goose or dove wing grey" would match existing plant, and not show cement dust all over it. One lady councillor hoped the re-opening of the

landfill would not have a "CORBY" effect.

SO CONVENIENT FOR WASTE - a lovely new Western Relief Road right up to it and a beautiful roundabout. And they would have a lovely conveyor IF they could get it passed after FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT

over the West Coast mainline. That is RICHARD BRANSON'S PROBLEM!

EMISSIONS: HEALTH EFFECTS?

As long as we can say that "ground level pollution is less than the objective" we can do what we want, and also get £1,700,000 highways money.

Short term pollution incidents were not considered nor were any cumulative effects. Health?

HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU?

2009-11-04T22:16:00.002Z

INCREASE IN TOXIC EMISSIONS

YEAR ON YEAR - PERMITTED IN SECRET BY ENVIRONMENT AGENCY!

HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU?
DEFRA DOES NOT KNOW WHAT ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ARE UP TO IN DEFRA'S NAME!

DEFRA 15 October 2009: "The annual releases of the plant remain well below the MAXIMUM LEVELS allowed by the Permit. The Environment Agency assessed these maximum levels as environmentally acceptable when the ORIGINAL Permit application was determined." Actually, Defra is TOTALLY WRONG! The original IPC Permit was granted IN SECRET contrary to EU and UK Law in September 1999 , before the plant was built, and operated in February 2000. Quite simply there was NO public consultation of any kind, and NO Environment Agency assessment , as it was all carried out in July 1999 IN the GREATEST SECRECY and no MAXIMUM LEVELS were set!!

IPPC APPLICATION in 2001 : (granted August 2003) again there were no maximum levels, and no-one was told that 'year on year' they could WILFULLY INCREASE the pollution year on year "up to the (secret?) maximum level "!! The EA naturally cannot provide any paperwork of 'maximum levels' or of 'any of the public response to that'. Imagine the scene : "We at the Agency reserve the right to increase and increase toxic pollution onto you for ever, increasing and increasing up to a set maximum that we have decided, in secret and we refuse to tell you anything about it." Would have gone down a bomb?!

DEFRA GLOATING:
"The suggestion that an appropriate ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT for the plant has never been carried out has been thoroughly tested and dismissed. This was concluded from a Judicial Review of the Environment Agency's 2003 decision to grant a Permit under the PPC Regulations 2000. This has been repeatedly upheld by the Courts up to the House of Lords, who dismissed the final appeal in April 2008 and awarded the Environment Agency costs." "The Court of Appeal recognised that the EIA Directive is not absolutely clear in respect of the use of waste-based substitute fuels, but were unanimous that IF an EIA was required by the Directive, then the environmental assessment which formed part of the application for the PPC permit had met that requirement." ER no SORRY - once again this is all untrue.

MISINFORMATION and MISDIRECTION RESULTS: The House of Lords gave no reasons for their bizarre decision, but we can only assume they were wrongly persuaded by the "supposedly trustworthy" Agency lawyers? Result - Mrs P now has to pay over £100,000 because the EA, acting on Defra's behalf, has not told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and has MISDIRECTED the courts both on the substance of the case, and about the Rugby residents and about me personally. The EA has made sworn witness statements claiming such: No-one has any concern in Rugby, or elsewhere, about the ongoing (INCREASES) emissions at the plant; this is of no public interest; she is one wealthy individual, who is all alone, with her own private campaign; there is no interest in Rugby or elsewhere (except of course masses of interest to the UK government and European Courts!) and no one else is prepared to speak up about this injustice - and more such drivel! When asked to provide any PROOF for such ridiculous claims the EA has been unable to supply one bit of evidence - for the very obvious reasons.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:

"Mrs P repeatedly conflates quite discrete issues, explains complex issues inaccurately, and approaches scientific issues in a simplistic and unscientific manner. She attempts to equate absence of scientific uncertainty with certainty of harm, which is a profoundly incorrect approach. Fundamentally Mrs P fails to acknowledge - but she does not and cannot contradict - a plethora of evidence now showing that (a) the 'normal' operation of the Rugby Cement works does not cause and never caused a significant environmental impact and (b) that the introduction of wastes as fuel has produced significant environmental improvements in performance."

i.e YEAR ON YEAR MASSIVE INCREASES IN TOXIC POLLUTANTS out of all proportion to any claimed increase in production!!

And Defra say the Environment Agency told us this? Pull the other leg!

ACCESS TO JUSTICE?
Not in the UK.
Not for anyone who tells the truth.

HUMAN RIGHTS?
Not applicable to Rugby!

RUGBY FIRE STATION - CEMEX BLAZING

2009-10-19T11:52:00.002+01:00

photo by kind permission of geograph.org.uk
© Copyright Ian Rob <http://www.geograph.org.uk/profile/1208>

RUGBY ADVERTISER reports on "anger of protesters as fire service review plans are shot down in flames" - fire stations are cut from 19 to 12 in Warwickshire.
What does the Fire Service know about the highly flammable tonnes of waste and tyres stockpiled outside at the Cemex co-incinerator? Not a lot!
No-one seems to know who is responsible for the storage of so many tonnes of waste in this town?

WASTE OF SPACE!
CEMEX and ENVIRONMENT AGENCY require EVER MORE WASTE to fire up hungry co-incinerator. They apply for 65% replacement by RDF, of ever increased toxicity and hazards. Cemex require as much waste as they can get - where ever it comes from!! They are "in competition with the planned Coventry Incinerator" to get 300,000 tonnes a year of waste as cheaply as possible - actually be paid as much as possible to burn it. Where is the benefit to the community?

RUGBY'S WASTE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!
Cemex require 300,000 tpa commercial, industrial, and a bit of household waste residue (15,000 tpa in Rugby) to make into 150,000 tpa of RDF. BUT this waste is not of a required specification - and needs another 125,000 tpa of already made RDF to BLEND IN to obtain the required specification.

RUGBY'S RUBBISH IS SIMPLY RUBBISH!
NOT a "local solution to a local problem", after all BUT MORE LIKE a "local Rugby problem caused by other peoples faraway solutions!"
Remember Gordon Collett and the Cemex keys to a £23,000 minibus to "help the aged in his village"?

EVER BEEN CONNED?

CEMEX LATEST

SOLD CHEAP to Holcim $1.7 billion in Australian assets - to help get out of mess. Shares re-issued 1.495 billion so prices down 3.3%, running about $12 each.

EU COMMISSION AND NATIONAL ANTI-TRUST BODIES investigate CEMEX in Spain and raid its offices, along with offices of Holcim and other cement companies.
On suspicion of violating anti-trust legislation! Price fixing still being investigated in the UK from November 2008 raid.

MOCK THE WEAK?

2009-10-03T20:42:00.002+01:00

RUGBY CELEBRATES ITS HERITAGE!
Rugby Observer 17 Sept front page photo showed a beaming Cemex employee, seemingly looking down his nose on the 60,000 residents. As Cemex proudly celebrated Rugby's HERITAGE with a view of Rugby from the nine-year old Rugby Cement HERITAGE pre-heater tower, the rest of Rugby shut its doors and windows to keep out the toxic fumes! The Daventry plastics fire, on 1 October, caused all schools in the area to be closed by the Health Protection Agency, due to the toxic emissions, even as far away as Weedon.

CEMEX CO-INCINERATE 1,000 T WASTE DAILY
The Environment Agency, "consulting" Rugby residents, asks if it is of "great environmental and health benefit to Rugby residents" if Cemex up the WASTE BURN RATE to 720 + tonnes a day of increased toxicity RDF (along with 240 tones of tyres) in the low-temperature combustion chamber, in the HERITAGE TOWER? No details of the potential emissions are given in this GUESSTIMATE application. The previous 15 tph RDF Trial, (started in unlawful equipment 28 Feb 2008), STILL has not been determined. The decision on those "very extended trials due to the test results SHOWING GREAT INCREASES in METAL and DIOXIN emissions, and thus NOT being what they wanted to see " is on hold," while they increase the CHLORINE content of RDF by 150%; Sulphur by 100%; Fluorine, iodine and bromine by 50%, and lead by 50%. How much extra dioxin and lead is good for you, and can be said to be a "health improvement"?

INCREASED PRODUCTION - INCREASED POLLUTION
Access to the requested CHECK MONITORING, pitot, temperature and gas flows has been denied, and is available ONLY (in secret as usual) to the Environment Agency. CEMEX say: "Diagrams showing plant layout, sampling points and gas flows are not required for the determination of CLIMAFUEL as a fuel." The trials, were a year longer than permitted, due to "issues in obtaining adequate RDF supplies which delayed our ability to obtain sufficient trial hours, and because a test result showed exceedence of the metal and dioxin ELV. " SO WHY then do they want to burn increased toxic RDF at over 30 tph - if they cannot get enough lower toxic RDF to burn 15 tph? Inspection of the POLLUTION INVENTORY shows a year on year INCREASE in the recorded emissions - so goodness knows what the true total is? "We had to undertake a retest" - yes because the results of the "odd sampling test" showed very high readings, which Cemex described as spurious. Normally the plant is only SAMPLED twice a year.

HOW MUCH CONFIDENCE can the public have in this whole charade? NONE!! 4,000 + tonnes a day main stack polluted gases, and the emissions are "averaged out over the day". Plant is "shut down" when emission limits are in danger of being breached, and therefore NO EMISSION LIMITS COUNT AT ALL, as in "start-ups" to 200 tonnes an hour raw meal. Nice move! Job done! As for the short-term Ground Level Concentration - who knows? Who cares about our health? And as for the Environment Agency and its H1 assessment for the dispersion of these TOXIC GASES, Cemex says: " the Agency H1 method software tool would give a less accurate assessment which then requires accurate dispersion modelling." They use a DISPERSION FACTOR of 714,286 main stack. And all sorts of other funny figures! Without the gas flow rate no-one knows what the emissions are - so we are denied the information we need. The AGENCY and CEMEX refer only to the "milligrams in each cubic metre" but they REFUSE to advise us HOW MANY cubic meters there are - so how can anyone predict the LEVEL of POLLUTANTS BEING DEPOSITED ON RUGBY RESIDENTS? Much less the health effects!

RUGBY IN PLUME OBJECT!
ASK FOR UK AND EU LAW TO BE IMPLEMENTED!

THE CEMEX CEMENT RUGBY CO-INCINERATOR IS OPERATING WITHOUT A VALID PLANNING PERMISSION, AND VALID PERMIT
AND IS IN BREACH OF THE :
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DIRECTIVE
* IPPC DIRECTIVE
* PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DIRECTIVE

HILARY BENN SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT has been informed, and Rugby Borough Council has called FOUR times for a PUBLIC INQUIRY.

Rugby in Plume have again asked for a PI, but the government seems determined to incur
millions of EURO fines due to the UK's admitted failing to implement the EU LAWS.
INFRINGEMENT proceedings will soon begin and more of our money will be down the drain,
thanks to the NEW LABOUR and BLAIR and BROWN!

AARHUS CONVENTION?

2009-09-17T16:09:00.006+01:00

COMING SOON IN UK - ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE?
AT LAST!!

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

RULES ON COST OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE:
An ECJ decision (C147/07 16 July 2009) related to Ireland has implications for the UK with respect to the provisions of the AARHUS CONVENTION. Pressure on the UK government to deal with the questions on the cost of environmental litigation will be increased by the infringement proceedings being brought against the Republic of Ireland

FAIR EQUITABLE TIMELY:
NOT PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE:
The so-called third pillar of Aarhus requires parties to allow members of the public and environmental organisations access to the courts to challenge the legality of many environmental decisions and other environmental law breaches.

UK/IRISH COURTS GIVEN DIRECTION how to award costs in Judicial Review proceedings, and generally follow the 'costs in the cause' principle, meaning the losing party MUST PAY the winning side's costs. Court principles allow costs to be fixed at their discretion at the start of cases involving SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INTEREST, but the 2008 Sullivan Report concluded that unless more was done the UK risked breaching Aarhus rules. The concerned Court Of Appeal again could not give a definitive ruling because of Lord Justice Jackson's ongoing fundamental review of civil costs.

EIA and IPPC:
The 1985 Directives on Environmental Assessment and 1996 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control were amended to include provisions on access to justice which reflect the Aarhus Convention, thus the obligation of providing independent JR procedures that are NOT PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE has now entered the language of substantive European Commission Law.

Irish and UK Law concerning cost and judicial discretion are similar, but are not proper transposition, which require a more definitive and binding form,
such as a court procedural role. The Commission succeeded on costs and access to justice, and although the Irish Judges had 'DISCRETION' not to awards costs against an unsuccessful party, this was not sufficient to implement the directive's requirements. 'Mere practise which cannot by definition be certain' could not be regarded as valid implementation of the obligations under the two directives.

UK GOVERNMENT'S COLD SHOULDER The UK government has an unrealistic narrow view, arguing that Aarhus costs refer only to minimal £130 fees payable in JR rather than to the HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS costs payable to the other party.
This year the Sullivan Review and Court of appeal rejected the government's unnecessarily narrow interpretation, and the advocate general's opinion was clear that the ban on prohibitively expensive costs extended to all legal costs incurred by the parties involved, and to all 'costs arising from participation' in the court procedures.

EU INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST UK:
concerning the Environmental Assessment directive and the issue of access to justice costs. No formal government response to May 2008 Sullivan Report, and the JACKSON REVIEW, (final due Xmas), noted the challenge of complying with Aarhus, and suggested possible mechanisms of reform.

WILL COMMISSION TOLERATE UK INTRANSIGENCE?
Its patience with UK prevarifications may be stretched to the limit and due to the Irish case the commission may feel confident to move on to the reasoned opinion stage of proceedings, almost inevitably leading to action before the ECJ unless the government concedes.

PAY BACK TIME?!
Is it too late for Mrs P?

DEPUTY JUDGE DAVID ELVIN QC ON HUMAN RIGHTS?

2009-09-08T23:46:00.002+01:00

NOT APPLICABLE TO RUGBY RESIDENTS! NOR TO MRS P!
"TRANNIE RAPIST WINS MOVE TO FEMALE JAIL"
..screams the Sun, as deputy judge David Elvin QC decides that a transgender murderer and rapist should have her/his human rights protected, regardless of any public costs involved, so that he/she can wear skirts and make up in prison, and feel better about life. Great isn't it!

HUMAN RIGHTS?
DUAL STANDARDS: And how much does David Elvin care about the human rights of Rugby residents, and our right to a good built environment, amenity, decent air quality and health? And to the human rights enshrined in the AARHUS CONVENTION, and the right to ACCESS TO JUSTICE for all EU citizens, without its being "prohibitively expensive"? Not a jot!

DAVID ELVIN , acting under instruction, was the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY'S barrister who "persuaded" the five Law Lords that Rugby residents were making too much fuss when they asked for a ruling against the Agency, for its part in protecting and permitting the unlawfully built and operated RUGBY CEMENT CO-INCINERATOR. Built and operated by STEALTH and COMPLICITY, by the consortium of Rugby Cement/RMC/Cemex, Warwickshire County Council, Rugby Borough Council, and worst of all by the Environment Agency - all without any public consultation, without any mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment, and by deception, and by concealment of the environmental and health impacts. Secret meetings, secret documents and "ignore, misinform, and mislead" was how the "big four" treated everyone, including even our Member of Parliament. The human rights of the thousands of vulnerable receptors who live in the areas of multiple deprivation and poor air quality round the Cemex co-incinerator count for nothing.

PUBLIC INTEREST NOT SERVED
According to Mr Elvin NO public interest is served by any person acting altruistically to prevent 60,000 residents from being increasingly polluted by the increased quantity of, and increased toxicity of, the thousands of tonnes a day of particle laden acid gas poured out in our SMOKELESS ZONE. It seems that Rugby residents not only do not mind being polluted - but ask for more toxic pollution! Apparently, says Mr Elvin, no-one in Rugby, or elsewhere, except MRS P, has any concerns about the ongoing emissions at the Cemex co-incinerator, and so she must pay £100,000 for speaking up, as it is her own private vendetta, and of NO PUBLIC INTEREST! Human Rights? BLAH!

RUGBY COUNCIL SAYS :

MAKE MORE WASTE!!
Well not exactly - but they do say that the good people of Rugby are reducing, recycling and reusing so that their black bin waste is only about 15,000 tonnes a year, which would only supply about a week's Refuse Derived Fuel for the Cemex co-incinerator. So we need another 50 small market towns to send us their waste - bring it on, from all corners of the world.

SAVE US £30,000 A DAY!
500,000 T WASTE REQUIRED FOR THRIFTY CO-INCINERATOR

500,000 tonnes Waste wanted in Rugby for the processing and manufacture of Refuse Derived Fuel to be co-incinerated in the area of multiple deprivation and poor air quality in Rugby's western smokeless zone. Distance, BPEO, Proximity Principal, Pollution, and Human rights not an issue! Help the cement industry to save 500 tonnes coal - about £30,000 a day!! Commission paid!

2009-08-15T17:56:00.003+01:00

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL CEMEX RUGBY WAR RAGES ON

RBC PREDICTS ENVIRONMENTAL CALAMITY

SOUTHAM AND RUGBY BATTLE IT OUT!

WHICH will draw the CEMEX short straw, and have the 500,000 tonne a year WASTE PLANT and all its EMISSIONS and LORRIES dumped on them. Cemex has made two applications, at Rugby and at Southam, in a bid to turn 500,000 tpa household, commercial and industrial waste into 250,000 tpa into CHEAP Refuse Derived Fuel - friendly name "CLIMAFUEL." Meanwhile the WARWICKSHIRE WASTE PARTNERSHIP enters into agreements to burn most of Warwickshire's waste in Coventry's enlarged incinerator, leaving bemused bystanders to wonder where ALL this waste will come from? Rugby has beaten its 50% re-cycling target, so why are we being penalised for that?

SAFETY FEARS OVER WASTE PLANT!

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT UNREALISTIC!

PROTECTION OF RUGBY RESIDENTS IS NOT GUARANTEED! as Rugby Advertiser front page 13 August says : Rugby Councillors "hotly contest" and "DAMN the controversial Cemex plans" and tell WCC that "THIS SITE IS NOT SUITABLE" and that Rugby residents are already suffering air quality and pollution problems, and the town is blighted more than enough with the BLOT! The local residents, who live down wind of the monstrous CO-INCINERATOR, in deprived wards, and in areas of MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION, fear a repetition of the CORBY CALAMITY, and now understand that the so-called by the Environment Agency's "ONLY nuisance dust", is actually toxic, and hazardous, and causes health effects.

CEMEX SAYS:

"In addition to the original 2,000 pages of text, analysis, diagrams, and maps we have just submitted a further 500 pages of information as requested. This covered the chimney height, now having reduced the dispersion from 91 metres high to 35 metres - only 14 metres above the building - and information on air quality, groundwater and traffic, and we find it difficult to understand why the Rugby Council feels it needs more information."

12 August the RBC Planning Committee threw it out and dared WCC to go ahead with it in Rugby now!

WARWICKSHIRE TELEGRAPH:

VILLAGE FURY AT WASTE DECISION.
CEMEX WASTE PLANT NOT TO BE BUILT!
14 August Mary Griffins reports : "Villagers feel like second class citizens after RBC opposed the waste plant in Rugby but approved it in the countryside. Long Itchington, Marton and Princethorpe residents fear being bombarded with lorries." (Rugby already has about 1,000 Cemex HGVs each day in the AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA caused by Nitrogen dioxide emissions from lorries and from Cemex co-incinerator.) Traffic will come from all directions, and although we appreciate it is far too close to homes in Rugby, leading to pollution, air quality, odour, amenity and other environmental disasters and FUNDAMENTALLY IT SHOULD NOT BE BUILT AT ALL!

STEWART DAVIES SERCO :

SERCO is to lead the LONDON 6,000 BIKE HIRE as the mayor grants the contract to Serco, with no room for OYSTER.
The 6,000 bikes will be based in nine London Boroughs. Stewart Davies makes good again as Corby and Rugby lick their wounds.

RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSIONS
Warwickshire County Council breaks all records for the most number of unlawful planning permissions granted to a company! RUGBY CEMENT virtually always builds first, without applying, knowing that the tame planners and Councillors at WCC will simply nod it through as usual - without any proper public consultation, any environmental impact assessment, and in breach of the EU and UK laws on EIA and Public Participation.

Indeed this is how the cement plant was built - unlawfully!
And operated by the Environment Agency - unlawfully! And became a CO-INCINERATOR - unlawfully!
THANKS are due to WCC!!

Often the councillors break their own constitution, and attend site visits "in secret" BEFORE the application is even heard in Committee in a blatant effort to outwit the public who are affected. WCC have dug themselves into a fine corner this time. The government position on this is apparently in PPG 18, issued in 1991 and long outdated and superseded by other laws. PPG says they can go on building and building and getting retrospective permissions as much as they want - an the worst thing that may happen to them IF the Local Planning Authority were to pluck up courage and to tell them to "STOP! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" would be a maximum slap-on-the-wrist £20,000 fine. Peanuts!

CEMEX TOLD "NO!"

2009-08-09T23:34:00.003+01:00

RUGBY COUNCIL SAYS..

"ENOUGH! CO-INCINERATOR IS ALREADY TOO MUCH!"

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL recognises the increase in toxic air pollution in Rugby and the very real threat now facing local residents, and dedicates about 50 pages on the www.rugby.gov.uk web site in the Committee report to the the planning committee on Wednesday 12 August. It says to turn down the Cemex application for a 500,000 tpa waste plant to manufacture RDF to feed the monster CO-INCINERATOR.
RBC cite many reasons, including the EXISTING POLLUTION FROM THE CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR, and the LACK of any proper air quality assessment (PM2.5 particles ignored) and the FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE HEALTH IMPACT
of the CURRENT OPERATIONS and CUMULATIVE IMPACT.
Seems RBC have been reading my many emails on the subject after all!

DUST FALL OUT NOT OUR FAULT! says CEMEX CEMENT in Rugby Advertiser 6 August. " The overnight dust fall out was not our fault!" as dust rains down, yet again, on Long Lawford,. Townsend Lane residents contacted the Advertiser (yet AGAIN!!!) to report a Monday morning fall-out. The Environment Agency is looking into it, and Cemex also takes samples for analysis. Apparently the co-incinerator's own (very limited, Mickey Mouse) monitoring, according to Cemex, "did not record any problems at that time, and we also had a report of a bonfire in the area, and we will know the outcome in about three days". And the wind, as ever, reported today on Radio Rugby, was blowing in completely the wrong direction!! In June 2009 Cemex was fined a paltry maximum £20,000 at the Stratford Magistrates Court, after the Environment Agency spent no less than TWENTY SEVEN MONTHS "thinking" about it". Then there were THREE very discrete/secret/unpublicised hearings in Rugby), before Judge Sanders, made a judgement, "under the impression" , as created by Cemex, its consultants AMANDA GAIR and the Environment Agency and its EXPERT Professor Roy Harrison of Birmingham University/ Health Protection Agency, that "that 8.67 tonnes of pulverised coal dust was not proven to be harmful to health of the Rugby residents up to three miles away who were covered in black oily dust and particles."

Some might even say 8 tonnes of coal dust is GOOD FOR US!! No weaklings in Rugby - we are the supermen!

RUGBY OBSERVER LETTER:
LONG LAWFORD: "Last week the citizens of CORBY won a landmark case against their local council. To the horror of the community they witnessed a rapid rise in the level of local birth defects, and after what would appear to be insurmountable odds finally managed to prove the negligence of the authorities in failing to protect them from high levels of fugitive metal particulates covering the town during the demolition of the local steel works.

Compare this outcome with the situation in RUGBY, and it is difficult not to believe that our town must now be at a moral crossroads. Do we continue to allow regular illegal clouds of fugitive, potentially dangerous levels of dust to cover our community, with all the obvious health concerns for the elderly, young and weak residents of the borough? Do we continue to stand aside and watch the ever expanding business interests of one company blight our skyline and change the surrounding area into a massive, polluted moonscape? In this modern world of environmental awareness, why do we allow our community to be slowly poisoned and destroyed by one company’s voracious appetite for profit?The people of Corby stood up to be counted, they questioned the ability of the very people who were elected to protect the community, and found them wanting.

In a well attended public speech to RUGBY residents at St Oswalds Church last week Professor Paul Connett criticised amongst many other practices, the lack of credible monitoring for Dioxins and Mercury, both known carcinogenics at this local plant, and the almost obscene level of ‘averaging out’ of all chemical release figures before publication. When combined with a bizarrely high safe limit level requested by the Environment Agency for these emissions (as if there is a safe level for this poisonous stew) one wonders why we have stood aside for so long already.

CORBY had the courage to react when their community was at threat; the people of Rugby need to reach the same level of concern before it is too late."

CORBY DUST IS BLAMED!
AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST MAGAZINE : " The High Court decided that toxic hazardous dust kicked up by disturbing contaminated hazardous landfills from the closed Corus Steel works could have caused birth defects." "The Judgement will have implications elsewhere - for instance protesters in Rugby claim the cement (CO-INCINERATOR) works and associated traffic leads to excess toxic dust in the town. Likewise waste management sites that are known to cause air quality problems because of deposited dust and windblown dust should NOW be REASSESSED, not just for "nuisance", but also for potential toxicological effects."

PLAY "I SPY!"

STEWART DAVIES stood in Peterborough council elections in 2002 for Lib Dems. This Cambridge graduate was at first in 1986 with ICI; then was MD at Corus Steel; then founder of Corby Urban Regeneration; then moved over to cause mayhem as MD of Rugby Cement; then CEMEX; then SERCO: and 2001 Climate Change Agreement; EU Trading; Sustainable Cement initiative, and now highly favoured Commissioner for the Environment - appointed by HILARY BENN for a second three year term.

SPOT CEMEX POLICE BIKE: word on the street has it that this "widely publicised and much acclaimed and world-wide well-reported generously donated bike" has been stolen and auctioned on ebay, for a fraction of the £1,000 Cemex paid to Warwickshire Police to purchase/sponsor this environmentally sound piece of kit. Environmental groups have asked under the FREEDOM of INFORMATION ACT how many other such "donations Warwicks Police have received from industry?"

Professor Paul Connett Talks in Rugby

2009-07-25T09:59:00.005+01:00

Last night as the rain came down across Rugby Town, renowned international health expert Professor Connett, chemist and toxicologist, gave a presentation to a busy church hall in Rugby.

The audience comprised of Councilors, Planning officers, Journalists and members of the public concerned for their health.

The talk was on the zero waste program, the CEMEX co-incinerator emissions and possible health effects from the plant's pollution.

A full write up will follow shortly but in the meantime listen to this recording that was made shortly before Professor Paul Connett gave his presentation:

Listen!

Recording used with the kind permission of Christian Payne

People left the talk educated and inspired.

Watch this space for more!

PROFESSOR PAUL CONNETT

2009-07-20T08:38:00.004+01:00

(24 JULY 7.00 PM ST OSWALD'S CHURCH RUGBY)We are delighted to welcome renowned international health expert Professor Connett, chemist and toxicologist, to give a presentation on the CEMEX co-incinerator emissions and possible health effects from the plant's pollution. This could not be more timely as the air quality in Rugby is deteriorating , and the Cemex admitted emissions increase greatly in 2007. Then of course there is the great controversy over the 8 tonnes of pulverised fuel that blew all over Rugby in March 2007. That does not appear on any pollution inventory, nor does the KILN FLUSH from the same day, which caused raised levels of particulate, as they battled to shut down the kiln.

PROFESSOR ROY HARRISON
was asked by the Environment Agency in May 2009 to write a report about the March 10 2007 pollution incident, and a second one after the 11 May meeting with DR AMANDA GAIR the CEMEX air quality "expert", who seems to be not quite as expert as she would try to make out? BARRY BERLIN acting for the EA and supposedly "prosecuting" seemed more inclined to help Cemex "get away with it", and the Judge remarked that there was indeed undue delay in this case from March 2007. The professor was unable to agree with the GAIR figures, but there was some agreement on four points, including that the coal dust leaving the site boundary was between 1.6 and 3.1 tonnes. But wind direction and speed were not agreed and Cemex did not make its data available so they went on too low a wind speed, at 1.6 metres per second from the RBC low level wind vanes, which were no use in this case, being at the wrong height (too low to ground at 3 metres) and in the wrong locations.

THE TWO AIR QUALITY EXPERTS argument ranged between 9 kilos and 8 tonnes of "dispersed" dust! They could NOT agree how much of the 8.67 tonnes of coal dust had actually travelled across Rugby up to 4 kilometres away leaving black sooty/oily coatings everywhere. Cemex and GAIR had refined it down to 1.6 tonne - but no explanation! NOR what the wind direction and speed was; NOR at what height the emissions were released - at the 46 metres actual silo - or as AG preferred at a random 20 metre height; NOR what the particle size distribution would be; AG estimated and calculated and guesstimated - most unconvincingly. JOHN SIVITER witness said there was "some coal dust left on the floor adjacent to the silo, so not all of the coal dust left the site." AG used the wrong air quality monitors - in Rugby Road , Clifton and in Murray Road, but finally they agreed that the Parkfield Road monitor and Avon Valley School were on the edge of the plume , and showed raised levels.

A PERMITTED KILN FLUSH had occurred earlier in the night and all the workers at Cemex were busy with trying to control the kiln and shut it down - so no ELV emission limits count! FABER MAUNSELL were in there too, and the wind direction from Cemex was claimed to be between 215 and 236 degrees at the time. Short lived peaks were noticed at T7 and T15. The AGENCY threw in some graphs for good measure.

CONCLUSION:
depends critically on the amount of pulverised fuel released into the atmosphere, but no-one was able to say if the estimates were reliable. The analysis of the monitoring data was not considered reliable, as the wind direction had not been taken from the cement works as it should have been at 40 metre high. The dust dispersed was possibly 3.1 tonnes, or possibly 9 kilos, and anywhere in between, and up to 8.67 tonnes. "These estimates depend critically upon the assumed settling distance of the coal dust, which is open to considerable uncertainty which consequently applies to these estimates also." "There was a poor knowledge of the amount of coal dust released and the height at which the PM10 particles separated from the bulk pulverised fuel and commenced their downwind transport."

HEALTH IMPACT:
It was unlikely that the recommended limit of 50 micrograms per cubic metre would have been exceeded. "However had the mass of fuel release been greater than 8 tonnes, then it is very likely that an exceedence of the health based standard would have occurred. It should also be pointed out that ANY EXPOSURE to airborne particulate is believed to be harmful to health and the air quality standards and guidelines are set to limit the magnitude of those adverse effects rather than as a no effects level. Consequently any additional exposure carries a RISK OF HARM, but the smaller the exposure the lower the level of harm."

WAS JUDGE SANDER CORRECT
and did he actually have any evidence to allow him to conclude that there were "no health effects and no health risks" and that is why he would keep it OUT OF THE COUNTY COURT and only at this very local MAGISTRATE level with its maximum fine of £20,000? I think not, not based on the two reports and evidence we have since obtained. There was only UNCERTAINTY and no certainty of anything at all!

"OUCH!"

2009-06-22T11:33:00.003+01:00

STRATFORD MAGISTRATES 16 JUNE
JUDGE SAID CEMENT PLANT SHOULD NOT BE THERE:
we all agree if we started again it should not be located there!!

AGENCY PROSECUTION FOR 10 MARCH 2007:
Cemex finally said they had to "take it on the chin" and say "SINCERELY SORRY " in a grovelling apology letter for dumping 3-5 tonnes pulverised coal dust from an over full silo, thickly and blackly deposited on Rugby residents up to 1.5 miles away years ago in March 2007.

BOTH THE AGENCY and CEMEX pleaded for this case NOT to go back to WARWICK CROWN COURT where they got a £400,000 fine in 2006, and asked the Judge Sander to "hit them to the maximum of £20,000" (plus costs) so they did NOT have to go to back Warwick; NOT back to Warwick; NOT back to Warwick!!!!!

THE AGENCY did admit there is great concern in Rugby about this plant and tried to convince the Judge that this was most unfortunate and that the giant 1.3 million tonne a year cement plant had always been there since the 19 Century.
NOT MENTIONED: The Financial Times article about the alarms all being "switched off and suppressed" to allow the plant to run and run without hindrance by alarms; and Cemex letter of December 2007 to EA saying they had now "removed the alarm suppression from all the equipment!" They were at pains to say this was a one off thing and that normally alarms worked. They did not mention the massive emissions increase in 2007 over and above those of 2006, nor that during all this the EA was allowing Cemex to experiment with a new bag filter and with burning tyres, which seem to have increased the emissions way above the "claimed" 18% increase in actual production.

The Environment Agency (Mr Burnham?) apologised to the Judge that the bundle had only been received this morning and said he thought they had been sent, but they must have been sent elsewhere; costs had been agreed at £13,469 and that most other things had been already been agreed before the two parties with a lot of correspondence over this weekend. Part two of the case was dropped - without explanation. Cemex pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to this serious breach of the operating Permit, by emitting between 3.1 and 3.6 tonnes pulverised coal dust, some of which blew up to 1.5 miles away over Rugby on March 10th 2007 from the pulverised coal silo that was overfilled by the workers. It was one of two - a petcoke silo next to it. There was disagreement between the two sides as to how much had crossed the boundary, they thought 5% to 22% of the total, but both agreed it was a severe breach. In mitigation Cemex had cleaned up and valeted and window cleaned.

A previous prosecution in 2007 earned a £50,000 fine at the Court of Appeal (no mention of the £400,000 awarded by the Warwick Crown Court!) for depositing health damaging clinker dust on local residents, but this coal dust (shows photographs) has no health damaging potential as far as they know. Professor Harrison of Birmingham University had done two reports and it was only nuisance dust and unpleasant, but no complaints of health effects had been received. There were some PM10 emissions but "there was no evidence that the PM10 levels were elevated and they were as expected in an area of this type", and there was "nothing to show there was any health damage.". Are there any monitors? No! So how do they conclude this?

There was no serious risk in this case, and my learned friend and I were just discussing the fine has to be substantial enough as to make them feel it and also the bad publicity this large company would get. This court can deal with it - away from Rugby and NOT NOT NOT at Crown Court!!

The Cemex lawyer Mr Green then said that he thanked the EA for giving such a fair and balanced account. They had prepared a statement of mitigation and prefer to keep this court case before this magistrates court. "Rugby Cement is a very sensitive site, as you can imagine, but built there historically in the 19th century, or maybe even before Rugby town was built. Cemex have to live together and the people living and working near the works do not wish to be troubled, not in their homes or businesses. Cemex holds a Community Forum that meets regularly to talk about these issues. This was a most unfortunate equipment failure, although we have to accept there were no functionality tests, and we cannot avoid this. A short cut was taken and lessons have been learned. The paper work was missing and there was no written record of the maintenance during shut down,
and no available paperwork, and no audit trail. It was supposed to work but the screen was blank due to a software update that was not checked. We admit it is closing the door after the horse has bolted. Mr Handcock put a full report into the EA and we have had to take it on the chin."

They comment that the EA did not issue the prosecution until late last year, but local people have shown and voiced much concern to Cemex, the EA and the RBC. They say it will not happen again. There was no attempt by Cemex to put profit before health and safety and they admit it was a serious lapse, one thing going wrong after another. Cemex employed a team of window cleaners, car cleaners and valets. There was one car sales business much affected. In the October 2005 incident health was put at risk, and they finally got a fine of £50,000 in 2007, but this March 2007 incident was only coal dust. Since the 2007 March incident there have been no issues at all between the EA and Cemex. HMMMM???

Cemex have to "co-exist with local residents and they want no further nuisances of this kind." They ask the court to retain this case within their jurisdiction and to fully deal with it and ask for leniency because of the delay in this case, and generally because they have been co-operative and generally responsible and keep the fine at the top end of the limit.

JUDGEMENT:
It was a breach of permit at a very large 1.4 million tonne a year cement works located close to Rugby. "If we were to start again no doubt everyone would all agree that it is not a good place to have it." Being located there gives additional responsibility to Cemex, as it has significant impacts on the community. 1.5 to 3 tonnes of coal dust is not insignificant and it was a nuisance, but no risk to health, but was unpleasant. Significant features for sentence are:
* failure of probe and failure to maintain it;
* poor records - no audit trail;
* 6 months with no equipment checks - particularly when failed earlier checks.

The failings were compounded by software failure and the alarm system was frankly inadequate, and the software had been upgraded so that the flashing screen did not work. There was no audible alarm and the workers relied on a back stop because they believed it would work and then silo would be shut down.

"One area of concern, I put it no stronger than that, is the implication that this was a series of individual mistakes that came together caused equally by individual failings but I find it rather more direct systemic failure by the company to ensure regular maintenance, regular checks and software checks. It would be easy to lay the blame on an individual in this case, but there were repeated failures. Cemex did react reasonable and speedily and complied promptly and in a timely fashion, and they did all they could do to put it right. The company regret the position they find themselves in as they have damaged the relationship with the community on which they put 'some' value.

Considering the penalty and sentencing guidelines and the previous conviction, and considering it would have gone to trial at the Crown Court if health had been at risk, I put a £30,000 fined reduced to £20,000 plus costs of £13,469, with 14 days in which to pay."

ON YER BIKE!

2009-06-07T22:07:00.003+01:00

"BOBBIES ON THEIR BIKES THANKS TO SPONSOR DEAL!"
BOBBIES on the beat will be patrolling the town on bikes thanks to a sponsorship deal from Cemex. Officers in the Rugby Town North Safer Neighbourhood Team will now be able to use their new specialist pedal bike, worth more than £1,000, to patrol their beat more extensively and respond to calls quicker. PCSO (now a PC biker as opposed to PC Plod) said: 'We are very grateful to Cemex for funding the bike. Travelling around by cycle is environmentally friendly, time efficient and keeps us visible to the public who can approach us." Rugby Advertiser 29 May. Any comments to: rtn.snt@warwickshire police.uk

RUGBY - FIRST CAR-FREE ZONE!
With cement plant boundary security now guaranteed, "sponsored" officers can speedily arrive at the scene of environmental crime, stick their spoke in, and reassure the victims that exposure to hazardous dust will not harm them! With the obvious added benefit for Cemex, of not incurring the expense of funding car washes for the hazardous sticky dust fall-outs. Not only that but "Cemex has recently been working on a cyclist safety programme", and it is rumoured that all Rugby residents will be forced to ride bicycles so that Cemex tankers and trucks can have all the roads to themselves. This will have the added advantage of removing air pollution caused by residents' cars in the AQMA for NOX - thus allowing Cemex more "headroom" to fill up the ambient air with their ever-increasing emissions from the installation and from the lorries. The sky's the limit!

EXCUSES.. EXCUSES
as Cemex struggle with statistics, sums, percentages, and the concept of increases/decreases or up/down, they rush through the unverified 2008 PI data, and write in May 2009: "definitely annual emissions were down during 2008 as production was less." And of 2007 : "the 35% increase in Nitrogen Oxides from 2006 was caused by just an 18% increase in production of clinker." Er? It gets worse : "To summarise, since the commencement of waste derived fuel use as shown in trial reports NOX emissions have been reduced in the order of just under 60%." Shall we send them a calculator?

METALS - UP, BUT NOT REALLY?
And why were metals and other pollutants so increased in 2007? "The periodic measurement CAN provide UNREPRESENTATIVE results" - metals, dioxins etc sampled ONLY twice a year. "However, as ALL these 'unrepresentative' results were nevertheless within the stringent limits set by the EA, retesting was therefore not deemed necessary." Novel response - not mentioned at all in public consultations in 2008, but only when we pointed out the increases on the Environment Agency's Pollution Inventory. And how do you calculate that PI? " We use Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMs) to collect some data for main pollutants - as in the Permit. Periodic monitoring (usually biannual) data is used to calculate the mass emissions figures by applying factors relating to the number of hours operated and the crucial GAS FLOW data." Can the Public see these - NO!

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL
and Faber Maunsell also seem to have a problem with sums! In the April Air Quality Updating and Screening Assessment (which pre-dates Cemex 2008 PI data), they state : "RBC have identified NO installations within the Borough where emissions have increased substantially - by 30%." Oh, so they failed to consider the 2007 figures from the Cemex/Agency Public Register they keep? Nitrogen dioxide is increasing in the ambient air every year, apparently "due to Rugby residents cars", and not from Cemex emissions and its hundreds of HGVs each day. Meanwhile the Council grants planning permission for a 37 bed hotel, four office blocks and a health club in the Conservation Area next to St Andrews Church, ripping out all trees in the process, and increasing pollution. The development requires at least 200 car parking spaces, but they are to get away with providing NONE, while 80 cycle spaces will be provided instead. Are these for the Cemex sponsored bikes?

PLANNING and PERMITTING
are also causing problems! Warwicks CC now have to admit that Cemex have not filled in correctly ANY application (out of 15?) made since 2005. WCC say this was "not deliberate" - which we take to mean "merely incompetent" then? There seems to have been confusion as to who claims ownership of the sites at Southam and Rugby. It now seems THE RUGBY GROUP LTD Company number 206971 says it owns them - and not all these others who have been claiming ownership for five years in the various applications. It is EVEN MORE ODD that the cement plant was run by The Rugby Group Limited using the "unlawful" IPC permit of 1999, which they "acquired in secret" from their mates at the Agency, and then in August 2001 they applied for the IPPC permit, So far so good - however after two years of argument the IPPC permit was granted NOT to the applicant, but to RUGBY LTD 475212 - who never ever applied for a permit.

TOXIC FUMES CLAIM

2009-04-28T22:17:00.004+01:00

...OVER BID TO MAKE RUGBY TRAFFIC FREE

Toxic fumes may reach dangerous levels in Rugby next year warn officials in the Rugby Advertiser on 23 April. New figures released this week already show that NITROGEN DIOXIDE levels have increased around the town possibly due to having more traffic. Proposals to close roads for pedestrianisation may clog up the town pushing up levels of nitrogen dioxide above the recommended national health guidance and leading to more congestion in narrow street canyons.

Despite all this RBC and the WCC Area Committee backed the scheme and WCC are to have the final say, but that, in a sanctimonious dismissal "it was too late to change the plans now!"

On 20 April the Rugby Community Cement Forum and the public were alarmed to discover the increase in the Cemex emissions from 2006 to 2007. Cemex said that the increase was "due to an increase in production", but this left many people scratching their heads as to why there was no correlation between the "increases in the different pollutants", as you can see for yourselves in the Environment Agency table (see blog 12 April) : i.e carbon dioxide up 25% ; nitrogen oxides up 50%; lead up 300% etc etc?? Many people think that the TYRE BURNING introduced at 3 tonne an hour, after the fitting of the BAG FILTER in March 2007, in order to "comply with the WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE" , may actually be the cause of the increase in pollution?

TAKE NOTICE OF WARNING! said the Editor of the Advertiser: "Whatever the normal safe levels of nitrous oxide and other chemicals there are in the area, Rugby has a DISADVANTAGE!! . It doesn't matter how safe and efficient the Cemex chimney is, something is coming out of it. Even if it were completely innocent chalk dust it can't exactly be good for you to be breathing it in. But I am not trying to criticise Cemex here - I believe it is a conscientious company with concern for the community - I also have no doubt that the new works is 'a whole lot safer' than the old works. So anyway the last thing we want to exacerbate the situation is by increasing the danger of chemicals in the air by choking the town with a pedestrianisation scheme. Councillor Sandison Chair of Sustainable Rugby warned that taking traffic out of the town centre would turn other streets into fume induced chemical canyons. If air quality is moving quickly towards dangerous levels, then the public has the right to know about the cause and what is going to be done about it - it's more important than spending money on a pedestrianisation scheme!"

POOR AIR QUALITY KILLING THOUSANDS IN LONDON!
Sunday Observer 26 April:

Pollution kills far more people every year in London than the previously accepted and estimated 1,000. The London Assembly said that at least 2,905 premature deaths each year, and probably "many thousands", were caused by dangerously high levels of substances such as NITROGEN DIOXIDE, fine particulates, and ground level ozone that lead to heart and lung diseases, and also affects those who are already ill with an unrelated condition, according to the report.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY RECRUITS:
quote 14042 on its job pages:

"for £60,000 a year, plus exceptional benefits, a National Trading and Regulatory Services Manager to adapt new approaches and to invent new systems and ways of working as carbon trading and producer responsibility become more powerful tools in "improving regulation." (???) This role will be at the forefront of regulation and comes with a £4 million budget. The BIGGER PICTURE is the chance to IMPACT on £35 billion of ECONOMIC GROWTH!"

Now there's an offer you can't refuse - and which give the opportunity to "lead us towards a cleaner, better environment!"

EASTER GIFT

2009-04-12T19:32:00.004+01:00

4,000 TONNES OF POLLUTED GAS DAILY

RUGBY CEMEX MASSIVE EMISSIONS INCREASE 2006 to 2007

(see table below)

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY TOLD HOUSE OF LORDS MANY "STRANGE/QUESTIONABLE" THINGS TO WIN CASE; TO SILENCE RUGBY PROTEST; AND TO EXTORT COSTS!!

13 (d) "No-one who lives near the works appears willing to continue the proceedings. In fact local residents other than Mrs Pallikaropoulos have failed to display any continuing interest in operations at the Rugby Cement Works."

13 (g) "In essence these proceedings constitute one relatively affluent and committed individual's own private campaign."

WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH?

AND WHO IS TELLING THE PORKY PIES?

(click table below to view larger)

COMIC RELIEF?

2009-03-24T20:56:00.004Z

FUNNY FOR MONEY?
"CEMEX: THE BIGGEST RED NOSE IN RUGBY!"
front page Rugby Advertiser 19 March.
RBC SAY 19 March "CEMEX CEMENT :
THE BIGGEST ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTER IN RUGBY!"

OH NO - NOT IN RUGBY!
LOCATION UNSUITABLE!
Cemex donated £5,000 to Comic Relief, by hanging a big red nose out of its Rugby town centre office block, but that did not help to "soften the blow". Cemex indeed got a bloodied red nose this week at the Rugby Borough Council planning meeting of 11 March when RBC councillors were advised to tell Warwickshire County Council and Cemex "where to stick it " - as regards the 500,000 tonne a year waste plant. NOT IN RUGBY! Southam is the best option - or the least worst of the two proposed.

RUGBY CAN TAKE NO MORE!
THERE IS ALREADY TOO MUCH POLLUTION!
ENVIRONMENTAL DETRIMENT!
AND HEALTH IMPACT!

AQMA - Air Quality Management Area; pollution existing near Cemex works and in town overall; pollution incidents; dust storms; lorries ; noise to already sensitised residents; MORE chimney stack/s!; site is contaminated landfill; proximity to River Avon; site is semi-wild with mature trees; site too small; 320 plus extra HGVs each day - and many more?; proximity to residential area; proximity to Avon Valley School; risk assessment not complete; risk under-estimated; re-opening of Southam railway not considered; air quality assessment incorrectly carried out - using wrong data - out of date!;no consideration of traffic capacity; failure to consider alternatives; failure to say where the WASTES will be arising etc etc. See RBC web site for all details R08/1499/CM MALPASS FARM.

PARTICULARLY PARTICULATE! and HEALTH IMPACT have all been left out of the application for obvious reasons. It's what you don't see that gets you! RBC " With the elevated levels of PM10 generally around the application site, next to the cement works, further significant increases because of CLIMAFUEL; WASTE or TRAFFIC is considered unacceptable in a high density housing area, especially as there is already a LARGE RISK of EXCCEEDENCE of a HEALTH-LINKED air quality objective!"

CEMEX TRIALS - IF AT FIRST you don't succeed trial and trial again and again! The Cemex trials (6 weeks!) were to have ended on 31 August 2008, but they were extended (in secret) by the Environment Agency to 31 December 2008. Then although the RCCF asked for data from the last-year's trials so we could provide a proper "informed" response to the latest IPPC Variation application for even more trials at a higher rate and INCREASED toxicity of the RDF, we were not given any data. BUT to our surprise the trials have again been extended - in secret - by the Agency to 30 April. WHY?

CEMEX BREACHES PERMIT ELVS again - that is why. The extractive tests for metals in the October TRIALS revealed the TRIALS FAILED: emissions at SEVEN times those permitted: 16 October 12:50 to 13.57 (after removal of uncertainty - so could well be even higher) the readings were 3.43 mg/NM3 against a permitted IPPC PERMIT(safe??) level of 0.5mg/Nm3. Cemex say: "We request an extension to the 6 month trial deadline of 31 August 2008" - as in the IPPC PERMIT. "Due to RE-TESTING being required and our annual shut down being extended as a result of market demand this has delayed our ability to complete sufficient testing at maximum substitution rates for each fuel mix stated in the PERMIT VARIATION> Therefore this has delayed our overall schedule of testing and collation of data, and the additional extension will enable more time to complete the trial as stated in the variation CONDITION 1a."

VICTORVILLE CALIFORNIA $2,000,000 FINE!
In the largest settlement yet in the ongoing USA EPA cement kiln enforcement Cemex must pay a civil penalty of USD$ TWO MILLION - resulting in cleaner air for California. Victorville is a 3,000,000 tonne a year production Cement plant - one of the largest in the country.
In 1997 and 2000 Cemex violated the Clean Air Act, and now must install new equipment under the EPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

PRESS RELEASE

2009-03-19T11:08:00.002Z

Briefing for Press from the Rugby Cement Plant Stakeholder Engagement Workshop 10.03.09
1. BRIEFING for PRESS
RUGBY CEMENT PLANT STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP

On Tuesday 10 March, stakeholders met at the Benn Hall in Rugby to discuss the future public and stakeholder engagement process around the plant. The basis of this work being that all stakeholders are looking for an improved way forward to work together with respect to the cement plant in Rugby. The workshop was a further step towards achieving this.

The context for this workshop is that following The Environment Council’s May 2008 review of stakeholder and community relations around the Rugby Cement Plant (RCP) and production of the report with recommendations for constructive ways forward, it was recognised that face-to-face engagement was necessary. You can access this report from our website: http://www.the-environment-council.org.uk/rugby-cement-plant- stakeholder-engagement-review.html), or contact us for a copy (contact details overleaf).

At an earlier stakeholder meeting in September 2008 it was agreed that a small group of stakeholders (a “Task Group”) would develop more detailed, community owned, proposals for a future engagement process. These proposals were brought back to the wider stakeholder group on 10 March for consideration.

The 10 March meeting considered and finalised many of the Task Group’s proposals on:

> The purpose of a future engagement process
> What activities will take place in a future engagement process
> Ways of working.
And it agreed how things would be taken forward from now.

Agreements arising from the workshop included:

> Confirmation by stakeholders of three key components for future engagement:
• The scope and purpose of the future engagement. This provides a statement and definition about what the process seeks to do, so that everyone is clear about what it can and cannot consider. A summary of the scope and purpose is set out on page 3.
• Ways of working for the future engagement. These express the way and spirit in which people will be expected to behave and work at meetings and between meetings. It aims to make the process more constructive, accessible and practical.
• The future engagement process. This comprises the activities that (together) will form the future engagement process around the Rugby Cement Plant.

> A Steering Group should be formed (to be selected by The Environment Council; with guiding criteria provided by the stakeholder group on 10 March) to oversee the establishment of the new stakeholder engagement process and to ensure it happens in a reasonable timeframe. The intention is that this group may be dissolved once these objectives are achieved. It expected that this group will be established before Easter.

> An independent secretariat and chair would be utilised for the new engagement process.

> The Rugby Community Cement Forum (RCCF) will continue to meet while the new stakeholder engagement process is being set up.

Briefing for Press from the Rugby Cement Plant Stakeholder Engagement Workshop
10.03.09
2. There were some issues that it was acknowledged still need to be resolved, but there was a shared understanding that it was constructive to acknowledge this. They are:

> The future engagement process is still a work in progress. Further development based on the above, agreed components will be undertaken by the Steering Group, which will be accountable to the larger stakeholder group.

The review of the stakeholder and community relations around the Rugby Cement Plant (RCP) process has been funded to date by the Cemex, the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council. Commitment has been made by Cemex and the Environment Agency to fund work into improving future engagement for a further twelve months, to help ensure a constructive and productive way forward.

For further information please contact Winsome MacLaurin at The Environment Council, 020 7632 0108 winsome@envcouncil.org.uk

Briefing for Press from the Rugby Cement Plant Stakeholder Engagement Workshop
10.03.09
3. A summary of the scope and purpose of the engagement:

Scope

> The scope of the engagement has been defined within the following two boundaries:
1) The current state of relations between stakeholders cannot continue; and,
2) Closure of the cement plant is not on the agenda

Purpose

The purpose of the engagement includes the following aspects (in no particular order):
> To establish and maintain a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship between CEMEX, the Regulatory Agencies and the Rugby Community
> An aspiration to generate trust between stakeholders and around issues
> Facilitate the provision to the Rugby Community of timely, clear, full and transparent information and explanations from CEMEX and other agencies regarding current issues, and future plans for changes, relating to the Rugby plant. Information provided to the community should be understandable.
> A way to proactively feed in information about plant incidents and how they will be dealt with
> To enable the Rugby Community to ask questions, raise concerns and seek clarification regarding matters relating to the Rugby plant.
> To give the Rugby Community the opportunity to influence decision-making.
> Mitigation of environmental, transport and other impacts of the plant
> Generation of a clear picture from the engagement about what the view of the community is (and to be able to hand this on to councillors, to the Environment Agency, etc)
> To be able to generate a common view on an issue when this is sought.

There were some issues that it was acknowledged still need to be resolved, but there was a shared understanding that it was constructive to acknowledge this. They are:

> The future engagement process is still a work in progress. Further development based on the above, agreed components will be undertaken by the Steering Group, which will be accountable to the larger stakeholder group.

The review of the stakeholder and community relations around the Rugby Cement Plant (RCP) process has been funded to date by the Cemex, the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council. Commitment has been made by Cemex and the Environment Agency to fund work into improving future engagement for a further twelve months, to help ensure a constructive and productive way forward.

For further information please contact Winsome MacLaurin at The Environment Council, 020 7632 0108 winsome@envcouncil.org.uk

A summary of the scope and purpose of the engagement:

Scope

> The scope of the engagement has been defined within the following two boundaries:
1) The current state of relations between stakeholders cannot continue; and,
2) Closure of the cement plant is not on the agenda

Purpose

The purpose of the engagement includes the following aspects (in no particular order):
> To establish and maintain a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship between CEMEX, the Regulatory Agencies and the Rugby Community
> An aspiration to generate trust between stakeholders and around issues
> Facilitate the provision to the Rugby Community of timely, clear, full and transparent information and explanations from CEMEX and other agencies regarding current issues, and future plans for changes, relating to the Rugby plant. Information provided to the community should be understandable.
> A way to proactively feed in information about plant incidents and how they will be dealt with
> To enable the Rugby Community to ask questions, raise concerns and seek clarification regarding matters relating to the Rugby plant.
> To give the Rugby Community the opportunity to influence decision-making.
> Mitigation of environmental, transport and other impacts of the plant
> Generation of a clear picture from the engagement about what the view of the community is (and to be able to hand this on to councillors, to the Environment Agency, etc)
> To be able to generate a common view on an issue when this is sought.

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE!

2009-03-10T23:10:00.004Z

CAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY LEOPARD CHANGE ITS SPOTS?

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY has pledged to "start" sharing information with the public of Rugby and the Rugby Community Cement Forum, but so far it is just not happening. In October 2007 the process of "renewing engagement with the local stakeholders, and becoming open, honest, and transparent and to "start" (after 8 years!!) to share information with the Rugby residents in a timely manner" was begun under the auspices of the ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL. For more details see their web site. As "expert facilitators" they have been called in to renew community engagement.

AGENCY LITTLE GEMS: Officer : "there was no such thing as hazardous waste in the UK before July 2005." "Bypass dust is the same as cement kiln dust."
Er.. no it is actually dust taken from the bypass, that is to say dust taken from the bypass that bypasses the cement kiln, and never goes into it. A bypass may be?

CEMEX IN TROUBLE - AGAIN!
$528,000 fine at Lyons Colorado - too much mercury in the CKD (cement kilns dust) found in the houses of local residents.

PINNOCCHIOS STAR IN PANTOMIME

2009-03-04T08:44:00.004Z

NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
The dead parrot obviously touched a raw nerve, and prompted Cemex (later same day 26) to circulate Draft Minutes of the 17 February Forum. These included SURPRISE SURPRISE an account of a discussion that NEVER happened! Section 4 e) was referring to the "Cemex Application for a Variation to the Permit (same permit EA have no copy of!) to trial 10 tph tyres", but included plenty of other sneaky changes to the plant operations, and increases in pollutants in Refuse to be burnt there, as previously explained. After a discussion about the chlorine content - that increases dioxins and risk of dioxin formation - this mysterious addition:

RE-WRITING HISTORY quote:

"The Environment Agency HAD withdrawn from the tyres variation application the section relating to the Climafuel specification change. This latter section was designed to bring about consistency across the industry and WOULD apply to ALL cement plants, but would not NOW be considered as part of this 10 tph tyres application."

Err... sorry who said so, and when, and where, and how? No-one told us and certainly not at the Forum.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE UNEXPECTED!
Cemex finally on 10 Feb provided RCCF with the "September 2008 duly made Application to burn 10 tph tyres etc" which had closed for consultation on 31 January! Now the Minutes seem to say that the application provided 10 Feb was incorrect. Meanwhile Agency's report of 10 Feb made NO mention of any changes to be made. Cemex notes of 12 Feb claimed "the EA will be deciding in week COMMENCING 16 February on the application for 10 tph tyres". OH - so no mention there of any changes! What suddenly happened?

MINISTER FAILS TO ANSWER LETTER ABOUT PERMIT. The draft minutes quote MP Jeremy Wright as saying "it was difficult for anyone to be able to comment on a variation due to the nature of the (non-existent) permit, and it must even be difficult for the Agency to know what they were determining."
Could we have a PERMIT to look at FIRST instead of a list of 6 years of pages of long variations, and also the data and the results of the last whole years RDF trials - as promised in the application? The Minister had simply passed the letter on to the Agency saying it is ONLY a Rugby operational matter.

OH NO I DIDN'T!
OH YES YOU DID!!
In typical panto style we are told by Cemex "Please find attached the draft meeting notes which have been APPROVED by the CHAIR for circulation." But the Chair throws a custard pie : "I queried 4e). He sent an email explanation. He did amend the notes to include some, but not all of the explanation. As a result it still did not make enough sense. He is now having 'another go'."

OH YES! THE AGENCY DID IT!
CEMEX has another go March 2: "As you know the application also contained information seeking to amend (INCREASE pollutants HUGELY!!) the climafuel (RDF) specification. This is SOMETHING that is BEING DONE across the industry following a programme of work led by the EA to produce standard waste derived fuel specifications for the cement industry. The cement industry was advised by the EA at the CENTRAL LEVEL to CHANGE (and thus to secretly increase with no consultation??) the specification the next time a variation was submitted. The EA decided that this was better undertaken separately from the tyres variation and informed us of this. The Variation applies therefore only to tyres. This is SIMPLY a decision by the Agency to deal with these matters as separate items, as opposed to dealing with them in a single application as they had originally advised." But this still does not explain why the Minutes were being subjected to "creative writing".

AS PINNOCCHIO'S NOSE simply grows and grows one "wonders" why the Agency has just WASTED OUR TIME over and over again in more sham consultations. This time Cemex and the Agency never even let us see the correct application - IF there is one? Why did they not "simply" provide information about what has been withdrawn and when and why, instead of us learning of it second hand from Cemex?
After all this was supposed to be a duly made application - now it seems it is not! It strengthens and further evidences the complaint to the Minister that the Agency fails to show any respect. There seems to be an agreement between the EA and cement industry to surreptitiously increase the chlorine, sulphur, lead etc without anyone realising. No doubt the "increases" will just be "written into the new EP permits" that are having NO applications, and no consultations and will be issued April to September."

HOW MANY PINNOCCHIOS STAR IN THIS PANTOMIME?

Dead Permit

2009-02-26T00:37:00.003Z

RUGBY COMMUNITY CEMENT FORUM
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!"

AGENCY FAILING IN DUTY CLAIM
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."

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY STATEMENT
"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.

500,000 T CEMEX WASTE PLANT
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.

RAILWAY TO BE RE-OPENED
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.

LOCATION, LOCATION...
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?

SOUTHAM HAZARDOUS LANDFILL

2009-02-16T07:54:00.003Z

DIRTY BUSINESS!

PLANNING INSPECTORATE
FREEDOM INFORMATION
ACCESS APPEALS REGISTER.

ABEYANCES GALORE SINCE 2004! Authorised abeyance ended 31 December 2008 (AS I POINTED OUT!) Planning Inspectorate agree abeyance 13 MAY 2009 (from October 2004!!) Cemex say WCC have finally agreed Planning Permission of 3/4/07 and hazardous waste bypass lorry routing agreement, but not signed! EA cannot grant IPPC permit as CELL 4 has no planning permission - yet! Constant stream of abeyances since April 2005 "to get planning permission from WCC; to get IPPC permit from EA; to have time to build new landfill CELL 4; to submit closure notice for (unlawful?) CELL 3 - cannot legally submit CLOSURE NOTICE while CELL 3 is still under appeal!

INSULTATION SECRET PROCESS
FOR 4 YEARS BY EA AND PI UNTIL TODAY. EA PR STILL CONTAINS NO INFORMATION ON SOUTHAM EXISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL CELL 3! STATUTORY CONSULTEES -SOUTHAM/STRATFORD/RUGBY BC still left out of the so-called CONSULTATION for 2006 IPPC APPLICATION for CELL 4.
No-one been properly consulted as the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY HAS REFUSED ALL ACCESS to the PUBLIC REGISTER.
CELL 3 landfill "appears" to have no planning permission and no operating permission - so they HIDE all the information!

SUMMARY
18/04/05 EA to PI: "This appeal to the Secretary of State is against a decision of the EA to issue a landfill Permit no BV1666IX dated 14 October 2004 to carry on in respect of a Schedule 1 Section 5.2 A (1) (a) activity, disposal of waste in a landfill at Southam Long Itchington Warwicks. 21/04/05 start date. "The EA has agreed.
WHILST THEIR APPEAL IS LODGED THE APPELLANTS ARE ABLE TO OPERATE UNDER THEIR WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENSE. These PUBLIC REGISTER papers will be held at the EA office!" OH really?

ABEYANCE NOT ALLOWED INDEFINITELY!
21/02/06 How many years are they permitted to go on in ABEYANCE and working under WML - how many extensions? Does this WML include the dumping of hazardous waste? They have NO valid planning permission - infringing EU Law! QUOTE: "The PI DOES NOT AGREE TO INDEFINITE ABEYANCE, but if the EA is in agreement and the PI agrees that PROGRESS IS BEING MADE, and specifically in this case a second PPC application is being made the abeyance in the Inspectorates' opinion is appropriate. The Southam works landfill site would be able to accept waste in accordance with their WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENSE. (Check with EA public register for SPECIFIC TYPES) An IPPC Permit cannot be issued until an appropriate planning permission is in force. However IF the parties do not come up with sufficient reasons for abeyance for both sites we may point out to them that the appeals have to proceed as APPEALS CANNOT BE PLACED IN ABEYANCE INDEFINITELY."

CLOSURE OF EXISTING CELL 3 SOUTHAM HAZARDOUS WASTE?
" The EA discuss LONGER TERM CLOSURE of LANDFILL SITE that is subject to the appeal but CLOSURE NOTICE cannot be issued while under appeal but a closure report could be produced."
A review October 2007 of long term management to EA, following agreement of a CLOSURE REPORT for RUGBY LANDFILL. No feedback and as SOME OF THE OPTIONS IN THIS REPORT WILL IMPACT ON THE CLOSURE OF THE LANDFILL AT SOUTHAM therefore Cemex is not in a position to progress a CLOSURE REPORT for Southam at this stage". Where can anyone see this?

PUBLIC REGISTER REQUEST 29/01/08 access for this case. NO! This appeal not yet been decided - AND IF YOU WISH TO SEE THE PUBLIC REGISTER FOR THIS CASE I SUGGEST YOU CONTACT LOCAL EA OFFICE. All boxed up at Tewkesbury! Files left BY MISTAKE at the Tewkesbury office! Finally AT Lichfield on Friday 6 February 2008 - NOTHING on the EA files at all about this appeal.

Denied access to information.

SECRET PROCESS
03/03/08 Please can I see the files? EA have NO INFORMATION only a file years out of date! Despite repeated requests and another two visits to the EA office LICHFIELD they REFUSE to make any papers available.
PI: "To obtain information you have to make a request under the FOI requests scheme and you MAY BE ABLE TO OBTAIN INFORMATION"
Abeyance until 30 June 2008. 24/06/08 CEMEX: EA request extension to PPC application due to KNOCK ON EFFECT BY WCC - legal requirement not met - no planning permission!

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - WCC LATEST:
12 /02/09 "EA is minded to issue a PPC permit and has drafted a permit and decision document to that effect. However we are unable to issue a permit until planning permission is received so the application remains on hold. We would therefore request an extension to the abeyance period for a further THREE MONTHS."

POSITION REGARDING REPEATED ABEYANCE
"Abeyance periods for appeals is not unusual and reasons can differ, but most common is continuing dialogue between parties which could lead to the appeal being withdrawn. Often this dialogue can become protracted and takes time (in some cases years). PI are here to process appeals. Whilst there is the possibility that agreement can be reached between parties then we are able to keep a valid appeal (for which this is one) in abeyance for as long as both parties are in agreement to do so. It would not be beneficial to anyone for us to force both sides to come to a Hearing or Inquiry to be heard and a decision to be made, when neither currently wants to follow that course of action, and is therefore seeking positive dialogue. We can only continue as we are currently.

BYPASS DUST RAINS!

2009-02-08T21:38:00.001Z

SOUTHAM QUARRY - CONFUSION REIGNS!

CURRENTLY NOT AVAILABLE ANYWHERE:
1. WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENSE for CELL 3.
2. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF CEMENT KILN DUST, BYPASS DUST AND CLINKER DUST from old style coal burning cement plants only - such as the old Rugby works, and from the new waste co-incinerating cement works at Rugby. 3.EU WASTE CODES, which are MANDATORY for the CKD and/or BPD - as that should be on the planning permission, on any IPPC/WML permission for land filling and on the Waste Transfer notes that are supposed to accompany every delivery of waste and to kept for two years.
4. ANY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT for this cement plant and its whole impact.
5. ANY IPPC PERMIT for landfill CELL 3.
6. COPY at Stratford of (new) OCTOBER 2006 IPPC application (new) CELL 4.
7. ANY PLANNING PERMISSION of any kind for CELL 3.
8. RESTORATION PLAN FOR LODGE FARM RUGBY!

MARCH 4/2008 WCC REGULATORY COMMITTEE:
S965/06CM036 Waste Management and classification of waste? "There is a cross over here between the roles and responsibilities of the County Planning Authority and Environment Agency. The County Council are concerned with land use principles - is the development acceptable in this location, whilst the EA deals with matters of detail, such as pollution control through the Licensing and Permitting Regime.

Concern has been raised that the land filling of CKD at Southam Quarry is unauthorised as the time limited planning permission has expired." (on 31 DECEMBER 2007!)

MINUTES:
RUGBY CEMENT Originally sought temporary PP to deposit CKD and subsequently a series of renewals granted. Concern BYPASS DUST BPD being deposited but EA advice was BPD was "broadly the same" material as CKD. The temporary PP had lapsed but the deposit of material still continued. UNAUTHORISED DEPOSITING was NOT a FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM because neither the EA nor Stratford-on-Avon Environmental Health had any objection. They "did not appear to be overly concerned" about the application and the Committee had granted permission for BPD to be deposited at (CELL 4) Southam Quarry close to it,(03/04/07) but not overlapping the section (CELL 3) covered by the current application although this had not been implemented due to agreement not having been reached on lorry routing."

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY FAILURE:
EA failed to clarify the issue about the difference between CKD and BPD and UNFORTUNATELY the EA's email had been confusing - "the two materials were broadly the same and that permission for the depositing of CKD included BPD." BPD contained about 10% LIME (only??) which meant that it was classified as hazardous material. An application to the EA for an IPPC Permit 2004 for depositing hazardous waste had been rejected and was the subject of an appeal.

DECISION:
In view of CONFUSION engendered by EA email they DEFERRED the application to vary condition 1 of PP "S965/06CM036 to allow ONLY the importation and deposit of CKD Cement Kiln Dust, spillage materials, road sweepings, laboratory samples and kiln bricks at Southam for a further temporary period to 31/12/08", to enable clarification of the status of the CKD and BPD. EA refers to Southam WML as being amended and "in a transition stage between WML and IPPC and EPR permitting" - but no copy available.

TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE:
HGVs seem to be transporting (for 8 years 140,000 tonnes) hazardous waste with no hazardous markers on HGVs, nor any telephone numbers, and the BPD has been reported by many different people and statutory health bodies as escaping during transport. Calls have been made by various councillors, statutory bodies and the public for proper tankers to be used, with hazardous waste markers and telephone numbers on the sides.

PLANNING INSPECTORATE AND CEMEX APPEAL:
EA 2004 refused IPPC operating permit for CELL 3 landfill for various reasons, and as NO VALID PP for hazardous waste dumping. This appeal has VERY STRANGELY been held in ABEYANCE ever since (FOUR years!) at the Planning Inspectorate, while they make a new IPPC application for a new site - CELL 4.

CLASSIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE - BPD.
WCC made several references to bypass dust as "recently being re-classified as hazardous waste". Oh - When? BPD seems classified as Hazardous Waste category H4 irritant, and H8 corrosive.
KETTON Cement plant has a good description of retro-fitting bypass system to allow waste burning in old plant, and how to extract highly volatile pollutants at bypass, collected in BPD.

A Little Bird Told Me

2009-01-30T20:24:00.004Z

CHAOS AT COUNCIL AS CHANGE OF USE DEFERRED.
DOES SITE HAVE ANY PERMISSION AT ALL?
CLEVER IDEA: LET'S CALL IT: "CEMENT KILN BYPASS DUST!"

REGULATORY COMMITTEE : QUESTIONS
Ability of Environment Agency and planners queried on 20 January, as there is much confusion about:
* Which actual site they are permitting - co-ordinates?
* What is hazardous waste bypass dust?
* Why it has no PPC operating permit?
* What, if any, Waste Management License exists?
* Why Stratford on Avon has inadequate Agency copy files?
* Why the planning inspectorate says the " PPC appeal is in abeyance from 2004 refusal, and 2006 appeal?"

TEMPORARY EXTENSION (NOT CHANGE OF USE!!) 4 March 2008 - "No waste other than Cement Kiln Dust, spillage materials, road sweepings, laboratory test samples. and kiln bricks arising from the Rugby Cement works Lawford Road shall be imported to the site" TO 31/12/08.
Various grids 420.633 and 418.631.

QUESTIONS QUESTIONS?
HAZARDOUS WASTE to be labelled on the HGVs, and also an emergency telephone number, or not? Officers report 4.6 claims "an interchangeability of the terms CKD and BPD." ERR NO! Another question "this is not a one-off UK's only cement plant so how do others transport and dump the BPD?" Answer: Cement HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS are usually on site "in house" in RURAL areas where the raw material is NORMALLY dug out, not in town centres as in Rugby! Rugby Parkfield Road landfill was refused IPPC Permit, and application withdrawn in 2006.
It is a closed landfill as too dangerous near residents - cumulative impact! Does hazardous dust escape from lorries in the town and along the route?

Cemex say "NO!" RBC EHO express concern, and request monitoring to protect residents.

AGENCY PERMITS OBSCURED - BY DUST?
BUO244IE: BVI666IX: NIM641 granted 14/07/08 for one year only; AJO106 granted 21/07/08 for one year only?? No EU Waste Codes; description of the BPD; analysis of the dust; and also no explanation of the difference between CKD and BPD. Is it an "irritant and corrosive" see H4 and H8 substances which through immediate, prolonged, or repeated contact with the skin or mucous membranes can cause inflammation, burns and worse.

CEMEX:
As you are aware we have been dumping bypass dust for 8 years - you gave a permission in March 2008 for a new cell 4. This cell 3 is a fully engineered landfill (for CKD??) and subject to monitoring by the EA. We thought it was OK just to carry on. There is a degree of confusion and lack of info between the difference between the CKD and BPD - there is uncertainty - they are similar, only different because taken out of different parts of the plant. BBD is only classified as hazardous because it is high in calcium oxide and is an irritant. We re-cycle it back into the process. (in cement mills) We re-use as much of it as we can and only dump what we have to. It is nodulised so as not to be spread by the wind, and sheeted clay lorries bring it here. You have given a planning permission for hazardous BPD in cell 4 and that is not built yet. We want to fill this cell with 30,000t more and landscape it. We have given comprehensive ES on this with so much detail.

COUNCILLOR:
I am under the impression that since 2000 that it had a previous permission for CKD so what has been happening here - over a lengthy period of years - an unauthorised operation has been taking place.

WCC OFFICER:
We had given a planning permission for CKD but there were no planning conditions attached to it to say only CKD - if I remember - and then BPD got re-classified as hazardous waste. We overlooked the EIA and gave a series of temporary permissions for CKD. It seem they are valid unless the High Court strikes them down. It is a very grey area. Planning permission may well have been granted (for non-hazardous waste) but we failed to realise an EIA was necessary - as a result of BPD being dumped instead of CKD, and the BPD being given a "new classification" as hazardous waste.

CEMEX:
A Hazardous Waste Management License is monitoring it regularly and it is subject to regulations. It is an irritant - I am not a medical expert but it is classed as an irritant. We use returning clay lorries. To prevent it from becoming airborne we nodulise it and sheet it. No records of it ever coming out of lorries. Bypass Dust did escape from the cement plant on November 16/17 and it fell on people but the EA are taking no further action (Obviously CAN NOT as emitted on a "shut down" with no Emission Limits in place!! Rugby residents are furious - but they can get their cars cleaned free - with receipt!)

COUNCILLOR/S:
I am sure she said dust sometimes came from the lorries?
Hazardous waste is transported on many lorries and tankers on the motorways you see them with signs - but you say it is categorised recently as hazardous waste - what level of hazard is it? Dust and powder are bad for asthmatics - so are garden products - dust causes asthma.. there must be a hierarchy's of hazards about it? Where does it come in table of hazards - mid way? We need technical knowledge about it and we should defer for more information. But we have permission for cell 4 last year and we have been badly let down by the EA or WCC or both! A deliberate cloud has been placed over it to get these grants of PP. For 8 years stuff has been put in the ground and we did not know it - transported at risk to people - exposed for 8 years with no planning permission. We have a Duty of Care to stop it going on any more.

WCC
But the EA have been monitoring it and they are in a transition stage between Waste Management License and PPC permit. BUT said a councillor the EA NEVER came back and told us what we asked - NEVER - and we have asked. WCC officer: I cannot remember what we approved CKD or BPD.

THE JURY'S OUT!!
They DEFERRED voting six for, and five against. For more information: history of site; EA response; what is nature of dust, and health impact; can they just make it a Change of Use from non-hazardous to hazardous, and overlook the 8 years 140,000 tonnes and allow another 30,000 tonnes until the new cell 4 is ready? Next exciting instalment WCC Regulatory Committee 17 February. (see WCC web for committee papers and long history of the site.)

Photograph entitled 'Whisper' by Brian Scott

FLY-TIPPING?

2009-01-20T09:36:00.004Z

HAZARDOUS BYPASS DUST. EVERYWHERE!

HAZARDOUS WASTE
NO PROBLEM!
IT'S ONLY 140,000 TONNES!

POOR WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Their beleaguered Regulatory Committee have now got to face up tomorrow to the challenge of nodding through yet another in the long line of Rugby Cement/ Cemex applications for a yet another RETROSPECTIVE permission. This time for a "mere" CHANGE of USE for the unlawful use of the SOUTHAM landfill non-hazardous waste, which has been used for eight years for the dumping of 140,000 tonnes of hazardous waste BYPASS DUST from the Cemex Rugby Co-incinerating Cement plant. You will recall Hazardous Bypass dust was dumped on Lawford on 16/17 November - but the EA say they can do nothing about it - no emission limits count when things go wrong!

BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL.
"In recent years the description and classification of the waste disposed of (without the mandatory EU waste code!!) has not accorded with the planning permission in place, and with the authorised use of the site. The permission allowed the deposit of non-hazardous Cement Kiln Dust and not the hazardous waste BYPASS DUST." "It must be recognised that this planning application seeks retrospective planning permission to regularise what is in affect a LARGE LONG STANDING and ON GOING breach of planning control - the deposit of 140,000 tonnes bypass dust!" "In theory it would be possible to refuse the application and seek the removal of the BPD which has already been deposited. But the PPG 18 on planning enforcement advises : 'while it is clearly unsatisfactory for anyone to carry out development without first obtaining the required planning permission an enforcement notice should not be issued solely to 'regularise' developments which is acceptable on its planning merits but for which permission has not been sought.'

SOME KIND OF OVERSIGHT?
140,000 tonnes hazardous waste - errr sorry! WCC omit to say that they have readily and repeatedly given "unlawful extensions to the planning permission for non-hazardous waste" all the time knowing this to be unlawful. I have personally informed them on several occasions! As for the Environment Agency - they seem unsure if it has any permission at all, or even needs any permission, and simply say they have "no objection." The EA are probably still trying to find out what, if any, operating permit supposedly ontrols the Cemex Rugby co-incinerator - so what matter is 140,000 tonnes hazardous waste in Southam to them?

COMPLIANCE WITH EU LAWS?
The disposal of waste in a landfill requires an environmental permit and will be subject to the provisions of the Landfill Directive and the Integrated Pollution prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive as well. Landfills are categorised into three types - hazardous, non-hazardous and inert for the purposes of determining the applicability of the requirements of the Landfill Directive.

The recovery of waste in or on land (not landfill) is also subject either to the requirement for an environmental permit, or an exemption from the need for a permit. The exemptions are prescribed in the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007. There are currently exemptions for some land reclamation operations and the use of waste for construction. Defra has recently consulted on a review of the current exemptions from environmental permitting with a view to tightening up on large-scale exemptions involving the deposit of waste on land.

CLEARLY NO PERMIT TO DUMP?
Whether for disposal or recovery an environmental permit may be granted by the Environment Agency, in cases were planning permission is required, only where relevant planning is in place.

Top picture used courtacy of Skampy

PERMIT - WHAT PERMIT?

2009-01-14T00:13:00.003Z

THE PLOT THICKENS.......

AFTER WEEKS OF INVESTIGATION the AGENCY finally reveal that : THERE IS NO PERMIT!!

"IPPC OPERATING PERMIT BL7248 granted August 2003 to Rugby Cement, now CEMEX Rugby, has been subject to many additions, variations and derogations over the last SIX years. Would we be correct in assuming that the EA have a simple aide-memoire detailing the current permitted operations which cross refer to formal decision documents that have authorised the changes? It would be helpful for the RUGBY CEMEX COMMUNITY CEMENT FORUM if we could have a copy - particularly as we are now being consulted on yet another APPLICATION (closes 31/01/09) to VARY the "said/invisible" Permit? We have a meeting scheduled for 4th February and perhaps you could let us have that schedule with your updated report?"

NO WE CANNOT!
"We don't have such a document I'm afraid. However, I agree it needs to be "clearer" , so we will either produce such an informal document, or review the legal document to consolidate it all. I was proposing to do that as part of our "information sharing" proposals that the Environment Council is working with us on. However, it's not a trivial task so I won't be able to give you anything final by 4th Feb I'm afraid. I hope to be able to update you later this week on what we are doing." Clear as mud!

LATER ON NEXT WEEK:
"We have checked on the national review programme and now understand that all cement works permits will be reviewed from April to September. That will produce a NEW consolidated Permit, but in a different format and likely to review some permit conditions in line with current good practice." Great public consultation procedure that - is that really GOOD PRACTICE or INSULTATION and SHAM yet again?

UP THE CREEK WITHOUT A PADDLE : is how the RUGBY RESIDENTS and the RCCF now find themselves. How can we consulted on an application to VARY a PERMIT IF and AS we have NO copy of a PERMIT to VARY?

QUESTION: WHY IS DATA from the (dubious/much debated) continuous particulate cement mill monitors NOT made available to the public or even to the EA - since Cemex say they were fitted in 2004, and the EA say they were fitted in 2006?
ANSWER: THERE IS NO RECORDING OF ANY CEMENT MILL DATA.

QUESTION : WHY STOP BURNING WASTE and why revert to COAL ONLY during instability, start-ups and shut-downs to 80% capacity - 200 tph hour raw meal feed, and what PICs (products of incomplete combustion) come from the emissions during waste burning and cause concern, but not from coal?
ANSWER: "It is not for us to explain why the European WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE requires what it does. I suggest she goes and bothers Brussels. And actually the products of incomplete combustion from coal are likely to be AT LEAST AS BAD AS THOSE FROM NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE, IF NOT WORSE! Ask anyone who's had to clean up the site of an old gas or tar works."

STALEMATE

2009-01-07T13:39:00.002Z

AS PLANT SHUT DOWN
USHERS IN POLLUTION-FREE HAPPY NEW YEAR?

THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, CEMEX, and RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL still licking their wounds from the pasting they got in the local press over their failure to come clean and admit the truth about the November 16/17 hazardous bypass dust pollution incident, are having a temporary respite during the annual maintenance shut-down. Unfortunately the cleaning of the plant has previously shown high levels of pollution on the local particulate monitors, but no such obvious problem will be revealed this time - as RBC removed most of the ambient air monitors in June 2007, and CEMEX/EA have none to monitor such particulate pollution.

THE ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL is finally organising, in January, the much-delayed meeting of the Working Group (the three funders EA; CEMEX; RBC could not/WOULD not agree any budget from September 2008), to make recommendations to the EA, CEMEX, RBC, and the larger full group in an attempt to determine "agreed ways forward for engagement around the Rugby Cement Plant." The working group will meet first and consider the purpose and scope of future engagement, and clarify what is actually "UP FOR GRABS", who will be regularly engaged, how, where, and when, and how these outcomes will be communicated to the public - in fact exactly what the Rugby Cement Community Forum does/attempts to do. Meanwhile there are independent activities, that cost nothing, and which could all be undertaken to ensure continual progression and to re-establish momentum - IF ONLY the "big three" were willing and able?

CEMEX; EA; RBC to (re?)state and publish publicly their respective legal roles and responsibilities in relation to the MONITORING, REPORTING, and OPERATION of the Rugby Cement Plant, and to state their respective objectives and purpose for engaging with the public.

A CENTRAL REPOSITORY to be created by CEMEX mapping out, in a TRANSPARENT and PROACTIVE manner all their current, and forthcoming consultations, and applications, and planning applications, where all essential information can be accessed free of charge, and containing all the relevant background information. The EA and RBC are to do the same. cross-referencing where there is duplication in engagement and information in order to provide TRANSPARENCY and CLARITY of COMMUNICATION.

SHARED RESPONSIBILITY between all stakeholders for establishing and building respectful, clearer, more transparent communications. This needs to begin with EXPLICIT and HONEST discussion of COMMON OBJECTIVES as an agreed starting point. It should also be supported by an agreed communications protocol.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY REFUSE ACCESS TO PERMIT and is as always the complete opposite of OPEN and TRANSPARENT. The Permit is not available on the Public Register, although CEMEX have now applied for yet another "simple" VARIATION to this INVISIBLE permit! It is a mystery how the public are to be consulted on this new application when they are refused access to the Permit? CEMEX apply to burn more contaminated RDF, along with 10 tph tyres, and during instability, and without any Emission Limit Values for longer periods etc etc. In response to the request for a copy of the permit for the RCCF the EA placed a note on the Public Register at RBC 25 November 2008:
WA/PPC/SP3735GK "Please find enclosed a NOTICE varying conditions of a Permit of 8 October 2003." This "note" consists of a list of 4 odd pages containing the conditions to be amended on page 2, and then some odd pages iii and iv with a list of variations FROM 2001 TO 2008, but seemingly they have forgotten the new EP Regulations, and there is no mention of that new permit issued by the EA in April 2008. WHO IS CONFUSED? WHAT permit is supposed to be in use at Cemex Rugby - any ideas anyone?

NOVEMBER INCIDENT TYPICAL OF THIS KILN: facts finally emerge: "a lump fell into the kiln restrictors which did not clear initially using blasters, and passed through the bypass ducting causing a safely interlock on the bypass ESP to activate and to "trip" emitting unabated course particulates for ONLY 4 minutes from the main stack." CEMEX do NOT fill in the mandatory section on how many kilos/tonnes of particulate were emitted, and the chemical analysis is NOT on the Public Register - but CEMEX claims analysis shows that "this dust is a material similar to partially weathered bypass dust," and was not dispersed. but was dumped on Lawford "due to the relatively calm weather conditions - a wind in a north westerly direction, at a speed of less than 10 mph." (no accurate record then? ) "Build-ups such as this are characteristic of a pre-heater system, and are effectively managed by routine checking and clearing. CEMEX has fitted new blaster systems, and in the combustion chamber, all of which go beyond the normal design requirements - as a result kiln flushes are very rare." (oh??) "This process is fully automated and occurs within minutes to minimise release of particulates. It would unfortunately appear that on this occasion unabated particulates resulted in a LIMITED DUST NUISANCE for a small area of local residents. It is not possible to guarantee that a fall of this nature will not happen in the future. No environmental damage occurred (?) - Cemex offer reimbursement for car cleaning."

EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES NOT IMPLEMENTED IN UK:
* AARHUS CONVENTION,
* PUBLIC PARTICIPATION,
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.

* On 4 December 2008 in Case C-247/07 the Commission found that the UK has FAILED to FULFILL its obligations under the 26 May 2003 Directive "providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and ACCESS to JUSTICE Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC." The Directive was not transposed into national law within the prescribed period and so the Commission brought infringement proceedings and issued a REASONED OPINION on 18 October 2006, giving the UK two months, but the situation still remained unsatisfactory and the Commission took action. The UK admitted it had not adopted the Directive and that the action brought by the Commission was well-founded.
THE UK TO PAY THE COSTS.

UK ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION 25 March 2008 advised the UK government that the Aarhus Convention had not been transposed into UK Law, and that there are significant barriers to public funding for environmental cases. There are no "rights" of redress over planning matters, and planning conditions are rarely enforced by the authorities, and there is no scope for access to environmental justice. The court cases are not FAIR, and EQUITABLE and are PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE! They are not equally matched as the claimant has to fund all the case himself out of his own funds, which is PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE, while the government uses unlimited public money, and also claims that there is "INSUFFICIENT PUBLIC INTEREST" even when it is obvious to all that there is a very wide public interest, in order to claim COSTS against the appellants. The only path open to the public who are being wronged is to complain to the Regulator (EA at Rugby), and they then usually fail to prosecute or to take any action - as at Rugby! Unlike court fees, which run into a few hundred pounds only, the overall costs of a civil action runs to hundreds of thousands of pounds: LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH 1999, in the context of environmental litigation, and with enduring relevance said: "Litigation through the Courts is prohibitively expensive for most people unless they are either poor enough to qualify for legal aid or rich enough to be able to undertake an open-ended commitment to expenditure running into tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds!" Also the pursuit of justice remains hampered by a systemic lack of specialist understanding within the judiciary. They frequently fail to produce results that adequately protect the environment, or serve the public interest, because of insufficient understanding of the technical context, and perceive the failings to be "little more than administrative breaches"
That perfectly describes the RUGBY CASE!

CEMEX CHRISTMAS GIFT TO RUGBY

2008-12-22T21:56:00.003Z

..Is HAZARDOUS BYPASS DUST!

"I PUT BLAME AT FEET OF THE EA!"
Advertiser Editor's Viewpoint:
QUOTE: "I really don't understand what is going on between Rugby Borough Council, the Environment Agency, and Cemex. The Environment Agency is, I believe, a GUTLESS WASTE OF TIME; the borough council is CONFUSED and UNSURE; and Cemex just want to get on with their business."

POISONING?
"I do feel quite certain that if anyone at Cemex truly believed that the company was poisoning the people of Rugby then they wouldn't be doing it. On the other hand to say that the release of material which is known to be toxic into the atmosphere is harmless is not taking community responsibility seriously. The fact is that any dust circulating in the air would be undesirable and may, over prolonged periods, be adverse to one's health."

WHO IS AT FAULT?
"With questions over original permissions and historic problems, plus a responsibility to support local businesses, I don't think Rugby Councillors know which way to turn. I put the blame at the feet of the Environment Agency. They are the ones who are SUPPOSED to be POLICING these types of situations. They are supposed to be the GUARDIANS of PUBLIC SAFETY, but seem not to know their arses from their elbows. They say the latest blow out, by all accounts the worst for years, was NOT a breach of production or safety guidelines, but that they will act over one in March last year...URGH! Someone has to take charge of the situation and to get a grip. They need to make some few hard decisions once and for all, and then we can all get on with our lives without this continuous conflict. And one thing people have to realise is that Cemex is not just going to go away, and in many respects it would not be good if they did." UNQUOTE

TOXIC DUST WILL NOT HARM YOU!
RUGBY COUNCILLORS CONFUSED AND UNSURE? Three million tonnes a year of dust, cooked, and made into two million tonnes of other dust, makes DUST! All these TOXIC EMISSIONS are INEVITABLE, and permitted (Agency Permit BL7249IH August 2003 particulate , gases, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, thallium, lead, chromium, dioxins , PAH, etc) and are being emitted 24/7 and there is NOTHING anyone can do about it - except to move the plant into a RURAL AREA where it should be! Following on from the preceding unlawful IPC Permit September 1999 emissions come from the main 115 metre stack, (one million cubic metres each hour) and from the 18 Low Level Point Sources , (600,000m3/hour) as well as fugitives from various sources. In order to make 6,000 tonnes a day of cement Cemex needs to burn about 1,000 tonnes a day of various fossil and waste fuels to heat up the kiln to "cook" the approximately 6,000 tonnes of chalk ( solids in 40% sewage slurry) and clay , and various unspecified (no EU waste codes!) polluted industrial wastes as substitute raw materials , such as foundry sand, mill scale and slag etc. Inevitably the volatiles are driven off from this process, creating particulate/dust, with absorbed heavy metals, mercury, arsenic, volatile organic carbons etc in hundreds of tonnes a day of waste gas. The raw materials all contain these toxic pollutants (some more than others which is why the row is going on over the uses of so many tonnes of wastes instead the usual raw material) and they are driven off during the process, and some are what they call "safely bound up in the clinker" .

There is debate over this "safe binding" as then the clinker is ground into cement dust in the mills which vent nearer to the plant and residents due to the low stack heights. It is permitted to run the plant for many hours with no EMISSION LIMITS - such as on startups and shutdowns to 200 tph raw meal. The EA is powerless because this is what the permit IT HAS GRANTED says! So why do they not write a better permit? Which is what we suggested to the House of Lords. The old plant only ever burnt 50 tph so from that you can see the scale of the problem - the new plant is not even considered as "started and ready to be regulated" until four times more - at 200tph! They were also allowed dispensation under the WID permit for SEVENFOLD INCREASED emission limits on TOCs , and on sulphur, over and above the WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE limits, as they said the extra emissions were caused by the raw materials, and not from the waste burning. What difference does it make to the people on whom it falls as to whether the pollution comes from tyres, coal, or raw materials - it is still the same - POLLUTION!

* NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT !
* NO PUBLIC CONSULTATION ever for this plant !
* DISPERSION MODEL hidden by EA (AQMAU);
* HOW MUCH TOXIC POLLUTION is there?
* WHERE does it fall?
* WHO does it fall on?
* VULNERABLE receptors receive "UNINVITED DOSE."
* WHAT HEALTH IMPACT, long term - short term ?

CEMENT PLANT IN SMOKELESS ZONE!
In part the COURT CASES were all about whether the AGENCY should have told the TRUTH to the people, or just told them as little as possible about the emissions. The Lords decided overall, (although two were not happy about it) that the EA could hide the environmental information about the pollution, and how it will impact on people. The EA were "only in the breach of common law duty of fairness", and it would not have made a scrap of difference if they had have told the truth. (This is so obviously wrong as we could have asked for so many different better permit conditions, but instead we have years of experiments and slow so-called improvements, while emissions of some pollutants are actually increased.) The EA concealed the facts during the so-called "Tyres Consultation" - which should have included ALL ASPECTS of the emissions, and of the IPPC PERMIT - but the EA told everyone we could only discuss the "difference between main stack emissions with coal, and with tyres when the plant was under control " and "nothing else at all about emissions!" RMC, the EA and RBC Environmental Health office, who all misled, had the actual IPPC application, but instead of revealing it they all spent TWO YEARS trying to confuse everyone, and convince everyone, giving out misleading "tyre burning" documents and non-technical summaries, and holding SHAM public meetings in an attempt to "appear" open and honest, but in reality hiding the most important information. This follows on from the Agency's SECRETLY GIVEN permit of September 1999, but because the three colluded now Rugby Borough Council can do nothing, unless it comes clean and admits its part in the deception? RBC Councillors considered taking the JUDICIAL REVIEW against the Agency, but they could not because of what the officers (and some councillors?) had done. The reality is that the EA, RBC and Rugby Cement (and Warwickshire County Council also implicated) all knew there would be a permission for unquantifiable pollution, unmonitored, uncontrolled and uncontrollable, sometimes more, sometimes less, the same as at all cement plants , and that the local authority can do nothing about it as it is EXEMPT from the legislation. Slowly the truth will out, BUT WHAT, IF ANYTHING, CAN LEGALLY NOW BE DONE?

CEMEX DUST CLOUD DID HAVE HAZARDOUS WASTE
( QUOTE Rugby Advertiser 18 December)
A dust cloud that was ejected from Rugby Cement and covered homes and cars in Long Lawford on 17 November DID contain hazardous waste. But plant owners Cemex say it will not cause ANY health risks to people. (NB: Rugby residents are very tough?)

THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY has also come under fire for NOT RELEASING INFORMATION sooner, and then ONLY when it was asked by the Rugby Advertiser - and for saying that it will NOT take any action against Cemex for the dust fall-out which happened last month. (NB: not so much "will not" as "CANNOT" because during any startup and shut down however protracted no ELVs (emission limit values) apply, so the plant is basically unregulated and the EA are powerless for many hours a year, the number of which is another of the cement industry big secrets!) However the EA has said this week it will be taking legal action against the cement manufacturers for releasing dust onto homes 21 months ago. (NB: as featured this blog 18 July 2007 - 7 tonnes pulverised coal dust rained down, thickly coating property up to 3 miles away.)

COUNCILLOR NEIL SANDISON:
"The EA and Cemex seem to be living on a DIFFERENT PLANET from the residents of Rugby! We are concerned about what was in the dust and we have asked them both to give us answers, but we have heard nothing. And now the EA say they will charge Cemex over an incident in March 2007 - talk about closing the stable door once the horse has bolted!" The RUGBY COMMUNITY CEMENT FORUM has this week made an official complaint about the EA, claiming it has shown NO INTEREST in Rugby matters by not answering its questions, and not attending meetings.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - Talking about the latest dust fall-out on 17 November - which many residents said was one of the worst in decades - the EA said the bypass dust released was MOSTLY the same as "normal clinker dust" but with a higher content of free lime, (caustic) calcium hydroxide and calcium sulphate, as well as some potassium and sodium sulphates. It went on to add that 'bypass dust is classed as hazardous because it is very alkaline' but 'not at levels likely to cause harm to the environment or human health.'

CEMEX UK's Community Affairs Manager Ian Southcott said the bypass dust was released as part of a safety measure when there is a build up of carbon monoxide. As this did not breach its permit with the EA NO LEGAL ACTION could be taken."This came as a result of the bypass electrostatic precipitator 'tripping' out due to the presence of carbon monoxide. This 'Best Available Technique for removing dust' is widely used across the cement industry and is a safety feature designed to remove any chance of an explosion." (so they save the plant and dump on us!)

CAR WASH FREE : after receiving complaints from residents the company did clean some of the affected cars - for free. Mr Southcott added the company were sorry that people were affected, but added "A small quantity of bypass dust over a large area would not cause any health hazards. We are operating under regulations in our permit and all the time we are improving emissions, but that IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE GET TO SEE! Bypass dust is classified under European regulations as HAZARDOUS due to the free lime content which can be an irritant to the skin during prolonged exposure. Essentially it is mainly partially heated raw material and consists largely of chalk. The analysis of the bypass dust collected at the time of the incident reveals tiny quantities of some metals and dioxins which are extremely low and are similar to the values that can be seen in naturally occurring raw materials such as clay and chalk."

"DIOXIN levels were below those naturally occurring in soils for example, and were less than 0.1% of a millionth of a gramme per kilogramme (0.0000000001 of a gramme).
An AIR QUALITY report prepared by Faber Maunsell for RBC concluded that during the 'time of the release' (not revealed) PM10 particulate concentrations were below the UK 24 hour mean PM10 standard throughout this period - i.e. the measurements were LESS than would be expected under NORMAL circumstances.!" (what does this mean, and where was the monitor??)

PETER CORNISH was one of the Long Lawford residents whose house and car was covered in the dust. He said "Cemex seem to do this on a regular basis, and get away with it, because the EA DO NOT SEEM TO BE BOTHERED! I know there will soon be another dust fall out - it is INFURIATING!"
UNQUOTE.

INFORMATION SHARING CANCELLED?
So much for the EA' s (empty) promise of 5 December to share information with the forum and Rugby residents! At the RCCF meeting on 8 December Cemex vehemently denied bypass dust to be hazardous, and said they grind it in with the clinker in the cement mills. They also dump it at Cell 3 Southam, 140,000 tonnes in eight years - in a non-hazardous landfil - although they have applied to WCC to have this unauthorised dumping regularised - and a hazardous waste planning permission granted. Surely this bypass dust cannot be mixed into the "cement dust", the 5 mills and seperators emit onto Rugby at 30,000 micrograms in each cubic metre - can it? Yes it can! Meanwhile how are Cemex and the EA complying with the Environment Council's genuine and far reaching proposals to "move forward together" and to "begin by sharing information"? They are not!

BYPASS DUST COMPETITION:
SPOT THE TOXIC:
EA: Cemex January - June 2008
" Free lime 24.9%; antimony; tin; cadmium; thallium; mercury; lead; chromium; copper; manganese; nickel; arsenic; cobalt; vanadium; zinc; dioxin. "

CHRISTMAS QUIZ:
BYPASS DUST is provided FREE in Rugby, and apparently " poses no health risk."
* How much of the above is essential to the human body on a daily basis as a dietary requirement?
* How much does each resident of Rugby need to breath in every day to GUARANTEE a long and healthy life?
ANSWERS NEXT YEAR!

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY AND "HEALTHY"? NEW YEAR.

AGENCY CHRISTMAS GIFT TO RUGBY

2008-12-07T23:27:00.003Z

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE EPISODE WITH LILIAN IN

FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM NOW OVERCOME
"Community engagement to START - with information sharing!"
Incredible!

THE RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM
MONDAY 8 DEC 6.00PM ST OSWALDS CHURCH, Lawford Road, Rugby, invites the public to attend. The RCCF has been asking for information for many years, but the Agency has even to answer Freedom of Information and EIR requests. Are they about to do a U-turn, and to start to be be open , honest, transparent, and to engage in meaningful dialogue, with access to information?

RCCF LETTER 8th October :
"expresses concern about lack of information forthcoming from the Environment Agency, and asks formally for the outcomes of the Agency's investigations into the numerous pollution incidents to be made public, and brought to the Forum. It is becoming increasingly difficult to scrutinise the production at this plant impartially if members do not receive full evidence. It is vital if we are to be seen to be fulfilling the needs of the community by this scrutiny that we receive information regularly and as soon as it is available."

AGENCY REPLY:
CEMEX, RBC and the AGENCY have been funding the Environment Council as facilitator in trying to "start community engagement" in Rugby (yes in that same Rugby where the Agency lawyers told the House of Lords that NO ONE but NO ONE is interested or concerned about the cement plant and its operations) and to try to "move forward together". Limited progress has been made so far, after one year of struggle and endeavour, (on top of the previous seven years!!) but now the Agency has a "new bright idea" and has just informed the Forum as follows:

"You can see those records of pollution incidents on our Public Register at Rugby Borough Council, or ask the company to show them to you at your meetings. I think this ties in to our work on public engagement and I'm proposing to Cemex and RBC that we START by trying to establish protocols for the sharing of information. This seems to have been a fundamental problem in our relationship to date, and I hope that we can agree what, how and when information can be provided to the public, AND what they will use this information for. The Environment Council should be writing to stakeholders shortly to set this us."

"From the Workshop outcomes on 17th September we believe the focus at the work group should be on the exchange of information with the public. This was a common thread running through the feedback in the workshop and it is a tangible area of work that could be developed and would help further improve any future development of public engagement."

MUSHROOM SYNDROME?
The Agency finally admit what is wrong in Rugby, and the mushrooms,
aka residents, are now going to get access to information? Can it be true that the authorities finally admit that there has been no honest, transparent, open, meaningful community engagement, and no proper consultation and information sharing? So its back to the drawing board - with us all being fully informed - after ONLY eight years of asking! But SADLY it is just too late to "do anything" about the unlawfully built and operated cement co-incinerator. But they will now at least tell us about it. Nice one!

RE CHROMIUM VI EMISSIONS:
CEMEX DAVENPORT SHUT DOWN
AGENCY SAYS: We allow a work place exposure of 50 micrograms/m3 per eight hour day. We have no information on chromium VI emissions from the Cemex plant, and it has no specific limit at the plant in any case. Total heavy metals including chromium (and antimony, arsenic, lead, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel and vanadium) are limited to 0.5mg/m3 and is required to be "sampled" only four times a year. The UK's Environment Action Level is 0.1 micrograms per metre cubed as an annual average and we think it unlikely to get to that level as the Dispersion Model for metals shows a ground level concentration of 0.000119 micrograms/m3.

CEMENT MILL EMISSIONS TREBLE CHROMIUM VI:
"Cement mill emissions are "controlled" by a limit on particulate matter of 30 mg/m3." This actually means to say the EA "put a limit on", but there is no way it is controlled at all, and often exceeds. In any case it is only sampled TWICE a year. BUT using a worst case
emission of CHROMIUM from the cement mills in the "clinker dust" the chromium in the ambient air is INCREASED THREE FOLD to 0.0003 micrograms.
"The Chromium VI is from the processing of raw materials, and we would expect the operator to keep chromium content to a minimum. There would be no commercial attraction for Cemex to use raw materials with a significant chromium content in Rugby."

NO AMBIENT AIR MONITORS!
"The problems at Davenport are a problem for the USA EPA, but suggest a breakdown in raw materials quality control. The EA have not 'found' anything similar
at Rugby." Question: Have you looked? "ERR, well, no, not actually."

UPDATE ON LATEST DUST:
EA not able to prosecute for 17 November thick coating of dust as it was QUITE LEGAL and IN ORDER - from a four-minute ESP trip. The EA has no LEG TO STAND ON, and no legal basis on which to proceed further because, as frequently happens, Cemex say they were either starting up, or shutting down, and thus NO EMISSION LIMITS were in place at the time. So its TOO BAD and TOUGH LUCK RUGBY! Free feather dusters to be distributed to all?

NEW APPLICATIONS
include requests to extend the start up and shut down periods, when no ELVs are in place, which allow all these dust and pollution incidents to go on with no punishment, prosecution or reprimand. They want longer hours without limits, and also waste burning to occur during periods of instability.
The WASTE CLIMAFUEL/RDF is also to have a much larger range of calorific values and also to have much higher contents of pollutants and such as chlorine - which assists in the formation of the deadly dioxins.
NEW INFORMATION SHARING
And were the Rugby residents ever consulted, or even informed about any of this? You guessed it!

RugbyTown.org has a YouTube channel!

2008-12-04T09:21:00.008Z

I have had a blog for a little while now and am noticing it's usefulness in archiving the vast amounts of data collected around the Cemex cement plant and it's operations.

Publishing the information online also allows anyone interested or affected to hop on and have a read. Together we can rally around these issues, pool ideas and information to ensure no environmental laws are broken.

Never underestimate the power of social media when fighting the good fight. I get emails of support from all over the world from others also wanting to bring awareness and point out that sometimes big industry does not play by the rules and it is the local population who suffer for this.

It can mean an increase of unnecessary traffic, road noise, pollution from various sources, all on your doorstep.

All people should be entitled to a safe and secure home for their family. You did not choose for the goalposts to be moved on ever increasing emission limits and unmeasured invisible pollutants. You deserve the right to breath air that does not slowly poison you.

I feel it is time to take this protest up a gear. This is why I have started a YouTube video channel.

Please feel free to join the discussion both here and over on YouTube.

Be informed, be active. Do something to protect your family's health.

You can view the YouTube channel here..

http://uk.youtube.com/user/rugbytowninplume

Pluming Awful

2008-11-30T19:16:00.003Z

THIS IS NOT FOG.. THERE WAS NO FOG ON THIS DAY.

28TH NOVEMBER 2008

MP CALLS FOR DUST EXPLANATION:

Rugby MP Jeremy Wright is demanding a full explanation from Cemex over claims of another dust fall out from the plant. Several home owners in Long Lawford reported cars being showered in dust last Monday, some claiming it was the worst covering ever.

And now Mr Wright has asked company bosses to explain the fallout and is seeking urgent talks with the environment agency, which is investigating the incident. "I am becoming increasingly concerned with these incidents" Mr Wright said. "Of course it is true that things will occasionally go wrong in every industrial process, but Cemex have a particular responsibility to maintain the highest standards due to the plant's closeness to residential areas. It is highly inconvenient to people living near the plant to have dust on their cars and other property, but it is also perfectly rational for them to worry about what goes into their lungs. I have asked the management of the Cemex plant for an early explanation of this incident and I will be speaking next week to the Environment Agency about the action they intend to take. If the facts warrant it prosecutions should be brought against Cemex."
Reported in the Rugby Observer 27th November 2008.

PUBLISHED LETTER - DUST - CHROMIUM VI?

With the tedious regularity we have come to expect, Long Lawford and the surrounding area is yet again this week covered with thick, possibly dangerous dust. Cemex, the usual culprit for these health threatening assaults on our community have immediately taken their expected stance of “not our fault guv” unless of course you can prove it! The Environment Agency, possibly with an eye on easing Cemex’s ongoing plans for a massive refuse processing plant in Rugby, have likewise adopted the time honoured approach of saying they are carrying out tests on the dust, thus taking weeks to come up with a decision, and hoping the residents will have forgotten about it over the excessive period taken, then arriving at the blindingly obvious culprit of the fallout.

We may however be treated to one of the bizarre explanations they tend the favour recently in their desperate attempt to remove any blame from Cemex. Who can forget the recent explanation that pollen was the culprit, or the hilarious Sahara desert sand incident, where we were expected to believe that sand was lifted up from the Sahara desert, blown across the Mediterranean Sea, up the Bay of Biscay, across the Home Counties and London and was then deposited squarely onto Rugby, really!

There is however a serious side to all this, Cemex have recently had issues in Davenport in America where their cement plant was closed for a long period of time due to the local residents being exposed to 10 times the safe level (if there is such a thing) of Chromium 6, which is found in the cement process. This substance has known long term carcinogenic effects, and is the subject of possible legal action by the residents. To date, several concerned residents have written to the Environment agency to enquire if this substance is monitored in any fashion by the Agency at the Rugby plant and have met a wall of silence, I personally have contacted the Agency twice on this matter and have yet to receive a reply. I would strongly advise anybody with concerns for their families’ welfare to contact the agency as a matter of urgency and try and establish their criteria for checking the levels of this substance at the site, silence is not always golden, neither, as the residents of Davenport thought, is it safe just to assume that the plant is in safe hands because a Government Agency is tasked with monitoring it.

ITS PLUMING AWFUL!

2008-11-17T10:14:00.007Z

WATCH:"THE BARRISTERS" BBC 2 FRIDAY 9.00 PM DECEMBER 5th..

IT FEATURES RUGBY'S BATTLE FOR CLEAN AIR!"

CARTEL?
CEMEX OFFICES RAIDED:
by European Union Competition Authority, in the UK and in Germany, (along with Lafarge )on suspicion of PRICE FIXING and operating a CARTEL. (4 Nov) The cement industry was previously fined millions for operating as a cartel, dividing up cement markets and sharing information, according to EU competition documents.

CEMEX IN TROUBLE WORLD WIDE
Things are not going well for Cemex: President Hugo Chavez seized Cemex plants in Venezuela and so far has not paid the demanded $1.3 billion in compensation. Chavez said on TV that Cemex fixed the price of cement, controlled the market, prevented the poor from getting houses, and also polluted the air and the children's lungs. Also the BARRINGTON Cambridge cement works is to close, with 87 redundancies, as it is suddenly inefficient and uncompetitive. It is feared that the HAZARDOUS FUELS burnt there will now come to Rugby's CO-INCINERATOR, and to South Ferriby!! Cemex is rationalising and cost-cutting to try to service massive loans incurred as it took over RINKER and has made 10% of the world wide work force redundant, and is selling off properly all over the world.

MONEY SAVER ADVICE FOR CEMEX?
RUGBY CEMENT SHOULD BE CLOSED, AND THE REAL ESTATE SOLD OFF FOR LIGHT INDUSTRY AND HOUSING!

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT ESSENTIAL!
WORSE IS YET TO COME - and now CEMEX in PARTNERSHIP WITH WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL want to build another WASTE BURNING and WASTE PROCESSING factory in Rugby, with yet another stack (45 metres), and semi-permanent plume of about 20 tonnes an hour, to pour out onto this long-suffering, already disadvantaged area of "multiple deprivation", where life expectancy, and life chances are not good! AVON VALLEY SCHOOL will be directly in line for the new fall-out, and the health-damaging PARTICULATE PM2.5 has DOUBLED there in three years since the "CO-INCINERATION " experiments began. What Did RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL and FABER MAUNSELL air contractors do? In June 20007, they took ALL the monitors away to ENSURE that "nobody knows" about the increase in particulate, and the huge increase all over Rugby of exceedances of the daily objective for PM10 of 50 micrograms per metre cubed.

Meanwhile Cemex continues to breach its ENVIRONMENT AGENCY IPPC PERMIT - and to exceed the permitted ELVs for dioxin;particulate;cadmium, thallium etc etc. The Agency has threatened a £50,000 fine and/or 12 months in prison.

JEREMY WRIGHT MP FOR RUGBY:
acts as HOST for CEMEX at House of Commons Reception 20 November 7.00 pm, to mark the publication of a new book: "A CLIMATE FOR LIFE", along with Conservation International. Of course our requests for an invite have been met by stony silence. The EA says: "We have FULLY briefed MP Jeremy Wright . RBC is a hung council and its political leadership has changed 3 times in the past 5 years. This presents a challenge to all involved!"

JEREMY QUESTIONS CAULDON SHEEP!
as the EA try to convince him that there is no need to worry at Rugby, and have taken him to CAULDON cement plant to see "yet another typical cement plant like Rugby" - except it is in a field full of sheep, miles from anywhere. Jeremy Wright was said to be disappointed that no-one lived within two miles, and that he could only ask local sheep what they thought about the emissions and dangers and increased risks to them and their environment and air. Disappointingly, due to the lack of an interpretor, Jeremy could not report back to the Rugby residents what the sheep actually said. The EA had falsely promised to trial the new DIOXIN continuous sampler at Rugby, but in the trials at RADCLIFFE it showed much higher readings than the conventional twice a year (occasional on a good-day) sampling, (OBVIOUSLY!!), so they decided instead to trial it at Cauldon, thus ensuring no public questions as only sheep would have to be told the result. When asked why they changed their minds and decided not to protect the people of Rugby with better monitoring the Agency said "Don't you think these sheep deserve better protection as well?" " instead of people?" as actually is the case at Rugby!

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY UPDATE:
STILL REFUSES: to attend community meetings; to answer any questions; provide information even under the Freedom of Information Act; discriminates against any member of the public who asks questions; cannot monitor for chromium VI; puts burden of proof onto public etc.

SENSITIVE ISSUES AND CONTENTIOUS SITES:
"We continue to receive regular requests for information from Mrs P who since January 2005 has been treated as a VEXATIOUS COMPLAINANT in accordance with our Complaints and Commendations Policy. MRS P has been informed that we will only provide a response if her query related to a specific consultation, a pollution incident, or comes from the Rugby Cement Community Forum. (which the EA REFUSES TO ATTEND or to answer!) However MRS P is now using the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental nformation Regulations to seek extensive information not just about Rugby Cement, but also other sites e.g Castle cement at Ribblesdale. We are DISCUSSING how we will deal with such requests!" PAUL QUINN EA: 28th April 2006

DAVIDS AND RUGBY CEMENT!
WHO IS TO BLAME?
* DAVID HUDSON - EA "responsible" for construction of works, IPC etc since 1996.
* DAVID SHELDON - EA's writer of IPPC Permit, and several witness statements.
* DAVID ELVIN - EA's QC.
* DAVID EVANS - Rugby Cement's expert: "only harmless steam and CO2 come out of stack!"
* DAVID EDWARDS - began Rugby case on legal aid, but had to drop out due stress and ill health.
* DAVID WOLFE - Matrix Chambers.

LANDMARK CHAMBERS LAUNCH CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LAW?

Do these people think they can flit from defendant client to defendant client and then promote themselves as campaigners? I understand those barristers who don't get personally involved in the issues, and simply act as advocates, but I'm not clear how you can have it both ways???

"LANDMARK CHAMBERS Centre for Environmental Law will create a forum for discussion and commentary on all matters relating to environmental law, drawing on the expertise of chambers' practitioners and some of the most highly respected legal academics in the UK and overseas. The Centre will aim to keep legal practitioners abreast of developments in this fast moving area of law."

ACADEMIC PANEL: will draw on the expertise of leading thinkers in the field, currently comprises of Prof. Malcolm Grant, President & Provost of University College London, and one of the leading environmental lawyers and academics in the country, Dr Liz Fisher, Dr Bettina Lange and Eloise Scotford of Oxford University, Professor Robert Lee of Cardiff University, Cinnamon Carlarne of the University of South Carolina, USA and Richard Moules of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge University.

EXECUTIVE TEAM: comprising members of Landmark Chambers of whom the key representatives are barristers DAVID ELVIN QC(Chairman), James Maurici and Gwion Lewis and Joanna Poulton, Chambers Chief Executive.

"Environmental issues are a major concern today and the development of environmental law is one of the key mechanisms in securing the management of climate change, limiting and controlling pollution, managing sustainable development and in protecting our natural heritage. Our purpose in bringing together experienced academic and practicing lawyers is to stimulate legal thinking and debate, to consider the environmental issues facing us, and to make a contribution to the continuing development of this important area of modern law."

RDF IN CEMENT KILNS?
"Some danger and problems could arise as far as heavy metals are concerned, chiefly the more volatile ones due to their presence in the substituted fuels." "The mass fluxes of micro-pollutants and their origin are not yet completely understood and must be further examined." "It is evident that the use of alternative fuels can strongly worsen the emission of heavy metals pushing them DANGEROUSLY towards the limits." Which is WHY CEMENT PLANTS ARE NEVER BUILT IN TOWNS!
The EU reports on the negative impacts of waste burning in kilns show that although they can claim overall reduction in nitrous oxide emissions, local residents can suffer from the increases of mercury, lead and cadmium, plus PAH/PCBs and dioxin in the air.

TOXIC DUST FROM CEMEX?

2008-11-09T23:42:00.003Z

THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ARE TESTING TOXIC DUST IN RUGBY?

YES WE CAN!
ON SECOND THOUGHTS
OH NO WE CAN'T!
WE ONLY PERMIT!

JUST A MINUTE:
while we talk without hesitation, repetition, or deviation, about CEMENT plant EMISSIONS! At first the Environment Agency's own National Laboratory Service said they could quote for the analysis of the CHROMIUM VI in the ambient air and dust downwind of the Cemex Rugby plant, but now suddenly, (seemingly after reading this blog site), they cannot! They now suggest we get help elsewhere and contact AEAT for a quote, which we have done, as instructed by the EA's own laboratory, while the EA, which is supposedly the "regulator" which is "responsible for the permitting of toxic emissions in Rugby" (and elsewhere) stands by, in blissful ignorance, "head-banging" and "not knowing"!

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY AND CEMENT PLANT WORLD IN SHOCK!
as Davenport investigation reveals very high chromium VI readings, but it is still business as usual! "We have already TOLD YOU dumbos in Rugby so many times that ALL THE RAW MATERIALS AND WASTE FUEL SUBSTITUTES used in the CO-INCINERATING CEMENT PLANTS, such as TYRES and RDF which replace COAL, and MILL SCALE and SLAG which replace iron oxide, are all the same in terms of emissions, and ALL THE SAME TO US!" says the UK's Environmental pollution permitting Agency.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY JUST GUESSING?
Maybe the Environment Agency are still wondering what chemical contents the substituted mill scale and slag actually have, as these "industrial waste alternative raw material replacements" are being merrily substituted in the UK's cement industry WITHOUT the MANDATORY EU WASTE CODES or the MANDATORY DUTY OF CARE NOTES - so maybe the Environment Agency are actually in the same position as the rest of the UK - JUST GUESSING!. Perhaps its time for a little science lesson for the Agency, which for so long has poured scorn on the Rugby residents, scoffing at us, and dismissing our genuine concerns?

TOXIC DUST FROM CEMEX?
The answer is blowing in the wind - see Nov/Dec 2008 edition of THE HIGHLANDER from the Bonny Doon, as it explains how the hexavalent chromium was discovered in the air at the local elementary school, where the internal air is now being analysed. Young people are much more at risk, and it accumulates in the body and is one of the causes of lung cancer. The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) is now studying the Cemex operations and air quality impacts with a view to allowing the plant to start up again. Visit www.mbuapcd.org/index.cfm/Cat/67.htm to learn more. Ed Kendig apparently told the Santa Crux Sentinel: "We have to remember it will take a long period of stable operations and monitoring before we can draw conclusions about how satisfactory the Davenport plant's emissions are."

ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL UPDATE:
Despite the Rugby Cement Community Forum being told by Cemex on 8 October 2008 that there was NO chance of any funding for the planned September/early October meeting of the FOCUS GROUP, which gained endorsement and support at the WORKSHOP 17 September, and that the community should "pay for it ourselves", a change of heart has occurred among the "big three". Further additional funding to add to the £25,000 already invested by the Environment Agency, Cemex and Rugby Borough Council in finding a "new way forward with open honest meaningful community engagement and timely provision of accurate independently verified data, and with a real opportunity for the local stakeholders to have a say about their environment, amenity, air quality and health" is now back on the Agenda. Watch this space.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FAILURE:
The two Cemex applications for a waste plant at either, or both, SOUTHAM or RUGBY MALPASS seem deficient, in that they have not complied with the EIA Regulations. Even WCC planners have spotted that - although they did initially accept the proposals, which have not made the mandatory BPEO assessments and have not compared the two alternative proposals. It seems these will not now be able to go to the WCC Regulatory Committee on 15 December as scheduled, and it is back to the drawing board for Cemex and GOLDERS ASSOCIATES. See WCC planning portal.

HOUSE OF LORDS TOLD
"NO-ONE BUT LILIAN IN RUGBY OR IN
THE WHOLE WORLD,
CARES ABOUT CEMENT PLANT EMISSIONS!"
by gullible, or loyal, or misdirected, or misinformed, or misunderstanding, scientifically-challenged Agency lawyers : in order to extort costs! Meanwhile the five Lords, in their wisdom, have handed down a most "peculiar and controversial" judgment in which they could not even agree between themselves on most of what they had heard, and some of them seem to think that "secret communications" behind the public's back, in order to prevent environmental, and air quality information about health damaging toxic pollutants from getting into the public arena, is quite OK by them, and is only the expected and usual course of the UK's government departments.

* Para 54: LORD HOFFMAN: "But the present case does not involve the construction of anything, so in my view falls outside of the EIA Directive." Err - so excuse me but how do they get the wastes into the plant then? What are these new constructions , that have been nodded through by the WCC planning department (see WCC web 23 January 2003), buildings presumably invisible to the eye of some judges?

* Para 84: LORD MANCE: "Second the plan to change to tyre burning did in any event involve not inconsiderable physical adaptation of the company's site and plant..... covered reception area with sprinklers for 300 tonnes tyres (now 600 tonnes!), mechanical conveyors, metering system, airlocks, and new combustion chamber." Lord Mance has done his homework, and sees quite clearly.

* Para 30: "There is an unchallenged finding of fact that the ONLY change in operation proposed by the application, namely the use of TYRES, would not have significant negative effects on human beings or the environment", totally ignoring the actual facts of the case regarding the turning of the works into a full scale co-incinerator, which then allowed unlimited substitution by various WASTE FUELS. Ignoring also the HEALTH EFFECTS of the substitution of the various raw materials by INDUSTRIAL WASTES that were discretely added, unseen, into the (hidden) IPPC application. There was only one closely-guarded copy in Rugby, at the Borough Council's so-called Environmental Health Department, and no-one got any chance to see that until after the consultation was closed - while they kept on holding sham-meetings, and giving out misleading and false information and non-technical summaries (the kid's version?) about tyre burning and about NONE OF THE OTHER WASTES that were included in the IPPC application!!

* Para 64: "In the present case there was no breach of European Law, and the ONLY breach of domestic law was the FAILURE TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION about the predicted effects of emissions." Well done for that recognition that it does not matter to mislead the public and not to tell the truth about environmental impacts.

* Para 64: "Since then, however, the actual emissions from the plant have been monitored." Err.. no my noble lord, sorry yet again but , the emissions from the plant have NEVER been monitored, nor has any attempt to monitor them ever been made!

WHAT EVER NEXT?
A little bird told me that the Environment Agency's own lawyers have now suddenly decided that "environmental issues are indeed serious concerns!" Not then their usual dismissive approach. They plan a yet more devious trick planned in order to "infiltrate groups, and to keep an eye on the public", and that they, in order to poach work from long-standing dedicated environmental public interest lawyers are setting up a new department. This will then "co-incidentally" enable them to mislead, and to spy on the campaign groups, and to "keep the enemy closer to them". They now propose to run with the fox, and hunt with the hounds, by setting up an ENVIRONMENTAL LAW DEPARTMENT to assist the members of the public who are concerned and weary and wary of being polluted by - the Environment Agency and those it purports to regulate. STRANGER THAN FICTION!

CEMEX SHUT DOWN!

2008-11-02T20:52:00.011Z

DAVENPORT CLOSED!

Image copyright Jodi Frediani

WHAT IS GOING ON?
APPARENTLY the people who live DOWNWIND and near the CEMEX DAVENPORT USA plant are being POISONED and EXPOSED to a TEN-FOLD CANCER risk due to the CEMEX operations. Cemex have been forced to shut down the KILN, and LOW LEVEL POINT SOURCES in MILLS etc and the TRANSPORT - because the authorities in the USA believe the CANCER-CAUSING CHROMIUM VI is being emitted from everywhere!

CHROMIUM VI: GOOGLE IT! FIND OUT! for yourself, DON'T take my word for it!
Search: Cemex; Davenport,USA; chromium VI/hexavalent chromium; mill scale; slag; Rugby Cement; CANCER!

SEARCH AND YOU WILL FIND!
..that ANY replacement by "alternative fuel" in co-incinerating cement plants REQUIRES (sham) trials, like the 700 - 1,000 TONNES each day at Rugby; BUT the raw materials have NO trials when substituted by "industrial wastes" with NO EU WASTE CODES and NO DUTY OF CARE NOTES!

SUBSTITUTE RAW MATERIALS IN SECRET
So WHAT exactly causes the EXCEEDANCES (ten- fold) of CANCER-CAUSING pollutant?
What exactly are they burning at RUGBY?
Dont't ask me, ask the UK's ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY!
IF they will answer!

VEXATIOUS! is the name given by the EA to anyone who asks questions! So "he who asks no questions will NOT be told a lie! So watch the wall my friends while the Environment Agency go by!"

(Thanks to Jodi Frediani for permission to use her photograph.)

CEMEX : SALE OF THE CENTURY?

2008-10-25T16:30:00.002+01:00

CEMEX'S AGGRESSIVE EXPANSION COMES TO A STICKY END as Cemex try to reduce costs by £288 million by selling off assets and re-financing the £2 billion loan it used last year to buy Australia's RINKER group. So far sales of cement, concrete and aggregate plants are anticipated in Australia, Austria and Hungary and possibly in the USA, according to the press reports, which say that product sales are down by 20-30%, or so. The Credit Crunch has hit home hard, and the loan has been restructured from 2009 to 2010 with a higher interest rate.

JOB LOSSES
worldwide equate to about 10% of the work force - about 6,000 jobs - as concrete sales flop and Cemex sells assets. In the UK Cemex has been working on efficiency; prioritising capital expenditure, and cutting back on investment in new projects and in some cases putting them on hold; reducing the cement and aggregate fleet to improve productivity, reducing shifts, overtime spend and head count across the business by at least 10%. Underutilised assets are to be closed and mothballed. Won't come a moment too soon for Rugby residents, who eagerly plan the street party to celebrate the permanent mothball of the monstrous plant.

WASTE PLANT PLAN: IN JEOPARDY AS CO-INCINERATOR CANNOT BE USED FOR INCINERATION ONLY - will not meet the more restrictive Waste Incinerator Directive limits, without the cement-related exemptions it currently "enjoys", which permit much higher emissions than incinerators.

PROXIMITY PRINCIPLE?
SOUTHAM /RUGBY WAR CONTINUES:

GOING IN:
North Warwicks 42,000 tpa = 151 tpd = 14 HGV.
Nuneaton            75,000 tpa = 270 tpd =   24 HGV
Stratford             30,000 tpa = 108 tpd = 10 HGV
Stratford             30,000 tpa = 108 tpd = 22 REFUSE TRUCKS.
Warwick             66,000 tpa =   257 tpd   = 20 HGV
Rugby                57,000 tpa =   205 tpd = 42 REFUSE trucks
SUB-TOTAL    300,000 tpa = 1,099 tpd = 132 HGVs per day.
RDF                124,000 tpa = 354 tpd = 34 HGVs
TOTAL             424,000 tpa = 1,453 = 166 HGVs?

GOING OUT
250,000 tpa - 713 tpd = 68 HGVs to the Cemex co-incinerator.
70,000 tpa - 210 tpd to landfill
35,000 tpa - 107 tpd to recycle
335,000 tpa - 1,030 tpd

TOTAL POLLUTION/GAS/AIR/WATER/ETC DRIED OFF AND VENTED OVER RUGBY 400 tonnes each day!! Why bring in about 1,500 tonnes waste daily then DRY one third of it off over our heads with all these POLLUTANTS in it - nearly 20 tonnes an hour over us from a 45 metre stack with a semi-permanent plume? And that is without counting the Cemex co-incinerator emissions from the 30 tonnes an hour of refuse burning - for which they have no IPPC Permit as yet!

SENSITIVE LORRY MILE ASSESSMENT:
In a detailed planning application for a half a million tonne a year waste plant one would expect the required assessment of the SENSITIVE LORRY MILES which involve the costing to the community, infrastructure, health service etc of the different lorry routes to be used. Obviously the motorway miles are priced most cheaply as they do the least damage to the environment, where as those miles in small country lanes are more costly to the public, and those in towns, especially in air quality management areas, are even more costly adding as they do to the damage
to the infrastructure, the environment, pollution, air quality problems and associated health damage.

LAING RAIL REPORT April 2004 as submitted is five years out of date, and only considered the 140 clay lorries each day, and is not relevant to this new proposal. The railway needs to be re-assessed as an alternative form of transport and the SOUTHAM site shows there would be much less environmental, air quality and health damage if that site were to be used, AND even more if the rail link re-opened. It would take off the road some 140 clay lorries each day, and the RDF 160, so say 300 HGVs a day on a 30 mile round trip. That would save about 4,500 lorry miles each day on small B roads and in the town of Rugby.
How much pollution is that - tail pipe, brakes and tyres, and the SAVING of 4,5000 miles a day of fossil fuels? No attempt has been made to seriously address the total lorries and the pollution that could be avoided.

CEMEX HITS THE BUFFERS

2008-10-15T09:39:00.003+01:00

AS RESIDENTS START TO FIGHT BACK!LONG LAWFORD PARISH COUNCIL decided last night that the planning application for the half million tonne waste plant was a step too far. They threw it out unanimously on many varied grounds, including : the air quality deterioration; increased health risk; fire risk; transport and pollution impact of the hundreds more Heavy Goods Vehicles; danger to public health of the bacteria emissions from the planned MBT in an urban area; unsuitability of location; already high levels of
industrial emissions; cumulative total of environmental and pollution impacts of Cemex operations; Health Impact Assessment required!.

SOUTHAM IS THE ONLY POSSIBILITY! THE DISUSED RAILWAY MUST BE RE-OPENED - IT WAS SAFE-GUARDED FOR RUGBY CEMENT'S USE AT A COST OF MILLIONS TO THE PUBLIC! THIS WOULD REMOVE 400,000 + DAILY LORRY MILES BETWEEN SOUTHAM/RUGBY!

CEMEX IN BIG TROUBLE -DAVENPORT USA ITS NOT ONLY THE WASTE FUEL TRIALS, BUT ALTERNATIVE RAW MATERIALS

ALSO cause trouble for Cemex , with the MONTEREY BAY air quality department, after the substitution of some raw materials by industrial waste . This appears to have lead to a TENFOLD increase in CHROMIUM SIX being formed, and found in the dust down wind of the plant, apparently from the MILL SCALE and STEEL SLAG. Erin Brockovich is rushing to help, as public meetings are called, and health checks carried out for the increased cancer risk associated with these emissions.

ALTERNATIVE WASTE RAW MATERIALS - WITHOUT EU WASTE CODES!
Where else are they trialling the use of these wastes? No prizes for guessing!
Is this dust from the main stack, low level point source stacks, and vents or fugitives?
How does Rugby Borough Council test for this cancer-causing toxic dust?
It doesn't even know about it - RBC hiding its head, ostrich like, in piles of cement kiln dust!

SLOWLY SLOWLY CEMEX & RUGBY OBSERVER

2008-10-07T13:17:00.010+01:00

CEMENT FUEL PLAN SUBMITTED - Rugby Observer 2 October 2008

PRESS COMPLAINTS TO DECIDE - IS IT FACT, OR FICTION?

EDITORIAL, OR CEMEX ADVERTISMENT?

QUOTE:

"CEMEX has submitted a second planning application to build a plant which would turn much of Warwickshire's unrecyclable rubbish into a fuel for its cement plant. The application for land known as MALPASS FARM next to the plant on Lawford Road was submitted this week and is a carbon copy of the one made for the company's quarry in SOUTHAM in August.

JUST ONE will be built, but CEMEX believes by seeking permission for both is the best way of seeing which one the public would prefer. Ther Climafuel plant will cost £35 million and will employ 25 people at which ever site it is built at. It wil be up and running by 2010 if approved. It would see as much as 75 per cenet of unrecyclable household waste produced by the county's residents saved from landfill by being dried out, packed into blocks and then used to power the cement plant. The use of climafuel would reduce levels of CO2 equivalent to that produced by 72,000 cars in a year a company spokesman said. The plans will be on show to the Public outside CEMEX HOUSE in October 23 and 24 from 2pm to 6pm, and on October 25 from 10am to 2pm.

COMMENTS can be emailed to ian.southcott@cemex.com or sent by post to Ian Southcott, Community Affairs Manager, CEMEX UK, Evreux Way, Rugby Warwickshire CV21 2DT."

I would like to know whether this report, by an unidentified person, was in fact a paid advert by Cemex or a  VERY misleading  and MISINFORMING article published by the  RUGBY OBSERVER  ?   But in either case surely no excuse can be made for misleading the public in this way? If it was an advertisement then surely it should have said so?

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL is asking for the comments during the  PUBLIC CONSULTATION into the Cemex Malpass Parkfield Road planning application which ends on 21st October, but  in this apparent Cemex advert it asks people to view the plans outside the Cemex House on October 23-24 from 2.00 to 6.00 pm and on 25th October from 10.00 am to 2.00 pm, and then asks them to send comments direct to Cemex as they claim they have put in the two applications at Southam and Rugby as "the best way of seeing which one the public would prefer."

The Report/Advert is factually inaccurate, and misleading,   and ends by asking the public to email or post comments to Ian Southcott of Cemex, which is in itself misleading as comments must go to the County Council. This is exactly how Rugby Cement operated as well, with a "hot line" to the plant so that the complaints can be dealt with by the management , discretely , by whatever means they "feel is  appropriate and beneficial to them", with no-one knowing, and no public record - as they try to divide up the community.

PUBLIC ASKED TO COMMENT ON WHAT?
Rugby in Plume are offering a prize for the person who spots the most "deliberate mistakes" in  the article/advert, riddled with misinformation, which makes no reference to the WCC web and public library where people can see the "actual" application and Environmental Statement, or  pay £75 to Cemex for a copy, nor that the consultation closes on 21 October. What are the public supposed to coment on - the misleading information given in the Observer? Are Cemex and the Rugby Observer making monkeys of Rugby residents - yet again?

CEMEX SHOULD WITHDRAW THIS AUDACIOUS UNSUSTAINABLE UNSUPPORTABLE RUGBY APPLICATION WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT!!

Shall we make a video like this in Rugby!?

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

2008-10-03T13:47:00.004+01:00

250,000 T. REFUSE DERIVED FUEL TO BE TUMBLE DRIED USING COAL AND RDF FURNACES BEFORE CO-INCINERATION AT CEMEX RUGBY - DOUBLING THE RATE TO 30 TPH!

WHICH IS WORSE?
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!

WHERE THERE'S MUCK THERE'S MONEY!
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?

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL - STINGY!
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.

SLOWLY SLOWLY THE TRUTH IS COMING OUT
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!

RUGBY TO BE WASTE DUMP 18 OCTOBER..

2008-09-28T22:16:00.009+01:00

..AS INSULTATION PROCESS CONTINUES.
CEMEX REBUILD DEMOLISHED CHIMNEY.
WARWICK'S and IMPORTED 500,000 TONNES WASTE DUMPED ON DUPED RUGBY RESIDENTS - AS DUPLICITOUS COUNCILLORS POCKET & EXIT!!CEMEX STICKS OF ROCK for SUCKERS!
On Heritage Open Day!

INSULTATION PROCESS - OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS BUT ONCE as Cemex plans to double air quality and health impact on DOPEY RUGBY!!

While the Environment Council DIRECTS PUBLIC ATTENTION AWAY from MAJOR POLLUTION ISSUE using £25,000 from Rugby Council Tax Payers' Health Protection Budget, and PETTY cash from the Environment Agency and Cemex, as we ALL jointly try to find "a new way forward together". Look out for flying pigs, and what they drop! It seems there is an "IMMINENT desperate need" to re-organise the way Cemex and the Agency " liaise, communicate, and engage " with the Rugby community.

Stakeholder relations reached "an all time low", as the RCCF, was virtually destroyed and emasculated by RBC, EA, WCC and by Cemex in an ideal demonstration of "joint-working for the *good/BAD* of the community". Worse is yet to come as the "BIG FOUR" - a name coined for WCC, RBC, the EA and Cemex at the Workshop on 17th September - now collude and try even harder to dupe Rugby residents, by pretending to turn over a new leaf, while secretly planning more environmental disasters. See local press for stories and letters about the "Chameleons".

RUGBY STAKEHOLDERS have had enough of paying while being polluted, and under the polluter-MUST-pay principle need funding in order to obtain openness, honesty, joint fact finding, timely access to full validated data, a proper say in the activities in our environment, and a change in the status quo so that we are not only listened to, but also what we say has an impact on the outcomes. Call me a cynic, but these very spotty leopards are hardly prepared, willing or able to change their spots, and qualities such as these, (honesty?) have never ever been seen in Rugby. Just pass the sticks of Cemtex rock.

WASTE PLANT DOUBLES CO-INCINERATION
Two planning applications are on WCC web for Southam and Rugby's MALPASS proposed Parkfield Road waste plant, have already hit the buffers as the pre-application Scoping Assessment was for a plant 50% smaller than what is now being proposed. Warwickshire CC is firmly in the Waste Partnership with RBC and their BIG GAME PLAN is to "BURN IT ALL IN RUGBY" - to add in another 100% - 250,000 tonnes a year of REFUSE DERIVED FUEL. Meanwhile we can look forward to another 360 lorries or so on 20 kilometres of our local roads, which have many accidents involving 133 personal injury accidents in five years, of which 3 were fatalities and 37 serious. All this for a cement plant cum co-incinerator that never had an EIA, a lawful planning permission, a lawful operating permit and any meaningful public consultation of any kind. WCC is busying itself yet again with more retrospective planning permissions - this time to validate the unlawful fly tipping of 20,000+ tonnes a year of hazardous waste that has been going on at Southam under their watch for EIGHT years. With of course the blessing of that great protector of the environment - the Environment Agency.

THE ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL has taken Rugby residents eye of the ball, during this deliberately most untimely process, and is wondering how to build TRUST and CONFIDENCE in Rugby, doing its level best to improve relations, but Rugby people are sick of being treated as suckers, and would like to reclaim their town from the usurpers. After Monday's press release there is now to be a working party to try to put flesh on the bones of the skeleton future-engagement. But at the same time as we are paying for this, and engaging, Rugby is burning. Cemex was inviting a chosen few to the Southam open days 18-20 September, surprisingly and most disappointedly overlooking the obvious necessity of an invitation to the 60 delegates to see Cemex's plans for our futures! In yet another application to "enhance" our environment, air quality and health there is to be yet another 91 metre chimney to vent off the fumes and odours from the MBT/IHT plant and from the furnace required to tumble dry the Refuse Derived Fuel. They do not seem to have thought about the huge environmental impacts of the transport and processing - and even less about the impact of the increase in co-incineration at Rugby.

TRANSPORT: AND LAING RAIL REVIEW
WCC/Cemex have submitted an April 2004 report, ( see chapter 12 WCC web held in secret between Laing, WCC and Rugby Cement), into the feasibility of the railway being re-opened ONLY for the 160 clay lorries daily. Certainly now there is a plan to more than double the total HGVs going between Southam and Rugby with clay, and climafuel lorries then a new report into the disused railway should be carried out, and submitted. Obviously it will be much more economic and affordable now they are planning such a huge increase in lorry journeys, and will save the public and roads from millions of lorry miles, which cost so much in terms of accidents, risk, air pollution and damage to the roads, and other road users vehicles, and to the infrastructure.

It appears the Inspector and public were kept in the dark about this secret LAING report, at the Public Inquiry into the route of the Western Relief Road, which resulted in farmers being forced out of their land as the road was routed through the green belt because it was claimed the rail route was required for the Cement plant operations. The WRR was placed in the green belt, at a huge and ever-increasing cost, (£40 million up from the original £11 million), when there was a secret report in which there was no intention of re-opening the railway.

WCC CONSIDERED INSISTING RAILWAY RE-OPENSas a planning condition in 2004, so now they have another golden window of opportunity?
The canals have been ruled out as too costly, too slow and too many locks, Let the narrow gauge train take the strain? Or will it be the repetitious cry: "Alternative rail transport has been considered but without significant external funding, none IS OF economic consideration."

RUGBY ADVERTISER EDITOR'S VIEWPOINT:
INDEPENDENT CHAIR ESSENTIAL!
"It is a GOOD thing that the RCCF MAY be recreated as a new body - the current version is unworkable and ineffective."
The RCCF needs an independent chair, access to data, and the public need more access to meetings, an independent venue, trust, access to data, and the Editor criticises the Agency for their non-attendance - the vital ingredient - and for their NON- PROVISION of vital information.

CEMEX UNDER FIRE

2008-09-13T09:13:00.003+01:00

AS SOUTHAM-RUGBY WAR CONTINUES….

TEMPERATURES RISE
WCC notes that “the previously jovial Southam Cement and lorry routing community liaison group has now become hostile” as WCC grants Cemex a new CLAY lorry route to and from Southam, causing COMPLAINTS and letters in the press from the village inhabitants. Residents of Marton , Princethorpe and Long Itchington suddenly awaken and realise their 3 villages will now endure all the (current) daily 140 Cemex clay HGVs , as the circular route limiting the number to just 35 is scrapped, and the 140 are now to be “in their back yards” on narrow dangerous roads they insist are “not fit for purpose”. They are not amused at having “just a taste” of what the Rugby New Bilton residents have suffered / had inflicted on them for years – over 70 lorries an hour at times, and an average of around 800 a day. Letters of congratulations and thanks can be sent to Warwickshire County Council planners and councillors, who have more tricks up their sleeves yet!

SOUTHAM WASTE PROCESSING PLANT
Temperatures have yet to reach fever pitch as locals in Southam and Rugby have still not realised the massive implications for them of the first of the two CEMEX WASTE/RECYCLING/CLIMAFUEL applications. The County Council and Cemex are trying to keep the two applications completely separate, and thus presumably to divide the community, to prey on the weakest and most vulnerable, to discourage any “joined up thinking”, and to avert any consideration of the BPEO - best practicable environmental option? Local people have just a month in which to voice their concerns about the first-proposed 360,000 tonne a year waste processing plant in the old cement plant at SOUTHAM.

PLENTY OF LANDFILLS AVAILABLE AT SOUTHAM
At least Southam has a massive ever increasing landfill, as they excavate the clay, about 2,000 tonnes each day, in which they then dump the hazardous waste bypass dust. Residues from their new “processing” can easily be dumped without having to transport all that back to Southam from Rugby. It appears several operational landfills are available which can take hazardous and non-hazardous waste – even though there is still no IPPC Permit for the site, which it is believed makes the landfills unlawful, operating in contravention of EU and UK Law, without a PPC permit!

LORRY TRAIN TO RUN NIGHT AND DAY SOUTHAM-RUGBY
A smaller scale application (see WCC web site Reference “NW 08CM032”) made to the County Council in August by RMC/Rugby Cement for a 120,000 tonne a year waste processing plant at COLESHILL needs 100 HGVs a day – so can the Southam/village residents look forward to another 300 lorries a day on top of the 140 they are so upset about? Or will there be even more as the HGVs convoy back and forth – as virtual “lorry trains” between Southam and Rugby? Why do they, and the County Council, go on ignoring the disused railway line, the availability of which was claimed by Rugby Cement to be one of the main reasons for building the plant in an urban area in Rugby instead of at any of the other available more suitable rural sites. Rugby Cement in 2000 (see WCC and RBC committee meetings on web) “saved” the railway route for its own future use, as it “forced” the Western Relief Road into the green belt, delaying the construction by 8 years, and costing the public purse £40 million instead of the £11 million quoted in 2000, and also polluting and poisoning Rugby residents, contributing to the high levels of particulate in the “hot spot lorry routes” and to the AQMA for Nitrogen dioxide, which affects health.

WASTE PLANT? IMPOSE IT ON POOR URBAN LONG-SUFFERERS!
Will the more powerful Southam residents and coalition of county councillors try to force the new waste plant, along with all the extra pollution from lorries and plant pollution into the RUGBY SMOKE LESS ZONE AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA, on to long-suffering down-town Rugby residents? After all it will ONLY be a grand total of 1100 juggernauts daily for New Bilton residents? What can it matter as in this area lives and the environment are already obscenely blighted by the CO-INCINERATOR – its emissions - uncontrolled/controlled - and fugitive pollution, “nuisance dust”, hovering, menacing plume/s, and low level point sources which remain unregulated and unmonitored. What does it matter if this already disadvantaged area gets more muck heaped on it? They are used to it.

ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION DENIED
Where is the Sheriff when you need him? Questions and reasonable applications for access to environmental data, and even Freedom of Information requests, remain unanswered as the “outlaws”, the notorious Environment Agency, are “above the law.” The public and Rugby Cement Community Forum are refused access to environmental data by both the Environment Agency and Cemex, as they work together to “slip in all the applications between the meetings of the Forum” – so that no proper response is ever made. In this atmosphere of concealment and refusal to co-operate, how can community relations improve?

Trials and “waste burning” experiments go on and on, year in year out, as the trials are extended without the public’s or RCCF’s knowledge, and presumably outside of the PPC Permit and its conditions. There are endless variations and secret negotiations going as the back-slapping “back room boys” meet at the OK Corral. Any person who asks pertinent questions, and who understands the issues, is slapped down, labelled as a trouble maker, ejected from meetings, and threatened with ASBOs, and worse. Now the search is on by Cemex, the EA, WCC, and RBC for a “new” malleable Community Forum, to be peopled by “no brainers!”

SEVENTEENTH SEPTEMBER GANG TO MEET AT BENN HALL RUGBY
On 17 September the experienced ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL will attempt to facilitate an evening of “cordial discussion” and of “shaping the future for the community engagement process around the cement works in Rugby.” You can find the report under discussion on their web site. We nervously wish them well, as under their auspices Cemex, the Environment Agency, WCC and RBC will meet with about 40 delegates in a battle for pole position, as the “warring factions” (see Rugby Times articles) have their heads banged together.

“CONTINUED EXPOSURE TO A DUSTY ENVIRONMENT will generally result in receptors becoming less sensitive to dusty impacts and an acceptance of a certain level of dust deposition.” So there we have it, in a nutshell, dump more dust on folk and they will give up complaining? The WCC/Coleshill application NW 08CM032 is full of such little gems, and it also contains RMC’s own May 2003 assessment of how “nuisance dust”, that they NEVER acknowledged existed in the Rugby Cement application for IPPC, is a very difficult issue. So why was there never ANY dust assessment for the Rugby Cement plant – considering all its Low Level Point Sources and fugitive emissions? Because they did not want anyone to know!

LITTLE GEMS ON MINERAL DUST FROM RUGBY CEMENT/RMC 2003 that somehow “slipped their mind to tell Rugby residents in their application?”

“Road traffic can be a significant source of dust in urban areas.” – especially from 1,000 lorries each day! “Dust is defined as particulate matter in the size range 1-75 microns.” “Accurate and reliable quantitative prediction of dust impacts is accepted to be very difficult principally because dust emissions depend on a wide range of factors many of which are site specific and vary from day to day.” “Deposition of particles causes soiling on windows and cars and is considered a nuisance. In addition occasional clouds of dust can cause a visual and sensory nuisance.” “Attitude surveys undertaken by the department of the Environment have indicated that in terms of nuisance to nearby residents continual or severe concerns about dust are most likely to be experienced near to dust sources.” “Nuisance dust in the community is normally perceived as an accumulated deposit, however the point at which an individual makes a complaint is highly subjective.” “Wind direction from the South West occurs most of the time and will cover areas to the North and East.” “Particles greater than 30 microns will deposit within approximately 100 metres of the source, while 10-30 microns will travel 200-500 metres and small particles less than 10 microns can travel up to 1 kilometre” into Rugby town centre?

“LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE” was a County Councillor’s response to the question as to whether Rugby residents should be informed of the massive increase in size of the Rugby cement plant. While the Environment Agency said they only got away with it in Rugby because there had been “no intelligent opposition!” Is it now a case of one bitten twice shy – or will they dump it on RUGBY once again?

Who cares in Rugby?

2008-08-26T16:09:00.003+01:00

>
Recent Comment:

Dear Lillian,

I can't tell you how much I admire you courage on this issue. You are a true hero to the citizens of Rugby. Unfortunately I believe, after speaking to officers like Sean Lawson, that the Borough Council can't actually do anything. The EA is at the whim of big business too.

The way forward must be the ballot box. I am so pleased you will be contesting Rugby at the next General Election. We need more Ind Cllrs on RBC, this may come about in the next few years because an "all out" system of electing our Cllrs may come into being. I have always believed this makes Ind Cllrs more likely.

Fight on and be strong,

Paul Holdsworth

Thank You Paul, you don't realise how much your comment means to me. I am more used to receiving comments of support through my email and letters in the press, and sometimes think that the little comment box beneath goes unnoticed.

Thank You for taking the time.
Lilian.

TROOPS TAKE OVER CEMEX !

2008-08-22T00:31:00.005+01:00

AS RUGBY AND VENEZUELA ENJOY CEM-EXPERIENCE!
FAULTY TOWER PLANS FAMILY FUN DAY.
AT CO-INCINERATOR HERITAGE SITE!

Rugby Cemex plans "happy family fun day", with "friends of the kiln club" membership, (half price for juniors and OAPs), and with a Victorian theme as small children are pushed up chimney carrying brushes.

Meanwhile adults enjoying the CEM-EXperience, where it snows every day, will have hair automatically grey-streaked, and will buy raffle tickets for a chance to use the carbon dioxide blasters, to unblock kiln. Eat dust-coated popcorn, play dodgems with HGVs, and "bash a kiln rat", with Basil and resident Manuel, banging them over the head with a bit of 2 by 4 when they pop out of the kiln or any other emission release points. JOHN CLEESE is invited to inaugurate.

All this is completely FREE, along with a HERITAGE visit to the EIGHT year old co-incinerator plant on 11 September for 40 lucky residents, as part of Rugby's celebration of Rugby's magnificent achievement : "historical/ hysterical 8 year-old co-incinerator heritage!"

Surely this is not a cunning ploy, an attempt to woo Rugby residents, who are apparently TPO on a grand scale with CEMEX RUGBY.

Ideas are flooding in, " for hours of fun for old and young", as Alton Towers looks set to go out of business in the face of such grandiose pleasurable opportunities.

VENEZUELAN TROOPS
RE-NATIONALISED Cemex cement 19 August by force after Cemex refused to accept a "reasonable offer" , after negotiations with CEMEX reached nowhere! Troops seized control of Cemex's plants and offices as workers at the factory cheered and waved in approval.

CEMEX asked for $1.3 billion in compensation for relinquishing control of its plants which account for HALF of Venezuela's total cement, after the government issued a tax bill for $37 million, as takeover talks hit rough weather. Now Cemex will have to settle for a low deal, while the government paid $552 million for an 85% stake in HOLCIM SWITZERLAND, and $265 million for 89% shares in LAFARGE FRANCE.

VENEZUELA BLAMES CEMEX
for exporting TOO much of its local output that denied enough cement for its local consumption, and prevented the provision for home-building and infrastructure targets for providing housing for the poor.

The socialist government has already taken oil, and telecommunications, a bank and a steel company, from private hands. The takeover bill for the cement companies may yet reach $3 billion - as reported in international press today. But Cemex may have a silver-lining as its $19 billion debt from the takeover of RINKER Australia last year could be reduced (by $?) IF they get a "reasonable compensation".

RUMOURS UNCONFIRMED
as yet, suggest that the troops may be invited to take-over Rugby plant - but so far this remains unconfirmed. Other rumours suggest a £1 a ticket raffle for the whole Rugby plant, though some say this is excessive, and that 50p a ticket would be more realistic.

HAND OF GOD STRIKES RUGBY AGAIN!

2008-08-11T00:56:00.002+01:00

AS PERIODS OF CALM, AND LOW WIND SPEEDS INCREASE DUST/PARTICULATE IN RUGBY!

CEMEX AND RUGBY RESIDENTS CAUGHT OUT BY WEATHER, AND KILN, AND BY LOW EXIT VELOCITY, YET AGAIN!

IT ONLY TAKES TWO MINUTES TO SMOTHER AN AREA 800 METRES SOUTH SOUTH WEST IN DUST?

CEMEX ADMIT DUST IS INEVITABLE IN NOTIFICATION OF UNAUTHORISED BREACH: WHY DID BAG FILTERS NOT WORK?
WHAT FUEL WERE THEY BURNING?

EXCESSIVE EMISSIONS: 22nd April 2008, of clinker dust from KILN FLUSH 05:38 to 05:43. "Kiln off - stopped at 05:35 by the operator to "minimise environmental impact" , "after a lump fell into the kiln which did not clear using the normal blasting and jetting procedures." Cemex decided NOT to report the fugitive emissions at an "AVERAGED" (??) 357 milligrams/357,000 MICROGRAMS each cubic metre, because they did not believe the fugitive releases, which breached the operating Permit, had reached the "wider world". Unfortunately for Cemex at least five wide-awake residents in FROBISHER ROAD reported that their cars were covered in dust.

WHAT HAPPENED?
QUOTE: "In the hour of 0500 to 0600 a lump fell into the kiln inlet which did not clear using normal blasting and jetting techniques. The kiln controller immediately stopped the kiln as per normal operating procedures. As the lump cleared it was holding back some raw materials which then passed through the kiln system after the kiln had been stopped. Elevated particulate emissions occurred for the five minutes at a lower than normal flow rate through the main stack after the kiln had been stopped."

FROBISHER ROAD COMPLAINTS:
"During this period the wind direction monitor indicated a variable wind direction, that for NO MORE THAN TWO MINUTES was in the direction of Frobisher Road. The wind speed was LOW, less than 2 mph. The only possible explanation is that due to the LOWER FLOW and VERY CALM WEATHER conditions the PARTICULATES will NOT have DISPERSED effectively as under 'normal operations' but were deposited in Frobisher Road.

PRE-HEATER KILNS CHARACTERISTIC:
Build-ups such as this are characteristic of a pre-heater system and are 'effectively' (??) ,managed by checking and clearing. CEMEX have made various improvements since the kiln was first commissioned (and since the 250 stops/starts in 2005??) by the installation of extra blasters in the COMBUSTION CHAMBER".

WHAT NOW?
The usual pay off: "CEMEX has written to residents (ONLY those) that made contact regarding 'dust nuisance' and offered reimbursement for cleaning cars."
Cemex claim: "Kiln flushes are rare and are IN THIS CASE small in nature. It would unfortunately appear that, on this occasion (we were caught out by!) CALM WEATHER conditions resulted in a limited nuisance for a small area of local residents. It is NOT possible to guarantee that a fall of this nature will not happen in the future. However, the management procedures already in place, and techniques used, 'are considered BAT' to MINIMISE the risk of this event.

SEVERAL OTHER RECENT TEST FAILURES:
frequently cement mills for excessive particulate: main stack for dioxins and furans; particulate; cadmium and thallium: 'climafuel' for excessive lead and chromium: bypass dust for increased dioxins;

SENSITIVE ISSUES AND CONTENTIOUS SITES:
WHAT DOES THE AGENCY DO?
They have little meetings in which they discuss how to silence the people who genuinely ask for information, by having them labelled as "vexatious complainants", in accordance with the EA's Complaints and Commendations Policy. They are very worried about how to thwart any Freedom of Information requests - "we are discussing how we will deal with such requests."

WHY IS RUGBY SUCH A HUGE PROBLEM?
Apart from the obvious: i.e . the unlawful construction of an old-fashioned environmentally disastrous semi-wet process 2 million tonne a year cement plant in an urban area's smokeless zone; which then 'morphed' into a 600 tonne a day waste-burning CO-INCINERATOR without any valid planning permission, without a valid IPC or valid IPPC operating permit, without any public consultation; ALL in contravention of the UK's own laws, EIA Directive, PPC Directive, Aarhus Convention and Public Participation Directive; AND apart from the afore mentioned also the obvious problems of emissions, pollution, hundreds of lorries each day. loss of amenity, visual, pollution episodes, air quality and health impact (health in ALL senses of the word!) also there is the POLITICAL climate in Rugby, according to the EA.

EA AND POLITICAL ISSUES:
"We have fully briefed JEREMY WRIGHT CONSERVATIVE Member of Parliament for Rugby and Kenilworth. RBC is a 'hung council and its political leadership has changed 3 times in the last 5 years. One third of the Borough Councillors are up for re-election in the May 2006 local government elections. This presents a challenge to all involved!" And now that the Tories have gained more seats? Since when did health and air quality become a political football?

FOOTNOTE ON LORRIES!
WAST PLANT CONTROVERSY AT SOUTHAM:
The £35 million 1,000 tonne a day proposed waste processing plant seems to be having a lot of trouble already. The Rugby Observer 7th August said it would need an extra 69 lorries going in each day - and presumably then going out making 138 extra journeys to bring in all the waste from across the county? And then an extra 48 lorries to take the waste/RDF/Climafuel to Cemex Rugby for burning; presumably them returning making 96 in all. So at Southam it seems there would be an extra 234 each day? On top of the "usual" 140 clay lorries which ply between Southam and Rugby. making a grand total of 378 movements each day?

AT RUGBY:
The £35 million 1,000 tonne a day proposed waste processing plant if built at RUGBY would only, according to Cemex and the Evening Telegraph 5th August, need "about 11 extra loads a day"?

Anyone confused?

CEMEX SHOWS TRASH PLANS

2008-08-07T11:00:00.004+01:00

1,000 TONNES A DAY
ONLY 11 EXTRA LORRIES!

Telegraph: "Cemex admitted the development would mean more lorries accessing the site - with about 11 extra loads a day." This follows on from many years of rows about the many hundreds of incessant Rugby Cement/Cemex lorries that Warwickshire County Council has permitted to pass unrestricted through New Bilton every day, and night, massively impacting on the lives and amenity of all local residents - not to mention the heavily pitted surfaces on the Lawford Road, in the Air Quality Management Area - traffic fumes!

Now a novel solution is to be found. The old cement plant had an average of about 80 small 20-tonne 2-axil lorry movements each day, but the County Council then gave planning permission for 800 40-tonne six-axil juggernauts, to go in and out of the site daily. They called this a "cement works upgrade!" Presumably in order to appease local residents and to prevent further complaints, and to cut down the number of lorry movements, the HGVs are to be made bigger - carrying approximately 100 tonne each? The good news is "Cemex also promised there'd be no increase in noise or emissions levels." Super quiet, massive lorries, with no emissions, as well! Great!

PLAN B. IS TO RE-OPEN THE RAILWAY
instead of having lorry trains? 27 May 2002 RMC write to the Environment Agency: "Traffic clearly is a planning issue. In a general sense we appreciate local concerns over traffic. It is our preference that the works become rail connected. We have had discussions with both parties - Strategic Rail Authority and Railtrack. We will work towards a viable solution for rail connecting the works if one is achievable. This would relieve traffic issues significantly." Shame they actually built a bagging plant on the actual rail connection that had always gone into the works! When? Not quite last week, but after they started building the new plant in 1996! Anyone know any planners - the County and Cemex both need more than a bit of help?

WASTE FACTORY BID FOR RUGBY
RUGBY TIMES : front page 5 August. "Cemex has unveiled plans to build a waste processing plant at its factory in Rugby. Pre-treated rubbish known as Climafuel is currently being imported from London and Wales to burn as a trial replacement for coal. But now the firm wants to manufacture it on-site IF it wins permission to burn the household and industrial waste permanently. A similar application has also been submitted for the firm's old cement works site at Southam, but only one would be built if both were approved by the County Council."

RUGBY'S OWN 42,000 TONNES
rubbish produced by the entire Borough each year is not enough! The Cemex factory can burn 15 tph, 360 tonnes a day, 125,000 tonne each year of RDF Refuse Derived Fuel. "The £35 million plant would import into Rugby urban area 360,000 tons a year of Warwickshire's (?) raw trash, sifting out 250,000 tons of non-recyclable wood, plastic, paper, textile, and card to make Climafuel. Cemex claims the processing is safe and that Climafuel eases pressure on landfill and creates fewer emissions." 125,000 tonnes of ready-made Climafuel will also be imported to be blended in.

DEPRIVED AREA, POOR AIR QUALITY
"Rugby is already an air quality management area for nitrogen dioxide. Also in various parts of the town, but particularly around the cement plant, there are high levels of particulate emissions. New Bilton and Newbold are already areas of deprivation. They shouldn't have more and more dumped on them!" says Rugby in Plume. Ian Southcott Cemex community affairs manager said: "Any odours are retained within the facility. The operation would be regulated and closely MONITORED by the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY!" Just as they "monitor" the cement works eh? That's all right then?
NOT! Just one monitor on the main stack that only works when the raw feed
gets up to 200 tonnes an hour - and no monitors on the other 15 or so small stacks? Or if there are monitors the data is not for the public to see.

FACTORY PLAN TRIGGERS CONCERNS
says Warwickshire Telegraph 5 August. County Councillor John Appleton said he would seek reassurances for the 16 acre factory at Southam quarry, as "this will have an impact on all residents living in the SOUTHAM area." The multi-national corporation aims to produce 250,000 tonnes every year from 300,000 tonnes of household, commercial, and industrial waste. In addition they would blend in another 125,000 tonnes of imported Climafuel brought in from other manufacturers outside the county.

MRS P FIGHTS FOR POOR AND PROPER CONSULTATION
Mrs P was quoted "Why don't they hand in both applications at the same time? I think they are trying to draw the process out so that people will lose interest and not bother fighting. The problem in Rugby is that people in the most deprived wards will be affected. The poorest areas are situated nearby down wind of the proposed site."

RUGBY REJECTS MORE DARK SATANIC MILLS as the BUTCHERS pet food factory application in Rugby, was thrown out, after no less than a record-breaking 21 Rugby Councillors deigned to attend: "We already have one dark satanic mill in Rugby - we will not allow another chimney - and no more pollution!" So where are these caring councillors now?
But of course this decision is in the hands of the ever-so experienced WCC REGULATORY
Committee - 'secret site visits', 'nodding through', and 'retrospective' are their forte!

PUBLIC INQUIRY might just provide the answer to the 35 million pound question:
SOUTHAM or RUGBY?

I'M NOT ON MY OWN

2008-08-01T12:20:00.002+01:00

MAYBE SMOKESCREEN, OR DUST, THAT MAKES PEOPLE INVISIBLE TO ENVIRONMENT AGENCY?

RUGBY TIMES 29 JULY
She was told she was on her own, but Cemex campaigner Lilian Pallikaropoulos has proof it's not a one-woman crusade. Lilian said she was accused of being "the only one who cares" about tyre-burning at the Lawford Road plant. Now she has hit back with thousands of names on a petition.

She said: "They say I'm the only one who is bothered but we've got 8,000 signatures on this petition and I didn't even collect them, so I wasn't exactly forcing people to sign it!

Some of the public did stop paying attention, and naturally you will if you're being treated like dirt!"

Lilian added that Rugby in Plume would take its battle against the Environment Agency for approving tyre-burning to the European Commission, despite a £100,000 personal legal bill after the case was thrown out by the House of Lords. She said : "I feel very depressed at times but we have got to keep going!"

DEMOLITION PROGRAM CENSORED!
Funny too how Rugby Cement was nominated by very many people (I had only one vote!) for the competition to identify the "worst most ugly harmful building in the country", and came fifth over all. BUT, despite two days of filming in Rugby the program was "censored", and Rugby Cement was not allowed to be discussed, and the the film was not shown! The reason? It was said that it was not permitted to show it because it is "an industrial building"! So where did it ever say in the competition that the rules excluded industrial buildings? Northampton bus station was allowed to be discussed, and that film was shown - another industrial building.

HUNDREDS OF LETTERS IN PRESS
While I do write the "occasional" missive to the press I am not the ONLY person who writes, as people in Rugby well know. But pathetically the Agency selectively cuts out bits of the local papers to "influence" the judges decisions. "Now look what she has done!"

HEALTH PROTECTION AGENCY
Yet more and more reports on cement plants - co-incinerating waste.
Why is that then if no-one is interested?

BRITISH SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGICAL MEDICINE
Has regularly updated reports on the impact of emissions from cement co-incinerators.

See LINK: www.ecomed.org.uk

RUGBY HEALTH PROTECTION BUDGET USED:
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY PAYING TO CONSULT:
FUNNY isn't it how the Agency, that claims to the Lords that "no-one cares about the continuing operation of the cement works," is jointly funding the Reports, and Meetings and Workshops with the ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL as facilitator with the "Rugby community", as part of "stakeholder engagement". Yes that is right - meetings and workshops for those people who care not a jot? The money from Rugby Borough Council is ACTUALLY a £15,000 contribution from the HEALTH PROTECTION BUDGET! But no-one in Rugby cares about health - according to the Agency!

NOW LET THAT BE A LESSON TO YOU!

2008-07-29T22:17:00.003+01:00

MRS P - AN EXAMPLE TO THE PUBLIC? DO NOT DARE TO QUESTION THE AGENCY!
OR ELSE!

PUBLIC to SPEAK OUT IN RUGBY: ARE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY CLAIMS TRUE OR FALSE?

The RUGBY ADVERTISER reported 24th July that: QUOTE: "The Environment Agency believes Lilian Pallikaropoulos is the ONLY person interested in pursuing legal action, and that the public should not pick up the bill.

Mrs Pallikaropoulos argued in the high Court and House of Lords earlier this year that the Environment Agency has hidden vital information from the public when they gave Rugby Cement permission to burn tyres in Rugby.

And although the House of Lords said the EA showed "real shortcomings" they ultimately sided with the EA, and disagreed that the plant in Lawford Road Rugby should stop burning the alternative fuel, and even close down. The EA have this week said Mrs Pallikaropoulos should pay all its legal costs on her own.

Mrs Pallikaropoulos told the Advertiser: "It is grossly unfair, and totally untrue, what the Agency has done to me by saying that I am the only person in Rugby who cares." The case against the EA had originally been brought to the court under the name of Rugby resident David Edwards with the backing of legal aid. But the EA argued that this was just a smokescreen so Mrs Pallikaropoulos could bring her own "private campaign" to court, and not pay the costs.
60,000 RUGBY RESIDENTS INVISIBLE TO AGENCY?

In a report by the EA lawyers it stated: "No one who actually lives near the works appears willing to continue the proceedings. In fact local residents other than Mrs Pallikaropoulos have failed to display any continuing interest in operations at the Rugby Cement works. In essence these proceedings constitute one relatively affluent and "committed" individual's own private campaign."
UNQUOTE

WE HAVE WAYS OF MAKING YOU TALK! AND IF YOU DON'T, WE WILL SAY THAT YOU DID!

TAKE PART IN OUR TRUE OR FALSE?

1. "Mrs P sought out David Edwards as a claimant."
The Agency quotes newspaper cuttings as 'proof and evidence' that I have 'most definitely' done this 'seeking out'.

2. She says she was "acting ostensibly on behalf of Rugby residents. Those residents were concerned about the likely impact of emissions from the plant. Those concerns cannot easily be equated with the public interest issues...."

3. However even if residents' concerns can be equated to "the public interest" the extent of those concerns in the present case is questionable."

4. The appellant says "that the permit in question aroused very substantial concern and controversy from residents and public bodies including Rugby Borough Council, and that she was acting in an almost entirely altruistic fashion so the matter could come before the courts". However there is no evidence of widespread public support of the case in Rugby or elsewhere."

5. It is respectfully submitted that the public's lack of response to consultations on more recent Agency determinations is more indicative of actual levels of actual interest."

6. Mrs P "put up the claimant David Edwards to secure funding"... and "in essence these proceedings constitute one relatively affluent and committed individual's private campaign."

7. In her submission she 'says' she has funded her costs before the Lords out of a legacy and that she will be put to serious hardship if she also has to pay the Respondents' costs.

8. Mrs P claims this is a "serious deterrent to access to justice".
Mrs P argues that the Respondenst should be denied their 'reasonable costs' and that these should fall instead upon the tax payer.

9. As regards the EU Directive as regards costs 2003/35/EC provides that any such procedure should be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.

10. Mrs P says the UK has failed to properly implement the requirements of the directive and this will be disputed by the government. The cost of litigating environmental issues in the UK is "minimised by inter alia" the availability of legal aid, and of the protective costs orders. The fact that in any event these were not available to Mrs P in the circumstances of this particular appeal does not undermine the Government's position in that regard."

11. Mrs P decided to take over the case from Mr Edwards and she was well aware of the risks that this involved. It can hardly be said that the costs would be a serious deterrent to access to justice.

12. The only part of the case where she has succeeded is in "the simple procedural irregularity by the Agency." and this is 'ONLY a breach of the common law rules of fairness' by the Agency in failing to disclose the AQMAU reports.

13. SO, in other words, deceiving the public, misleading and failing to disclose the MOST DAMGING DATA about the emissions and health impact is all right by us!

ENGAGING IN COMMUNITY RELATIONS?

2008-07-09T00:44:00.008+01:00

OR FLOGGING A DEAD HORSE?

Yet more "sham" "pretend" "meaningless" public "consultations", perhaps "invented" to keep Rugby residents off the streets, and busy, as our time, money and energy are all squandered in yet more abuse of process. WHAT MEANINGFUL OUTCOME CAN THERE POSSIBLY BE?

RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM
60,000 residents involved in cement plant STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.
Rugby Borough Council awarded £15,000 from the existing HEALTH PROTECTION BUDGET, and with Cemex and the Environment Agency jointly engaged THE ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL to undertake a review of stakeholder and community relations around the Rugby Cement Plant, and to make recommendations on potential ways forward.

"We did this by gathering information and feedback from a range of stakeholder and community members, through one on one telephone interviews. We then analysed this information, identified emerging themes and have made a series of observations and recommendations, all of which are included in the attached report."
The report is being simultaneously released to the funders of the review (CEMEX, the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council) and stakeholder and community members. It will also be available on The Environment Council's website at: http://www.the-environment-council.org.uk/rugby-cement-plant-stakeholder-engagement-review.html, Rugby Borough Council's website at: www.rugby.gov.uk and CEMEX's website at: www.cemex.co.uk

"In order to give all stakeholders (including funders) an opportunity to respond to the report and its recommendations, and give feedback, The Environment Council will be convening a workshop in late June.
The report and its recommendations are The Environment Council's advice, based on long experience of best practice engagement, on the optimal approaches and methods to apply to achieving robust, transparent and open stakeholder and community engagement. Acting on these recommendations may entail resource commitments and CEMEX, the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council will need to take a joint view on the best way to proceed."

"One of the key purposes of the workshop is to allow all interested parties to contribute their views and feedback specifically on the report and its recommendations, which will help inform decisions about future steps. The workshop will focus on gaining feedback on the report, and won't focus on issue-based questions such as activity currently going on around the cement plant, potential future resource implications, or reiterating information that has already been considered in the formulation of the report and its recommendations."

WAIT A MOMENT - IT DOES NOT ADD UP!
IS THIS THE SAME ENVIRONMENT AGENCY THAT SAYS "NO-ONE BUT LILIAN IS BOTHERED ABOUT THE CEMENT WORKS IN RUGBY!"

TYRE TRIALS CONSULTATION, or ABUSE OF PUBLIC?
Rugby residents are now to comment to Cemex on the "draft 6 tonnes and hour tyre trial report", but with what aim in mind? Year after year we "being consulted", bombarded even, by yet ever more SHAM, time-wasting, costly, soul-destroying, meaningless, false promises of public participation! Rugby Borough Council paid out £10,000 to a facilitator to produce the Tyre Burning Review Group's damning report on 3 tonnes and hour, which the Council endorsed! But to what effect? Perhaps they should look up the definition of "consultation" in a dictionary?

"PUT UP AND SHUT UP!"would be much more honest, and "business as usual!" End now the "tick boxes", of "community engagement"! The Environment Agency, RBC, WCC and Rugby Cement have well and truly flogged the dead horse of consultation in Rugby.

But here we go again - residents are to be consulted on the waste plant?

HA! HA! HA!

HORSE TRADING

2008-07-02T01:11:00.004+01:00

BEGINS AT SOUTHAM AND RUGBY.
SECTION 106 PRICE TAG?
WHAT AM I BID?
WASTE PROCESSING PLANT
Southam and Rugby parallel applications due in any day. Focus is now on the "delicate negotiations" no doubt going on in the back room between Cemex and the County Council. What SECTION 106 payment will be offered in order to make "WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE UNACCEPTABLE, ACCEPTABLE"?

DEAL, OR NO DEAL?
So far, unsurprisingly, the County and Borough councils have refused to answer any questions about this current "negotiating process", and have failed to make it transparent. What price will be put on our heads, and who will decide what is acceptable, and who gets to keep the Section 106 cash? Rugby residents are still smarting, (and will until the cement plant is demolished), from the last County "sell out", when Rugby's environment, amenity, air quality and health, was compromised and traded by the County Council in the 1996 deal, that breached Community Law - had no Environmental Impact Assessment, or public consultation. All for a paltry £500,000 as a "contribution" towards Rugby Cement's Western Relief Road. (Later things were made worse when the relevant air quality impact and other related data was concealed by the Agency, County and Borough Council as they jointly turned the cement works into a co-incinerator without following the due IPC and IPPC and EIA process.) This pittance, (as that was what it was even at that time!) as all recall, was then put in the bank at WCC and the annual interest paid to Rugby Cement, as they argued over the route, putting it in the green belt to "conserve" the route for Rugby Cement, until the "sell by date" expired, and the pittance was due to be returned, unspent, in February 2006. Council officials are tight-lipped about the location of this illicit fund. Did they pay it back or not?

SINK TOWN?
And even more tight lipped about how the County has devalued the whole of Rugby, causing it to become a sink town, where people are afraid to speak up, some for fear of persecution by the authorities and others for fear of damaging the marketability of their property. Thousands now have to live next to a massive unlawfully built co-incinerator, which emits about one million cubic metres of polluting gas each hour from the main stack, and many hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of polluted particulate-laden air from the unmonitored Low Level Point Sources, with no fail-safe mechanisms, (even the much-heralded bag filters do not work 100% of the time, are not on the emissions from all the sources fed into the main stack for dispersion, and they are bypassed,) getting on for 1,000 juggernauts a day, and a massive polluting plume highly visible all winter. No wonder the powers-that-be want to keep this all "under wraps!"

RAILWAY OR CANAL?
The delay in construction caused by the interminable discussion about whether the Southam Rugby railway should be re-opened to connect the two Cemex sites of Southam and Rugby has cost the public, so far, £26,000,000 in EXTRA construction costs alone. And untold other costs in terms of traffic jams and dangerous pollution, social services, and NHS costs in terms of the health impact in the poor air quality in Rugby. Now they want to increase pollution in an area that is already DEPRIVED, over-polluted, and with pockets of ill health and social and health inequalities. Meanwhile Cemex and the County both make the hilarious suggestion of using the canals to transport the 2,000 tonnes a day of clay to Rugby, but the Waterways Board says this is impossible, a non-starter, with all the locks, and have pointed out that "err! the canals do not even go to the cement works - err!" So that brings us back to the railway again - that has been conserved by WCC and Rugby Cement specifically in order to transport the clay - and now the waste from the Waste Processing plant shortly to be constructed at Southam?

CONTROVERSIAL GAGGING ORDER!
THE WORDS CEMEX/RUGBY CEMENT BANNED!
The Rugby Advertiser 26 June reports that the chattering classes are at it again with their "whispering campaign" to gag me, to shut me up! They are determined to allow no discussion, and to keep other people from hearing my all too pertinent, awkward, revealing questions, which cause them such pain! Long Lawford Parish Council joins RBC and WCC (and the EA) and will not allow the public, (even their own parishioners), and those who they are supposed to serve, to ask any questions about Cemex, its plans and its operations. They all jump on the banning-band-wagon, and shout "Shoot the messenger!" A vain attempt to silence me!
PATHETIC!

RUGBY COUNCIL LEADER'S CONSIDERED RESPONSE

2008-06-12T10:52:00.003+01:00

WHEN ASKED TO STOP SHOOTING THE MESSENGER!
AND RESTORE DEMOCRACY IN RUGBY:
GET RID OF ONE PARTY CONTROL SYSTEM:
OPEN DEBATE ABOUT WHERE THIS TOWN IS GOING!

OPEN ACCESSIBLE COUNCIL? HARDLY!
Rugby needs a PUBLIC INQUIRY into the new Cemex planning applications that are to be submitted in July in parallel at Warwickshire County Council for one, or two?, 365,000 tonne waste processing plants. Also a full environmental impact assessment for the cumulative impact of the existing cement plant, the EMISSIONS from the waste burning permutations, and newly proposed 365,000 tonne waste processing plant with its vents and chimney and huge increase in lorries and pollution.

LIST OF RUGBY CEMENT/CEMEX DONATIONS TO BE MADE PUBLIC?
Perhaps for the public record and scrutiny we could have a list of these "timely" donations, and the key persons involved, and how donations might "cloud their decision-making ability"? Recent examples are £150,000 for Church Lawford,
and a £22,500 mini-bus which saw a well-known councillor feature in the Cemex Community Matters newsletter, proudly beaming away as he clutched the keys. Who knows how this may have "encouraged" the widely proclaimed and public support of Cemex, and their plans to burn hundreds of tonnes of waste each day in the Cemex co-incinerator, when he warmly thanked them for their 2nd June 2006 presentation, and said "If we don't get hysterical we can get this through."

OFFICERS AND COUNCILLORS IN DENIAL? The facts should be made known, and questions answered about the alleged maladministration that has been going on over many years, at both WCC and RBC, involving both officers and councillors. The councillors have either been involved in this malpractice, or have "looked away", and in either case they have not done their jobs properly, and have not been supervising or reigning in the wayward officers, who have not carried out their duties correctly.

WARWICKSHIRE COUNCIL OFFICERS:
in 1996 "silenced" Mr Underhill, Chief Planning Officer at RBC. WCC officers actually wrote, (WCC files and I have copies), that, for pecuniary motives (signing first of a section 106 agreement), they had persuaded him not to speak up at the meeting with Rugby Cement, when he had insisted that the plans for the new cement plant and the photo montages were DECEPTIVE, and did not show the TRUE IMPACT, and that the construction of the plant would DESTROY the whole town of Rugby for generations to come! "I think we have persuaded Haywood not to speak until after we have signed the Section 106 agreement," before it goes to planning committee, and then it will be too late for him to say anything!

RUGBY BOROUGH OFFICERS FOOLED
the public in 1999 when they engaged, in secret, in the "Rugby Cement IPC application" process, to which Rugby's Environmental Health Office, in grave dereliction of duty, made no response to the consultation, concealed it from the councillors, and public, and made no attempt whatsoever to minimise and limit the pollution and impact from this cement factory. They then refused to answer any questions about this deception and finally admitted what RBC had done, and then
were reported in the press as saying "those responsible for this were either dead or retired" but would not say who they were, who had acted against Rugby residents best interests. Are those people now receiving a pension?

RUGBY COUNCIL WANTS WASTE BURNING?
as it rushed through officers own personal comments under "assumed delegated power": e.g. the WCC/Cemex bag filter application, without any involvement with Councillors - presumably in an attempt to get as much waste burnt in Rugby as possible? The Environment Agency's Public Register concealed
in RBC EHO office said that the Cemex plant would close if it could not fit the bag filters in order to burn the waste, as it would become uncompetitive, being restricted to coal burning only. Without the bag filters
it would not be able to meet the WASTE INCINERATION DIRECTIVE emission limits for co-incinerating waste cement plants. Warwickshire County Council decided to grant the planning permission without any environmental impact assessment, consideration of the true impact on Rugby, its air quality, health, and without due consideration of the letters from the public and from lawyers, and without any consultation with Rugby Councillors.

TOWN NEEDS TO DECIDE WHERE IT IS GOING AND WHAT IS IN BEST INTEREST!
Is this Council damaging the town and the future, and failing to improve Rugby children's life chances? WCC set up these "Locality panels" adding yet another layer of bureaucracy at huge cost to the rate payers, and with what benefit? While discussion is commendable there needs to be some joined-up thinking and action, as we are one town, and need an overall plan. Should these panels be used for PROPAGANDA?
Dunchurch locality panel at Flecknoe saw Cemex gave its "deceptive" presentation on the waste plant applications for Southam and /or Rugby (only your black bin rubbish my foot?!) to a handful of folk, were unable to ask many questions, and were hurried along.

CLASSICAL MUSIC TO FRIGHTEN AWAY YOUTHS!
At 19th March meeting of Rugby Town West Locality Panel the Committee at the High School suggested they play classical music outside the Kingsway shops to frighten away teenagers by exposing them to "culture" in such a way as to make them ashamed to be hanging about there. All this at Public expense, and organised by whom, and for what purpose?

RBC CONSULTATION :
PUBLIC DEBATE ABOUT RESTORING DEMOCRACY IN COUNCIL:
It is recognised that too much one-sided control is a very dangerous thing, that "absolute power corrupts", and it is widely held view that this Council is not being run properly, with officers seizing too much delegated power, and not being held to account.

Shall we now, having learnt from past mistakes, re-examine the unwise decision to hand all power to the TORY party, in the Cabinet system, and to open up the debate and try to get democracy restored to the Council, which used to work much better when it had meaningful representation from all parties? RBC have been asking people what they
think about the Council - so now is the chance to make amends!

NOT ONE, BUT TWO HOUSEHOLD" WASTE PLANTS!

2008-06-05T10:53:00.004+01:00

CEMEX ANNOUNCES SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATIONS EARLY JULY
YOU WILL HAVE AT LEAST 12 WEEKS:
Addressing about 20 people on June 5th at the Dunchurch "Locality" panel in the tiny village of Flecknoe Cemex, making a presentation, announced that the two applications for the MBT PROCESSING OF HOUSEHOLD WASTE would be submitted about two weeks apart, in order to assist Warwickshire County Council - but the applications would be regarded as simultaneous. "Both have merits" - Long Itchington (Southam) is brown field, 12 miles from co-incinerator, but Malpass Rugby is on a landfill, earmarked for industrial use, and is conveniently next door.

CHRISTMAS GIFT FOR WINNERS!
The public have many happy months ahead, a significant period, in which to comment - as the decision will be announced by WCC at Christmas, as a GIFT for the winning community!

There will be two planning applications, two Environmental Impact Assessments, publications, exhibitions, information on web, as many means as possible to communicate with you what is going to happen, and allow you to give your views. We have to build this and to burn waste to save the nitrogen dioxide emissions, which of course are already "way below our emission limits" (err?) but we can save them more. And Carbon Dioxide - we can save that too - by calling these wastes "carbon neutral"! It is much better for us to burn this waste than to continue burning South African coal. It is sustainable and saves this waste from going to landfill, and emitting methane a green house gas 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide.

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL to be helped with landfill target, to save them and the public from being fined. And we provide 750 jobs locally. "CLIMAFUEL" is on trial now at Rugby as a 30% replacement. (FUNNY SUMS: actually it is on 100% replacement as the 16 tonnes coal needed in the CALCINER is being replaced by 6 tonnes tyres, and the balance of approximately 10 tonnes is being replaced by 15 tonnes climafuel each hour) After the "climafuel trial" there is to be a lengthy consultation in which we will provide data to PROVE there is no NET DETRIMENT!

DEAD BODIES NO PROBLEM:
GORDON COLLETT CHAIRING did not want to "get bogged down" or to allow too many questions. One questioner was worried about living in the prevailing down wind area: This process does not smell like a landfill, and Southam has a chimney ready for use, but we can vent the emissions through the roof at Rugby, as about 25% of the waste will be "moisture" that has to be "dried off and vented". No we will most definitely not have a chimney at Rugby - OK - oh err maybe we will have a "small one". The plant is at negative air pressure and no emissions and odour will escape. EVERYTHING IS KEPT IN! It is all in a sealed building.
Only 25% of waste will be moisture drawn off, and vented. The two plants may vary, and use a different technology.

One questioner said waste was to come from all over the country, and asked what guarantee there was the bins would not contain toxic materials? How would Cemex deal with "dead bodies", and other things like "dog muck" that get into "wheely bins". Apparently household waste is an "homogeneous beast" and "odd extraneous" materials like that, and metals, and "large items", would be sorted out by the MBT process, and turned into the "climafuel".

1,000 TONNES OF WASTE IN TEN LORRIES!
Another question revealed that Southam was the preferred option, and that the 70 clay lorries (each way each day) would only increase "to 80 or 90", or should that read "two 80 or 90? Another odd sum - how do you get 1,000 tonnes a day of bulky waste into 10, OR EVEN 20, lorries? Half the MUNICIPAL WASTE will be suitable to burn , 25-30% will be recycled and "a little 5%" will be landfilled.

INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL WASTE in the application/s got no mention at all!
This is all about your black bag rubbish, and what Cemex can do for you!

OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS NOW FOR COUNCILLORS ASRUGBY COUNCIL OFFERS PUBLIC INQUIRY TENTATIVE SUPPORT:
In response to public concerns and a growing demand for a Public Inquiry Craig Humphries, leader of Rugby Borough Council said:

"This application in the terms described in the question would be a matter determined by Warwickshire County Council. So far as I am aware no application has been made to date. If, and when it is, the Council will wish to consider its response both as a local planning authority and as a Council. At this stage I will not be seeking to commit the Council to seeking a Public Inquiry."

LILIAN OF ARC

2008-05-30T15:49:00.002+01:00

CALLS FOR URGENT PUBLIC INQUIRY!
OVER WASTE PLANT AT SOUTHAM OR AT RUGBY!

A RUGBY TIMES EXCLUSIVE
revealed that Lilian has challenged conventional candidates for the new parliamentary seat of Rugby, as Tory Jeremy Wright moves over to Southam.
They likened Lilian to Joan of Arc, riding to the rescue of Rugby, tirelessly working for Rugby residents, and well-known nationally as a determined environmental campaigner, challenging the government to properly implement the European Directives, and Aarhus Convention, and to allow British citizens their rightful Access to Justice, and right to redress of "environmental crimes", without becoming bankrupt.
Lilian, always serving Rugby, seeks no personal gain, being rewarded only by the grateful thanks of those suffering the environmental
detriment, loss of amenity, poor air quality, and health effects, delivered by the "dubious actions" of the local authorities, the Environment Agency and
the industrial polluters. The usual Warwickshire County Council practise of failing to consult the public, and of "nodding through" retrospective planning permissions to the benefit of industry, and at great cost to the public, must end - NOW!

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL TO SUPPORT PUBLIC INQUIRY?
QUESTION FOR CABINET 2ND JUNE 2008:

Cemex are submitting a planning application for a huge waste processing plant for 1,000 tonnes a day of household, commercial and industrial waste, to be "imported" from all over the country to an urban area on Parkfield Road. From this total 360 tonnes of Refuse Derived Fuel will be burnt each day in the Cemex co-incinerator, leaving a residue of 640 tonnes to go where, for recycling and landfill?
Rugby residents are very concerned about the cumulative impact of the Cemex operations, which have never had any Environmental Impact Assessment , and we are calling for a full open debate about the comparative merits of using the much larger rural site at Southam, or the smaller urban site at Rugby which is in an area already polluted, with high levels of particulate, daily exceedances of the PM10 objective, and also in the nitrogen dioxide AQMA, where pollution is set to rise significantly due to the routing of the new Western Relief Road along Parkfield Road.
As Parliamentary Candidate and an behalf of Rugby in Plume I am calling for a full open debate, and an urgent PUBLIC INQUIRY. Will this Cabinet, and Rugby Council, support the people of Rugby and call for a Public Inquiry - as "Rugby has had enough!"
Lilian Pallikaropoulos

Cemex Starts Rugby-Southam War

2008-05-22T10:54:00.000+01:00

CAST YOUR VOTE NOW: ON A LOCAL SOLUTION TO A LOCAL PROBLEM?

RUGBY OR SOUTHAM WASTE PLANT?
To be discussed IN SECRET on Friday 24th May at Rugby Town Hall.
CEMEX ask WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL to approve their planning application for a 1,000 tonne a day WASTE HANDLING/PROCESSING PLANT: 240,000 tonnes year MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE MATERIALS, and 125,000 tpa of imported SRF type material or "Climafuel" from other MBT facilities.

DEVELOPMENT - SIX FEATURES:
Reception and Process Building; Materials recycling facility; Blending House; Buffer storage area;
Bio-filter Area to house Environmental control systems such as water and air; plus who knows how many juggernauts!

PROCESSING (MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment and MHT Mechanical Heat Treatment) and BLENDING 125,000 tonnes a year imported ready-made "climafuel" for "blending" in with some of the 240,000 tonnes domestic, commercial and industrial wastes, in order to provide 130,000 tonnes of "climafuel" for burning in the calciner at the Cemex co-incinerator : where it is being used as a 100% replacement, at 15 tonnes per hour (360 tpd) along with 6 tonnes of tyres (144tpd), to replace 16 tonnes of coal (504 tonnes waste daily to substitute for 384 tonnes coal). Grimsby Port Authority' has a three year contract to handle the importation of Dutch/European "climafuel" for South Ferriby and Barrington plants.
WHY IMPORT WASTE, and where does the rest go?

SSSSHHH! TOP SECRET TEA PARTY!

2008-05-16T09:12:00.002+01:00

CEMEX TAKE OVER SCRUFFY-TOWN HALL!

"RUGBY TO BECOME EVEN MORE A CEMEX WASTE DUMP!"
SAY COUNCILLORS, AS COUNCIL TAXES USED, YET AGAIN, TO SUBSIDISE RUGBY CEMENT.
23 MAY - PRIVATE PRESENTATION!
NO PUBLIC! NO PRESS!
NO WITNESSES!

MARK THE BALLOT ON CODE OF CONDUCT:
THE TEN GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF RUGBY COUNCILLORS, OR NOT?
1. Selflessness - serve only public interest; never confer advantage or disadvantage.
2. Honesty and Integrity - avoid appearance of improper behaviour.
3. Objectivity - decisions on merit.
4. Accountability - to the public.
5. Openness - open and justify actions.
6. Personal Judgement - take account of public's view.
7. Respect for others - equality and not discrimination.
8. Duty to uphold the law - act in accordance with public trust.
9. Stewardship - use resources prudently.
10 Leadership - secure or preserve public confidence.
11 NONE OF THE ABOVE?

JOIN THE "KEEP CEMEX HAPPY CLUB!"
Despite the highly contentious and controversial nature of this latest Cemex proposition, our pleas to all 48 Councillors for openness, honesty
integrity, and transparency fall on deaf ears as they continue to discriminate against the public, serving only Cemex, as they squander our Council
Taxes on secret meetings - just as Warwickshire County Council does - in an apparent aim to "keep Cemex happy!"

ERIN BROCKOVICH NEEDED IN RUGBY!
With the continued public involvement, and wide-spread support, united we continue to "fight for the future of Rugby!" We do our best against the great odds put up by those who, using public money, are self-serving, ignorant of the scientific facts; those in authority, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo by intimidation, deception, and control. Matt Wright's letter in the Rugby Times "History will have the last word over Lilian" is very heartening, praising as it does our "passion to fight wrong doing", our "refusal to take the line of least resistance and to roll over and die", and our unshakeable "belief in people power and justice for ordinary folk!" The fight against the wrong-doers goes on! In another letter Martin Pope asks Cemex for a re-spray, and questions the damage to his lungs, as he comments on the nature of the cement dust on his classic car - which he likens to "grinding paste" when washed off with a sponge and water.

ERIN BROCKOVICH, mentioned by Matt in his letter, is famous for the Julia Roberts film on hexavalent chromium poisoning in a water supply. ERIN has been called to HELP RIVERSIDE cement plant locals, and is currently investigating the high rate of cancer, and high blood levels of hexavalent chromium, evident in the residents who live down wind of the TXI Riverside Cement Plant. These carcinogenic emissions are among the many other poisonous pollutants found in cement plant emissions, and in the so-called "white dust" that descends on residents near cement plants everywhere. (see Los Angeles Times - Rubidoux). There are no monitors in Rugby for any of the toxic pollutants and metals that are being emitted 24/7, nor for cancer-causing vaporised mercury, arsenic, lead, dioxins etc.

COUNCILLORS TO NOD THROUGH MORE POLLUTION AND DIRT?
In the meantime what do the 48 Rugby Councillors do about the environment, dust, and emissions that pour out onto Rugby residents? They care not a jot as they squander yet more of our Council Taxes, subsidising Cemex, inviting them to "take tea", and permitting them to take over the Town Hall (23 May), and giving them unfettered access in order to lobby the Councillors, in secret, with "private pre-application discussions and presentations".

RUGBY SUCKERZ!
Why does Cemex not hire a room accessible to the public? Hardly likely while Rugby residents pay up for them to have secret Council meetings. How far this "SECRET SHOW" will influence the Councillors remains to be seen, but with such self-serving wimps at the helm it seems inevitable that the proposed 1,000 tonne a day waste processing plant on the Malpass landfill site on Parkfield Road, New Bilton will be nodded through, nicely situated alongside the cement plant so all the emissions can accumulate and blow
over the town in the prevalent "favourable" westerly winds. ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF SCRUFFY TOWN!

Suck it up Rugby!

2008-05-12T15:23:00.003+01:00

RUGBY TOWN TOPS LEAGUE TABLE FOR DIRTIEST STREETS IN WEST MIDLANDS!

WE SEE IT HERE, WE SEE IT THERE, DIRT AND DUST ON EVERYWHERE!

The Rugby Advertiser 8 May 8th, quoting UNION GMB survey labelled Rugby, "SCRUFFY TOWN", as Rugby was "pipped at the post", and deprived of actually being branded the dirtiest town out of the 34 entrants, being beaten only by the more filthy streets of Birmingham, Coventry, Bedworth and Nuneaton. 19% of the Rugby streets fell below the acceptable level of cleanliness."There are still too many councils not putting enough effort and resources into keeping the streets clean, and that has got to change!"

SAMPLE OF LETTERS IN PRESS:
MASKS. MOON DUST, FAIRIES, POLLEN?

LEAVE LILIAN ALONE: I write for everyone in Rugby and beyond who are concerned for their health, safety, and quality of life. Here in Rugby we have a dedicated lady, Lilian P, showing concerns over the Cemex factory. She does not "ride the gravy train" and I do not think (Rugby Cement gifts of) "flowers" or "roof tiles" will silence her. Please invite a Sioux Indian to visit Rugby to read the smoke signals coming from the chimney and tell people the truth? Otherwise we have no chance! (Lawford resident)

THE ANSWER IS BLOWING IN THE WIND:
THIS TIME I suppose we have to blame the pesky Sahara desert for the measurable thickness of dust deposited on our cars? Perhaps Cemex's bunkers, hoppers and chimneys act as a natural barrier, a bit like the Pennine Chain, and Saharan sand is precipitated on one side only, like rain in Manchester? Still I cannot sit here musing all day, I have to collect yet another Beclazone inhaler for my wife, who seems to be getting through rather a lot lately. Must be that pesky Saharan dust! (Shakespeare Gardens)

COVERED IN DUST - YET AGAIN I awake to find my home and car covered in filth. I am an arthritic pensioner meaning all cleaning jobs are difficult. Consequently I have this week paid £15 to have my windows cleaned and £6.50 for my car - for what? Perhaps Cemex are now employing fairies to sprinkle moon dust over us all for good luck? That could well be the next ridiculous excuse they expect us stupid rate-payers to accept. Lilian P wisely advises us to move away, or to wear masks. I cannot afford to move else I would be off like a shot. And as for wearing masks it should be Cemex management wearing those so we don't recognise them in public. There again why bother? They don't hang about of live in the firing line do they? (Cherwell Way)

LAST WEEK Cemex brazenly denied they were responsible for dust that was clearly seen leaving their factory, was reported by the public, and which landed on cars and property. They always say "complaints investigated - case not proven" - so eye-witness accounts mean nothing. During the UK-wide dust episode the Environment Agency were inundated by calls, as reported in the Rugby Advertiser. "Annoyed residents from all areas of Rugby say they believe it came from Rugby Cement because it USUALLY does!"

CEMEX WASTE PLANT FILTH!!
1,000 TONNES A DAY: planned for Rugby Malpass Site, by Cemex, who will begin the process by the usual "secret" meetings with Rugby Councillors (May 28?) in order to "soften them up", in the usual way, by pre-consultation consultation, and in the pre-application application, before they finally submit the application giving the public just three weeks to respond.

CAN RUGBY TAKE ANY MORE DUST AND POLLUTION IN THE AIR, ANY MORE DIRT AND FILTH ON OUR STREETS?

IS IT MERE CO-INCIDENCE THAT THIS TOWN HAS GONE STEADILY DOWN HILL SINCE THE NEW RUGBY WORKS WAS OPENED IN FEBRUARY 2000?

MYSTERY DUST EXPLAINED?

2008-05-08T15:56:00.004+01:00

AS MERELY SPRING CLEANING?

UK-WIDE COMPLAINTS ROLL IN - POSSIBILITIES REPORTED IN THE PRESS:
Cemex co-incinerator trials of tyres and RDF in Rugby?
Grangemouth oil refinery restart?
Drakelow power station - oops - its closed down?
Farmers burning stubble - in May?
Dunbar Lafarge Cement - sulphur and plume grounding reported?
SEPA: "particles are mix of sand, road dust and plants."
MET OFFICE: Saharan sand.
MET OFFICE: Spain.
Pollen from Europe?
Smoke from Europe - Russian fires?
Chemical weapons testing?
Volcano in Chile?
Cyclone in Burma?
Olympic flame?
Sponsored chimney sweep?
Housewives spring cleaning?

WASTE FUELS : "DREAD" TERMS?
The HEALTH PROTECTION AGENCY reportedly, at the the 11th Institute of Environment and Health meeting at Cranfield, outlined the "problems" of communicating to the public that the burning of waste in cement kilns SHOULD lead to no increased health effects. So there we have it, straight from the horses mouth - there are health effects but these should not increase - over what level? And how is this assessed?

This issue had consumed so much of their time and energy, but "there is public concern which we ignore at our peril. In many ways what we've seen is an object lesson in how not to do it, and more recently how to do it - through COMEAP. The cement industry has not covered itself in glory in the past and the Profuel/Cemfuel/Climafuel are on their way to becoming "dread" terms."

COMEAP: TIGHT CONTROLS NEEDED!
The HPA when first set up was welcomed by residents and protesters as a new independent body to review scientific evidence, but this view has now begun to erode, and the HPA is seen as an "ally of industry!" COMEAP has been approached five times on the issue of waste in cement kilns. Given the numerous combinations of different types of waste fuels and processes COMEAP has found it hard to be able to give the "all-clear" for all fuels and all combinations based on the data provided. They are shortly expected to publish a report giving the okay for waste fuels, but crucially it will say that MANAGEMENT CONTROLS WILL NEED TO BE TIGHT.

PUBLIC CONCERN TO END? WRONG!
The HPA are said to be "waiting with baited breath for the report which hopefully will go some way towards ending public concern."

PUBLIC CONCERN WILL NOT END!
The HPA said there were many "claimed" advantages for burning Refuse derive Fuel, waste tyres meat and bone meal. "Cement kilns require a huge amount of energy and high temperatures and long residence times means that many potentially toxic products are either destroyed or absorbed in the cement and clinker."

But all this ignores the very real threat posed by the unmonitored Low Level Point Sources which emit constantly as the clinker is ground into cement "dust" which carries on each bag hazard warnings! These emissions also must contain "the toxic products" that are supposedly safely absorbed into the cement dust? The addition of unquantified/unspecified industrial wastes at all stages of the process as substitutes for, or in addition to, many of the raw materials has never been assessed by anyone. At RUGBY there was no consultation, and no planning permission for storage, no chemical analysis, and no EU waste codes; - as COMEAP concentrate their attention on the "alternative fuels" as described above. These over 100% coal replacements (16 tph coal replaced by 6 tph tyres and 15 tph RDF) in any case do not even go into the kiln, but are burnt in the calciner at lower temperatures , with short residence time, and the gases go in a contraflow to heat up the raw materials, before being emitted via the main stack - or escaping sometimes as fugitive emissions.

COAL TO BE USED ON START-UP:
The IPPC permits specifically state that "no waste is to be burnt on start-up, or shut down, and when the kiln is running at less than 200 tonnes an hour raw meal feed." No satisfactory explanation has ever been given for this, so one can only conclude there is "something" much worse about the emissions from the wastes than the coal? Otherwise why would they start to pay £60 a tonnes for coal when they could be £90 a tonne better off by being paid £30 a tonne to burn waste instead. We also "await the COMEAP report with baited breath" and it remains to be seen if COMEAP had better go back to the drawing board?

RUGBY.. DIRTIEST GRUBBIEST TOWN

2008-05-04T14:13:00.006+01:00

TOWN COATED IN MYSTERY DUST - YET AGAIN!
THAT'S OFFICIAL!

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY IN DENIAL - YET AGAIN!

* "Our 2006 air quality survey (see RBC web) does not support Lilian's suggestion that she is merely a spokesperson for an actively-concerned public : it indicates that most people are broadly satisfied with their local environment and air quality."

* "Local residents have failed to show any continuing interest in operations at the Rugby plant."

* The Agency simply does not believe people in Rugby are bothered at all about the cement works, nor about being covered in dust and pollution, and claims "the extent of the residents' concerns is questionable".

* "There is no evidence of widespread public support or concern in Rugby."

* The Agency criticised the Rugby public's lack of response to the continuous consultations on yet ever more Cemex applications, describing Rugby residents as having no "active interest"!

RESIDENTS UP IN ARMS - YET AGAIN! as yet another bank Holiday is spent washing their cars and windows after an over night coating with dust. The "dust", which was so thick that residents could not even see out of their car windows, has coated cars, conservatories, caravans, window ledges and any other flat surfaces, and has been reported across the whole of the town after a still, airless night.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY BESIEGED - YET AGAIN!
Complaints have deluged the Environment Agency switchboard, with calls right across the town from Long Lawford, New Bilton, Bilton , Hillmorton - postal codes CV22, CV21, and CV23.

LORDS JUDGEMENT RIGHT - YET AGAIN! * "After all the inhabitants of Rugby had been living with A cement works for a long time..."
* "In other words there was already so much dust in the air of Rugby..." that perhaps adding a few more hundred tonnes a year makes no difference?
* "The local people were sceptical and reluctant to be experimented upon."

DR EVANS OF RUGBY CEMENT EXPLAINS - YET AGAIN!
that Rugby Cement did not consider it necessary to tell the public AT ANY STAGE, - not during the "secret" WCC planning application/s, nor during construction, nor during the secret IPC, nor during the grossly misleading IPPC application that they cunningly called "tyre burning application" - about the levels of dust to which they would be constantly exposed from the Low Level Point Sources, and about the frequent exposure to "fugitive dust".

House of Lords 19/20:

QUOTE: "The application said nothing however about the effect of adding the contribution of emissions of PM10 from LLPS to the ambient air quality.
The consultants had not been asked to include these emissions in their computer model. Dr Evans explained in his second witness statement: 'The rationale for this was that releases from the main stack were considered to be of more significance than those from other point sources such as the cement mills, where there would be lower discharge volumes and concentrations. We considered the general risk assessment approach to be satisfactory and in line with general guidance.' One reason for excluding the LLPS from the company's modelling exercise MAY have been the GREAT DIFFICULTY of doing so with ANY PRETENCE AT ACCURACY.

Whereas emissions from the main stack are continuous (???!) and from a single fixed point above all surrounding buildings, the emissions from the LLPS are from a number of different places at different heights for irregular periods of time and MAYBE (???!) affected by the layout of the buildings. An attempt at modelling MAY therefore not have been able to produce very helpful information."

LILIAN'S COMMENT :"A LIKELY STORY" - YET AGAIN!
Is this a joke? So they built a 2,000,000 tonne a year capacity cement works, with NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT!
Then they admit that neither the EA nor Rugby Cement, and much less so the hapless Warwickshire County Council planners, had ever considered WHAT EMISSIONS were to come out of it from the various sources, and WHERE the emissions were to fall and what environmental, air quality and health impact this would have on the long-suffering Rugby residents?

Even though the plant had, by the time of the IPPC application, been running for 18 months still there was NO REAL LIVE DATA available from the 19 LLPS as they have NO MONITORS at all! Rugby Cement "attempted" to do some dispersion modelling of what they said was "from the the installation", but it was in fact of the "main stack only", in order to convince the "sceptical public who were reluctant to be experimented upon" that there was "no problem".
No information was in the public domain, and with repeated complaints by the dust-coated public the Agency then decided to "dispersion model" the emissions from the LLPS - in two secret AQMAU reports - which shocked both them and Rugby Cement so much that they decided to hide them. "Rugby Cement expressed great concern about this information getting into the public domain!" Even at the end of 2002 the Agency could not get information
out of Rugby Cement as to what was being emitted from where, because no-one had EVER considered it as important, and Rugby Cement struggled to find any "ACTUAL DATA" to give to the Agency. The Agency's top scientists in the AQMAU team said this application fell far short of what would be considered adequate, and there were so many gaps in the data - despite the plant having run for THREE YEARS!!

However the Health Protection Agency, under its former name of the Chemical Hazards Research Unit at Birmingham University had already pointed out in response to the IPPC application, in 2001, (the application that ONLY they ever saw!!) that the mills and other low level sources were emitting at far too high a rate and were likely to be very detrimental to the air quality in Rugby. No level of particulate is safe!

PIGGY IN THE MIDDLE?

2008-04-29T23:38:00.002+01:00

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS?
WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL EXHIBITS CONFUSION as they claim that, from their point of view and for the purposes of planning, the Cemex Rugby plant is only a cement plant, and not a co-incinerator. This is in spite of the fact that WCC Regulatory Committee granted a retrospective planning permission in January 2003 for £1,000,000 of unauthorised tyre burning equipment, the construction of which turned the plant into a co-incinerator, months before it gained its "dubious and much disputed" IPPC Permit in August 2003.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION PERMITTING AGENCY meanwhile has said it IS a co-incinerator governed under the Waste Incinerator Directive, apparently because WCC made it an existing co-incinerator before the Agency gave it the IPPC permit to become one? Not surprising neither WCC or the EA wishes to shoulder the blame, and to admit responsibility for the destruction of the built environment, amenity, roads, whole town's atmosphere, quality of life and air quality in Rugby! The cement/co-incinerator and/or its massive plume can be viewed and enjoyed from most streets in the Borough, casting a pall over the entire town - and no-one is responsible apparently - unless we blame the dead who, according to the House of Lords, built "a cement plant" there in the time of Dr Arnold.

GOVERNMENT FAILINGS EU DIRECTIVES
All this "confusion" at the expense of Rugby residents seems to be attributable to the failure of the UK Government to implement the various European Directives correctly, which are designed to protect the AIR, improve the Environment and the health of the EU citizens, as well as to give them the right to access to information, full and fair consultation, and access to justice when all this goes wrong. One needs look no further than Rugby to find all the evidence one needs of abuse of process and environmental detriment. It is common knowledge that formal letters have been written and infraction proceedings are taking place over various issues the EU has with the UK. This might serve to focus their minds a little! Though judging by their lamentable performance so far it may take a little time to get things put right and give the British people the same rights as in other European countries!

MYSTERY OVER COATED CARS
In the meantime they play ball over our heads as Cemex tops up the air with "pollen"? Yes that's right - pollen - according to the Rugby Observer 24 April.
"Mystery surrounds the discovery of an ash-type substance which blew over a number of parked cars in Bilton on Tuesday morning. Some residents immediately though Cemex was to blame, although Cemex bosses say the cause could be pollen! A local resident said "It looked like an ash tray had been tipped on top of my car.I looked at other cars on the street and they all had light dust specks on them too."

Later on at 1.30 on the same day workers had tried to put an isolation valve on a tanker during maintenance to silos, but dropped cement powder on the floor creating a giant cloud of dust which engulfed the building. Witnesses said "You couldn't even see any of the cement works because of this massive grey cloud. It then started drifting off over Lawford." Cemex said there was no evidence of dust being sprayed anywhere outside the plant and no complaints had been received. Meanwhile the EA had lots of complaints which are being investigated."

HOUSE OF LORDS
in their "truly amazing judgement" were right on one thing, at least, when they said "there was already so much dust in the air of Rugby!" Meanwhile the Jury's out - pollen or dust?

TXI RIVERSIDE CEMENT CALIFORNIA
Check out the The Los Angeles Times April 15 2008 : "Local residents fear nearby cement factory is making them sick!" They have just found out that their cement plant "dust" contains very high levels of the highly toxic carcinogen Hexavalent Chromium which causes cancer, rashes and other ailments. Residents meetings have been heated and some are asking if their cancers have been caused by this "dust". Cement bags carry labels warning of these dangers to those who work with the product, being mainly healthy young males, but what effect does it have on the vulnerable, already infirm or elderly, babies, children, or pregnant women?

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY WEB SITE
Go to www.environment-agency.gov.uk and put your postcode in to the "What's in my backyard" pollution inventory to find out what the MAIN stack is emitting, and the Cemex landfill. This does not include the so-called "dust" which blows all over from the mills, and from the other various LOW LEVEL POINT SOURCES which have no monitors at all. One recent bi-annual sample taken at the plant has a mill running at 57,000 micrograms/m3 of particulate - after taking off the 30% uncertainty confidence level ! (And dioxin over the permitted level) As for the FUGITIVE "dust" - this is obviously unmeasured and largely unmeasurable. Eye witness accounts mean nothing! Pollen indeed!

"OPINIONS" OF THE LORDS ON APPEAL

2008-04-20T23:59:00.004+01:00

"LOCAL RUGBY PEOPLE WERE SKEPTICAL AND RELUCTANT TO BE EXPERIMENTED UPON!"

"CEMENT HAS BEEN MADE AT RUGBY SINCE THE TIME OF DR ARNOLD."
" After all the inhabitants of Rugby had been living with A cement works for a long time, and although it seems to have had SOME teething troubles the new state-of-the-art plant was, in principle more environmentally friendly than the old one."

DOWNLOAD JUDGEMENT AT: www.richardbuxton.co.uk
The FIVE LAW LORDS divided judgement has far-reaching implications for the environment; air quality; health; public consultation procedures;lack of access to information; necessity to reveal the truth about the main environmental impacts; implementation of Freedom of Information regulations; requirement to properly inform; the fairness of withholding crucial information; etc.

RESIDENTS SOLICITORS DUTY TO POINT OUT FACTS!
See www.solicitorsjournal.com
"One of England's leading solicitors has been castigated by two Law Lords for abusing the procedure of the House of Lords." (see details Lord Hoffmann point 66 and Lord Hope 73) Richard Buxton said that he could quite understand the House of Lords not wanting the case to be re-argued at the eleventh hour - after he took the opportunity to comment on the "in confidence" draft judgement which asked for "errors and ambiguities" to be pointed out.
* "We took the view that European law is so clear that the Supreme Court has to "get it right" - including rectifying a situation where an Environmental Impact Assessment Directive has not been properly applied. We felt it was our duty to the court to point out these facts. We are quite frankly taken aback to have received such scathing comments, but had we not done what we did, we would have been open to criticism."

GOVERNMENT LAWYERS COMMENT:
Fiona Banks, who works with Kassie Smith (www.monckton.com) who opposed Rugby residents, has written a disturbing commentary:
* FIONA says: "Fairness does not require the internal workings of a decision-maker to be disclosed as part of a public consultation"
* "Lord Hoffmann's statement that 'when the whole question of public involvement has been considered and dealt with in detail by the legislature, I do not think it is for the courts to impose a broader duty' is bound to have repercussions well beyond the facts of this particular case."

* "Similarly Lord Hoffmann's comment that 'the AQMAU documents were part of the decision-making process, prepared after a lengthy period of public consultation.If the Agency has to disclose its internal working documents for further public consultation, there is no reason why the process should ever have come to an end' opens a POTENTIALLY FRUITFUL DEFENCE FOR PUBLIC BODIES WHO HAVE FAILED TO BE WHOLLY TRANSPARENT IN THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS."

FIONA says: "Lord Hoffmann however considered that because the present case did not INVOLVE the CONSTRUCTION of ANYTHING, it fell outside of the EIA Directive." LORD MANCE: " Second the plan to change to tyre burning DID IN ANY EVENT involve NOT INCONSIDERABLE PHYSICAL ADAPTATION of the company's site and plant. This is described in part 4.1 of its detailed application to allow burning of tyres. They were to be discharged into a covered reception area, from which they were to be transferred by crane or mechanical conveyors into a storage area (holding up to 300 tonnes) fitted with smoke detectors linked with an alarm and with a water spray system. From that they were to be extracted mechanically and conveyed to a metering system inside the pre-heater tower, and then fed to the combustion chamber via an airlock system. All this, including the vital combustion chamber, was NEW!!"

FEW FACTS OF THE CASE:
* QUOTE "For the most part the activities were those of the IPC Permit." Not so, and in any case the IPC was completely hidden and was an unlawful "under-the-IPPC-wire" Permit granted in secret in Sept.1999!
* After all the inhabitants of Rugby had been living with A cement works for a long time." true, a small cement works - not a two million tonner built with no EIA and no planning permission in the 21st century!
* "It seems to have had SOME TEETHING troubles" and after FIVE years of "commissioning" it still has problems and frequent outages.
* "Although the company explained that burning tyres at every high temperatures would NOT produce 'unpleasant smoke', 'smells' or OTHER POLLUTION (??) the local people were "SCEPTICAL AND RELUCTANT TO BE EXPERIMENTED UPON!"
* "the ONLY breach of domestic law was the failure to disclose information about the predicted effect of the LOW LEVEL POINT SOURCE emissions of PM10 on the air quality."

Lots of things were hidden!

RBC SPENDS PUBLIC MONEY ON MONITORS TO HELP! BUT TO HELP WHO, AND BY WHAT PROCESS?
LORDS 64: "Rugby Borough Council commissioned consultants FABER MAUNSELL to make a detailed assessment of particulate emissions around the works. They produced a report in 2005." "BOTH REPORTS OF CEMEX and RBC/FABER MAUNSELL - CONFIRMED that the EQS (environmental quality standard as in regulation para 4 regulation 12 (7))) was not being exceeded."

"Faber Maunsell recommended that RBC should NOT designate an air quality management area around the works for PM10.The COUNCIL has accepted this advice." This is without any PUBLIC CONSULTATION and data was not made available, and no mention is made their EARLIER recommendation to declare a PM10 AQMA round the plant - before the instruments were recalibrated!

RUGBY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA :
RBC POLLUTION " In November 2007 RBC published an An Air Quality Action Plan which designates RUGBY as an AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA in respect of nitrogen dioxide, mainly caused by road traffic (800+ daily RUGBY CEMENT LORRIES?) but not in respect of PM10. The Plan says : "studies have shown no exceedences "AS A RESULT OF THE CEMEX PLANT OR THEIR OPERATIONS OF THE PM10 NATIONAL AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES."

AIR QUALITY DATA HIDDEN!
UNDER THICK LAYER OF DUST PERHAPS?
NO reference is made to the lack air quality data, or late disclosure, and refusal to allow timely access to "adjusted" data; to the installing of the monitors in dubious locations; to the recalibration of monitors; to the non-equivalence to the European reference standards; to the wrongful use of equipment; to the removal of all and every RUGBY CEMENT/CO-INCINERATOR FORUM MEMBER from the AIR Quality group; etc
Just another example of the "public bodies failing to be wholly transparent
in their decision-making process?" As in the secret co-operation between RBC, the EA and Rugby Cement when they colluded behind closed doors to grant the secret IPC Permit in 1999, and then colluded and mislead again during the IPPC process in 2001?

* A CASE OF BATS, NOT BAT!

2008-04-16T18:38:00.002+01:00

Press release

Rugby Cement - House of Lords judgement

*Residents of Rugby have lost their appeal about the way a permit which allows the Rugby Cement Works to operate was granted. They have claimed that information was wrongly withheld by the Environment Agency, that the permit-granting process did not comply with EU pollution control rules, and that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) was required - in circumstances where the works had never had one at all in relation to pollution control and was now operating as a waste disposal facility for waste tyres and is about to be used for incinerating household waste.

The Law Lords decided that although EIA might have been necessary (they were not sure) for the works becoming a waste disposal installation for old tyres, and some Law Lords thought that information withheld about the extent of particulate pollution should have been publicised, they agreed that there was in fact sufficient information in the public domain such that any requirement for EIA was fulfilled. Overall it was wrong, in their discretion, for the permit to be quashed and have to be reconsidered by the Environment Agency.

"This is a bad day for the people of Rugby" said Lilian Pallikaropoulos, who has been leading the campaign against the way Cemex, who now own Rugby Cement, obtained permission to operate the plant, and several other permissions dependant on it. "I have only just seen the judgement so it is hard to comment further, but it seems the House of Lords has ignored the very real concerns of local people living in the shadow of this huge plant and all the dust and other air pollution it causes and sided with the Environment Agency, which even the other courts agreed acted unfairly. I will be consulting with our legal team about what can be done."

Richard Buxton, the solicitor representing the residents, said that this judgement was a setback both for residents of Rugby and environmental law generally. "The House of Lords did, fortunately, recognise that they were possibly dealing with a waste disposal installation. Burning waste tyres cannot, as our opponents have claimed, be explained away as just a change in fuel. But otherwise it's a real shame. This could have been a signal to the world from the highest court in the land that environmental rules and procedures have to be followed. Instead the judgement is a step back from the strict approach to environmental law enforcement that the EU requires. The judgement reflects the old-fashioned slippery slope of British discretion which we thought the courts had realised was just not appropriate in these types of case. EU law demands you abide by the rules and it is surprising that the Law Lords decided to excuse what we (and the High Court and Court of Appeal) regarded as wholly unfair conduct by the Environment Agency in this case. Fortunately, even though this was a decision of the House of Lords, EU law offers ways forward on various fronts and we will be considering options carefully with our long-suffering clients".
01223-328933

THE THINGS WE WOULD RATHER YOU DID NOT KNOW!
On 15 April a shocked community member reported to the RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM subgroup how she had just discovered the surprising news, that had not been revealed to them before, (despite several opportunities for Cemex at RCCF meetings), nor apparently revealed to WCC officers/Regulatory Committee , that the "Climafuel" trials had actually started on 28th February - a month before the unconstitutional site visit (held with no witnesses) took place to inspect the unauthorised building. Apparently Officers and Councillors saw Climafuel stored there in the "unauthorised" building on 25th March but were not told, and but did not think to ask, if the Climafuel was being burnt already, and if not when would it start, apparently preferring to concentrate instead on the vitally important and pertinent question concerning where the objectors lived!

RUGBY PLANT DESCRIBED AS " LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN CEMENT MAKING"!
Oh dear - I don't think so - how wrong can you get? All wet and semi-wet pants are being closed down in Europe, but not in the UK, and there is a climate of suspicion, fear and distrust in Rugby - which has certainly not been helped by the events of the last two days! Rugby residents are suffering ever more from the presence of the monstrous plume which hovers ominously over the town as the chalk slurry is dried out above our heads, from the energy-hungry inefficient semi-wet process plant, which never was and never could be Best Available Technique! It is a case more of BATS than of BAT!

REVOCATION OR DISCONTINUANCE?

2008-04-13T17:59:00.002+01:00

WCC TO TAKE ACTION AS PLANNING PERMISSION NOW INVALID -
DUE TO MALADMINISTRATION; IMPROPER CONDUCT AND INACCURATE APPLICATION.

WCC ARE IN A RIGHT MESS NOW!
WCC are to be investigated; a formal complaint about the Conduct of the Councillors and Officers; breached its own Constitution; unseemly haste to rush through a Cemex planning permission without due process; wasted public time and money; carried out sham consultation; used improper procedures; Secret Site visit was improper, taking over an hour, when they were only supposed to inspect "one small building"; Councillors asked inappropriate questions - like where do the objectors live! WCC should have checked the accuracy, or otherwise, of the application
as we pointed out "irregularities" and "misinformation" to them.

Council officers made such misleading risible claims as "there had been a history of 'occasional concerns' raised by residents close to the plant"; strayed off the subject of their visit; refused to listen to our complaints about misinformation and misrepresentation of the facts, and inaccuracies in the application; refused to listen to requests for EIA, and proper Public Participation; ignored requests to consider the RESIDENTS AMENITY and the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.

CEMEX ATTENDED THE REGULATORY MEETING IN A GROUP!
WCC told Cemex (8 February) to "cease work to allow your submitted planning application (4 January) to be considered by the Regulatory Committee on 1st April.
CEMEX (26 February) said of the unauthorised building "how can the public see it as it is low level"? "It is extremely unlikely that permission will be recommended to be refused", as they to built, (unauthorised) a 400 tonne waste storage building because they claim they had an open ended 1996 planning permission for a cement plant and that there is no difference! We are only going to store and burn 130,000 mixed household, commercial and industrial wastes. Oh yes and 100,000 tonnes of tyres - all stored outside in a pile ready. Its all the same to us.

CART BEFORE THE HORSE
WCC have put the cart before the horse, as Councillor Ian Smith (Conservative Caldecott) requested a site visit BEFORE the application had been heard as scheduled for 1st April. This is in contravention of the Constitution. Site visits can only take place after the application has been discussed, and only then if the paperwork is not adequate to make a judgement.
The secret site visit should never have been made, and once Cemex refused access to any witnesses, the Councillors should have postponed the visit until after the Agenda item.
The Officers report came out very late - and then only after the site visit - causing chaos at the Regulatory meeting as the Councillors said they had not had time to read the late reports.
At the Regulatory Committee some members left the room after the Agenda item began to be discussed. Those members were then illegible to vote - but they voted anyway!

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY AND INEFFICIENT WET PROCESS KILNS.
Meanwhile the Cemex Community Matters newsletter, distributed to only a few areas of Rugby, contained an Environment Agency propaganda update extolling the virtues of Cemex. This is no substitute for any discussions in Rugby. Most unfortunately for the Agency the ENDS magazine had a four page spread on Cement plants, commenting that Cemex had the worst gross emissions in 2006, and that they refused to be interviewed. This is because the Cemex plants are old-fashioned energy-intensive inefficient wet process, and in Rugby semi-wet process, and because they are built in places with no raw materials - so cannot be BAT. Cemex stated that "the plants were using BAT Best Available Techniques.... at the time of the investment." - so no comfort there. In Rugby there is a massive plume as the chalk slurry is dried out over our heads as they drive off the 40% water content. Recently the monstrous plume has been even bigger, menacingly hanging over the town, - could it be the 15 tonnes an hour of RDF -waste that also has a 15-20% moisture content - is adding to the residents problems, and damaging the town's present and future?

RUGBY RESIDENTS ARE BEING BULLIED YET AGAIN!
Why do we pay the Councillors?
Who are they working for?

ALL FOOLS DAY

2008-04-02T16:04:00.000+01:00

LIVES UP TO ITS NAME !
WHAT COULD WE EXPECT AT WCC ON ALL FOOLS DAY? NOT A LOT! AT WCC IT WAS "BUSINESS AS USUAL" AS OFFICERS TOLD THE REGULATORY COUNCILLORS TO NOD THROUGH THE RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE CEMEX UNAUTHORISED "CLIMAFUEL" BUILDING AND CONVEYORS: "OUR POLICY IS TO BUILD FIRST AND THEN INFORM YOU!"

SO THAT CEMEX CAN ADD TO THE UK WASTE MOUNTAIN AND IMPORT COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND HOUSEHOLD WASTE REGARDLESS OF THE IMPACT ON RUGBY RESIDENTS.

HEAR NO TRUTH; SEE NO TRUTH; SPEAK NO TRUTH?

Following on from the Councillors SECRET SITE VISIT to view the unauthorised building officers and councillors failed to answer questions from objectors, nor to listen to the facts. The officer's report and the application contained misleading and inaccurate information. But what could we do? There are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear!

A ROW ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY broke out - as is usual - about who is responsible for this mess - yet again? How were they to separate out the USE of the building from the PLAN for the building? WCC officers wrote a "persuasive encouraging report" to help gain permission. But then Councillors said the use of the building was nothing to do with them - so why did the officer major on the "benefits", and even deny that the plant is a co-incinerator governed under the WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE?

ADDRESS TO COUNCILLORS AND PUBLIC:
I am sorry that I am not with you today but I hope you are considerably more aware of what this Regulatory Committee is being asked to do by the officers than you were a few days ago when you attended the secret site visit, which has only served to jeopardise your position and standing within the community. You are instructed by the officers to grant a retrospective planning permission for a building at the RUGBY CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR to enable the burning of 360 tonnes a day, 130,000 tonnes of a refuse derived waste called CLIMAFUEL, consisting of mixed household, commercial and industrial waste, as a 100% replacement for 10 tonnes of COAL. This building has been constructed without any authorisation, and without any public consultation, any Environmental Impact Assessment, and without any Public Participation - which is a flagrant breach of the European Directives and as such in unlawful in terms of the EU Law , and under the UK Law.

WCC officers also state that the conveyors have no need of any kind of authorisation a they are merely General Permitted Development under the 1995 Town and Country Planning Act, but we challenge this as this Act has been superseded by the EIA Directive and the Public Participation Directives, and must comply with them, and cannot over ride the broad and far reaching European Directives that are designed to protect the public from unauthorised developments that impact on out environment, air quality, health and amenity. WCC appears to have a PECUNIARY interest in this development, according to the Cemex and WCC web sites and various other sites on the web which refer to the purpose of this planned building being to burn approximately 250,000 tonnes a year of Warwickshire's household wastes.

CEMEX have previously given very different information about this Climafuel to the Rugby Councillors, residents, Rugby Cement Community Forum, RBC officers and the consultant employed by RBC to assess the application than appears to be the case now. The full facts are available on the RBC web Task and Finish Group Committee papers , and in the RCCF Minutes. Cemex said:
* household waste only - not the mixed household, commercial and industrial waste it is now declared to be.
* is to be only a 30% replacement - not the 100% replacement it is now.
* that the waste is sourced from Biffa Leicester and Shanks Dagenham to help get rid of the UK waste, - but now it is IMPORTED waste to make money for Cemex and for other countries' benefits.
* that they were to burn 15 tonnes of this "UK Climafuel household waste" as a replacement for 30% of South African coal - but the truth is that they are to burn 15 tonnes IMPORTED household, commercial and industrial waste (they have signed a three year contract to import it through Grimsby) as a 100% replacement for 10 tonnes of WELSH coal. They had the TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON emission limits MASSIVELY increased in late 2005 from 10 milligrams per cubic metre (there are about one million cubic metres of gas emitted every hour from the main stack) to a daily average of 50 mg/m3 and an hourly average of 75 mg/m3 - that is a 400% and 650% increase - because they said they were burning WELSH COAL> This limit remains now in place regardless of the fact that the coal is not, so they say, from Wales, and also when 100% has been replaced by IMPORTED WASTES.
* consulted the public in 2006 ONLY on household waste, produced by the MBT process, and then another category was added , IN SECRET , of wastes treated by the " physico/chemical process of dechromatation, decyanidation and neutralisation. "
* They will not say what these wastes are nor where they come from - see EA web site for more details.

RBC COUNCILLORS asked for information on the trials at the other Cemex South Ferriby and Barrington plants to be made available - but this has not been done.
RBC asked for confirmation that this was ONLY the UK's household waste that was to be burnt - as opposed to IMPORTED commercial and industrial waste - which has not been done.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY has refused to answer any questions from the public or to attend any meetings of the Rugby Cement Community Forum since July 2007. This CO-INCINERATOR plant is governed under the WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE.

The EA has refused to say why the waste burning emissions and PRODUCTS OF INCOMPLETE COMBUSTION are so much worse for the local air quality and environment and our HEALTH than the PICs from Coal? In the PPC permit Cemex have to stop burning tyres and wastes when things go wrong (start up/shut down/under 200 tonnes an hour raw feed, emission limits breached etc) and to start burning coal. Cemex have to pay £60 a tonne for coal instead of being paid about £30 a tonnes to burn the waste tyres and Climafuel... so they are about £90 a tonne worse off!! The EA refuse to answer any questions about why they have now permitted industrial and commercial wastes (imported) to be burnt , and not what they originally consulted the public on. The EA have refused to answer questions about why they increased DANGEROUS emission limits by 400-650% on the "pretext" of WELSH coal being burnt.

WE CALL UPON YOU TO DEFER THIS APPLICATION:
WE REGARD THE DEVELOPMENTS AT THIS PLANT AS UNLAWFUL IN TERMS OF BOTH THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND UK LAWS:

1) for a full investigation of the FACTS and ALL THE REPORTS related to the application.
2) for a full consideration by Rugby Councillors and Rugby residents and the RCCF - to comply with the PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DIRECTIVE.
3) for a full investigation of the WCC pecuniary interest.
4) for a full ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - or at least the submission
of a scoping report.
5) for a DISPERSION MODEL TO BE SUBMITTED as clearly the buildings/conveyors etc will IMPACT on the dispersion and INCREASE pollution and HEALTH IMPACT locally. This has NOT been considered.
6) for a FULL DESCRIPTION of ALL THE WASTES - the QUANTITIES and EU WASTE CODES and CHEMICAL ANALYSIS and STORAGE being used at the CO-INCINERATOR are revealed and the necessary permissions applied for.
7) for a consideration of why Cemex is so opposed to the public seeing what is happening at the plant and only wishes to hold "secret" meetings with Councillors .
8) for a full investigation into how this plant has had SO MANY RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPLICATIONS with no EIA; no Public Participation; no proper procedures; with the truth being hidden from the Regulatory Councillors; and how has changed from being a "one million tonne a year capacity cement plant" as applied for in 1996, into a "two million tonne a year capacity CO-INCINERATOR burning 100% waste tyres and other imported non-domestic wastes".
9) for a full investigation into the allegations of the WCC's maladministration , and failure to follow the UK and EU Law has been concluded.
10) for the secret Duty of Care and Waste Transfer notes to be revealed for public scrutiny.

Thank you for your attention or is that inattention?
NO ONE IS LISTENING - ABOUT RUGBY! - THE WASTE DUMP!

OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB

2008-03-20T12:00:00.006Z

THEY WEAVE, WHEN FIRST THEY BEGIN TO DECEIVE!

CEMEX : PUBLIC NOT PERMITTED AT "SECRET" SITE VISIT TO VIEW UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION OF EQUIPMENT FOR 100% WASTE BURNING!

Only WCC Regulatory Councillors are welcome to see CLIMAFUEL plant - see Peter Barnes; Brian Moss; Jose Compton; Michael Doody; Pat Henry; Nina Knapman; Joan Lea; Barry Longden; Sue Main; Ray Sweet; Ian Smith; to attend Cemex site at 11.00 on 25th March. We have pointed out that this Cemex REFUSAL to allow any of the public on the site visit, that is now to be held in "secret", is "not fair", is unethical, and flies in the face of the need for transparency, openness, community engagement, public participation and Cemex's own stated position as being open to visitors.

WCC CONSTITUTION SAYS:
"Applicants and objectors will accompany the Committee only in order to facilitate access, point out physical features and answer factual questions. A site visit may exceptionally be followed by a factual presentation on behalf of the applicant (see section 26). At least one representative of any objectors should be invited to observe the presentation."
But DIVIDE the community and RULE is how Cemex always play it! WHY COULD IT POSSIBLY BE - that the meeting MUST be HELD IN SECRET?

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY PERMIT OVER 100% WASTE! as they issue a permit variation to burn over 100% waste at Cemex co-incinerator. The public were told in the public consultation CARRIED OUT BY CEMEX IN THE SUMMER OF 2006 that the "Climafuel" was to be a substitute for 30% of the coal, and was to be "household waste - your black bag rubbish". But afterwards they find out the permit has allowed various industrial and commercial wastes to be incorporated, with a 50% increase in chlorine - to name but one "difference". The copy of the application and consultation document version 1 June 2006 as carried out by Cemex during 2006 is, of course, not on the Environment Agency's Public Register. They have a new different version of the original application in which the new industrial wastes from dechromatation, decyanidation and neutralisation have been included.

And the public were told the 15 tonnes an hour would represent 30% of the thermal value. But given that the substitute fuel only goes into the combustion chamber, and not into the kiln, surely the replacement is ONLY in the calciner? It is difficult (to say the least!) to find out the "true facts" about what is being burn there, but it appears about 60% of the coal is burnt in the calciner, being approximately 18 tonnes an hour. This has been substituted by 6 tph of tyres, which have a higher calorific value, but leaving that aside - there are about 12 tph coal to replace. These are being replaced by 15tph of "climafuel", which has a calorific value between 15 and 23 MJ/kg. So there you are - over 100% replacement. What impact this will have no one knows, except there have been some increases in polluting emissions at Barrington and South Ferriby imported Dutch "climafuel" has been trialled, which is apparently "of a better more consistent quality than the RDF available in the UK". There is a three year contract to import it through Grimsby, where the bales are broken as it is unloaded into "walking floor" trailers for despatch for co-incineration at the cement plants. So much for A LOCAL SOLUTION TO A LOCAL PROBLEM!

PLANNING PERMISSION FOR 100% WASTE - WHO NEEDS IT?
Not Cemex anyway, who have built the "climafuel" docking and transfer equipment without bothering to wait for the planning application to be heard by the WARWICKSHIRE County Council Regulatory committee on ALL FOOLS DAY, as was planned. Instead Councillors, in an apparent breach of Protocol, are to go on a "site visit" on 25th March before the application has been even discussed at Committee. See Minutes Regulatory Committee WCC 4th March 2008. In response to a WCC letter 8th February advising Cemex that these "work are completely unauthorised" and that Cemex may "face enforcement action to secure their removal" and to "cease work to allow the submitted planning application to be considered" Cemex have his to say on 26th February:

* we are surprised complainants have seen it as it is low to the ground.
* we can erect the conveyor system under "permitted development".
* it is a relatively small building, area 745 square metres.
* it is extremely unlikely that the officers will recommend councillors to refuse it.
* the cement plant had planning permission in 1996, therefore no policy objection.
* there is very little likelihood of the operation causing harm by noise, dust, fumes or odour.
* once it was considered it was not permitted development we had already started building.
* the Government sees retrospective permission as an appropriate way to regularise "unauthorised development".

RUGBY AREA COMMITTEE 24 JANUARY:
complained that this Committee had an apparent lack of a meaningful role, and the members of the County Councillors were not being consulted on MAJOR planning applications. WCC lawyers said that these MAJOR applications went straight to the Regulatory Committee "who had the necessary officer support and resources and comprehensive reports and training." The Committee resolved to write to the Strategic Director of Performance and Development requesting the Area Committee be consulted, in particular on applications for planning permission in respect of significant developments affecting the Area." The $100 question: Does the "unlawful" erection of equipment and "retrospective" planning application to burn 100% waste at the Rugby Cemex plant constitute "significant development?"

HAZARDOUS WASTE FLY TIPPING AT SOUTHAM?
LACK OF PPC PERMIT AND PLANNING PERMISSION OF NO CONCERN TO ANYONE as the Regulatory Committee of WCC 4th March got themselves into even more hot water! The officers advised them to renew a "further extension to an old, already expired several times, 'temporary' planning permission for non-hazardous waste CKD which had been granted temporarily in 2000 just until all the waste CKD could be dumped in CLOSED LANDFILL in Parkfield Road Rugby. The Cement Kiln Dust from a coal burning cement plant could be dumped at Southam. After we intervened and explained EU Law and hazardous waste they became even more "mixed up" and admitted they could not understand what is the difference between the previously expired permitted CKD from the coal burning process, and the HAZARDOUS WASTE BYPASS DUST from a co-incinerating cement plant. "The EA had been asked to clarify the issue" which "had lead to even more confusion." They said that "The unauthorised depositing was not a fundamental problem as the EA and Stratford Council did not appear to be overly concerned." GREAT! So no need to COMPLY WITH THE LAW, and no need to have the LEGALLY REQUIRED PPC PERMIT or any legally required planning permission? Bob Stevens asked "whether the applicants (Cemex) would continue depositing at the site" that has no planning permission, and Ian Grace said " this was likely, and that it would be difficult to take action against the company to make them halt in view of the uncertainty surrounding the issue." The initial 2004 PPC application is still the subject of an appeal before the Planning Inspector Kevin Gordon, and yet a further abeyance till mid 2008 has been granted. One reason why the PPC application had been REFUSED by the EA was BECAUSE the site has NO PLANNING PERMISSION. It has no PPC operating permission either, and by October 2007 this became a legal requirement.

MP JEREMY WRIGHT ; ROCK AND HARD PLACE!
The very unfortunate and "shady" re-organisation of the parliamentary boundaries has taken the "Kenilworth" out of Rugby, and placed it in with Southam instead. This leaves ex MP Andy King, Labour, (lost seat to Jeremy in 2005) to slug it out in Rugby with the Jeremy replacement - Mark Pawsey Conservative. Meanwhile , as Jeremy sails away into the sunset at Southam and Kenilworth, this has coincided with Cemex's submitting two EIA SCOPING ASSESSMENTS for MBT/IHT at Southam - or at Rugby - or at both? Jeremy appears to be between a rock and a hard place. If he supports Rugby residents in their rejection of this application he will not do very well in Southam.

SQUANDERING PUBLIC MONEY AND WASTING OUR TIME IN SECRET MEETINGS:
At Southam and Warwick and Rugby secret meetings have been going on between various WCC officers, and Councillors, and Cemex, and local parish representatives (NIMBYS) who are apparently only interested in themselves, and "their little area", and are unable to "think outside of their box", and who "ONLY worried about the increase in lorries in their villages". They also insist on "keeping all the groups separate" so that there will be no joined-up thinking and holistic approach, and so that the COMMUNITY/IES will be REMAIN DIVIDED and SEGREGATED! So many "secret meetings" going on all the time , a massive waste of public time and funds, where officers of the EA, RBC and WCC are concerned - no Agenda, no minutes, no public, no notice, venues are hidden etc. This is a neat little ACTION PLAN, and in this way you can "tell'em what you want and no one will know any different!"

LIST OF VARIOUS COMMITTEES AND MEMBERS TO BE COMPILED.
We are tabulating a list of all these committees and groups and will be publishing a full list of who is involved and how to contact them.

WATCH THIS SPACE!

U-Turn

2008-03-03T20:46:00.003Z

"NO EXTENSION!" now becomes "YES!"
PUBLIC PRESSURE FORCES BACK-TRACK
"It was clear that members were anxious to have more time to consider the MALPASS SCOPING DOCUMENTS. The problems in distribution have obviously exacerbated the situation and in order to provide community organisations, and individuals, with sufficient time to comment, I have agreed with WCC that the consultation period be extended by four weeks from February 29th to March 27th."

COMPETITION: WINNER TAKES ALL!
NOW PARITY IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE "TWO GROUPS" as SOUTHAM locals fight with RUGBY residents for the :
* PRIVILEGE and PLEASURE and
* HUGE ENVIRONMENTAL and FINANCIAL BENEFIT * that WINNING the PLANNING PERMISSION
* for the HALF A MILLION TONNES a year WASTE PLANT will bring to their homes, roads and area.

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL last week:
" The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 require Local Planning Authorities to adopt a scoping opinion within five weeks... In the case of Southam Long Itchington the initial circulation list was extended mid way through the consultation exercise following discussions at a local liaison meeting. Given that these additional consultees would have had little time to respond a request was made to extend the consultation period, which Cemex were agreeable to. The consultation period ended up being six to seven weeks. In respect of Malpass Farm there has been no change with the consultation thus I am not convinced that is necessary to increase the consultation period. I have discussed this with Cemex who are not minded to agree to an extension of time. However, any comments/ observations received after the 29th February will not be ignored and will be considered by WCC and forwarded to Cemex for consideration and incorporation within the preparation of the Environmental Statement."

HOW MUCH IS IT ALL WORTH?
BOTTOM LINE! COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE!
OUCH! They burn about 30 tonnes of coal an hour at about £60 a tonne - £1,800 hour.
COST: COAL 24 X £1,800 = £43,200 A DAY depending on coal price/quality. They can SUBSTITUTE 6 tph tyres that attract a "gate fee" of about £35 tonne, so £210 an hour - plus coal saved £360 = £570 an hour SAVED £13,680 a day.
£43,200 fuel bill reduced by £13,680 = daily FUEL COST £29,520

ADD IN TONNES OF RUBBISH
Household waste RDF attracts a gate fee of about £30 tonne(?) They can burn 15 tph "climafuel" for the trials, but according to the web they will be able to double the substitution when the "sham trials" are over. The co-incinerator can achieve "over a 100% substitution" this way, but because the RDF is of variable and lower calorific value it can be substituted at a ratio of about 2 parts to 1 of coal. Could be another £450/£900 an hour income to offset against the coal?

CIVIL WAR IN WARWICKSHIRE OVER WASTE PLANT.
We have called for an INTEGRATED HOLISTIC APPROACH, with OPEN INFORMED PUBLIC meetings and TRANSPARENCY! For the SAKE of EVERYONE we need to get the "LEAST WORST OPTION". But obviously those with a "vested interest" in all this, and those who have their "little power bases", prefer to divide the community, and to pit "each community" against another for the benefit of Cemex! POLICY TO SEPARATE COMMUNITY: DIVIDED WE FALL!
Rugby Cement have set up various little "powerless" groups, such as the Southam Quarry Liaison Group - a group so "un-knowing" that they are not even aware that there is hazardous waste BYPASS DUST from the CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR being dumped in the quarry, with no lawful planning permission and no lawful operating permit.

QUARRY SPOKESMAN HAS HEAD IN THE SAND!
They say that the meetings have "enabled Cemex to project a responsible caring image with local people." "The interests of communities local to Southam do not neatly coincide with this expanding Vehicle Routing Group, which is a CONTENTIOUS ONE with no obvious straightforward solution that will meet everyone's wishes. It NEEDS TO BE KEPT SEPARATE!" The RCCF is also to be kept in the dark, and to be kept away from meeting with those at Southam, (Stratford District, a whole kilometre away from the Rugby Borough boundary!) who are soon to be afflicted!

CEMEX CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT
Geoff Yates of Lawford in the Observer "I was interested to read about the planned further expansion of the cement works or is it an incinerator plant? The thing that really amazes me was that the expansion of the Southam works was shelved because of the extra traffic movements that would have occurred. It would appear that the increase to a minimum of 1,000 truck movements per day that occurred at the Rugby works was OK, even though it is smack in the middle of a residential area! In the light of the above with regard to this new extension of activities and with the potential for even more pollution in the area I feel sure the local residents will get the 'usual protection from our local representatives and the department of the environment.'

It would seem that when Cemex say "JUMP" the only question they get asked is "HOW HIGH?""

TOWN CENTRE VIEW FOR ALL TO ENJOY!

2008-02-28T23:30:00.000Z

CEMENT PLANT TO BE LISTED BUILDING!

RUGBY CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR FORUM UPDATE:

CEMEX DENIES ALL KNOWLEDGE OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES to be burnt in the Cemex co-incinerator. It seems the Environment Agency are to blame, as they just put an EWC waste code for industrial waste into the PPC Permit, along with the stated/consulted household RDF application, without being asked? Believe it or not? And, in any case, EW waste codes are meaningless - apparently!

CEMEX SAID NO! TO REQUESTS FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME IN RUGBY where they are "testing the water" for a possible HALF a MILLION tonne a year waste plant: 1,000 tonnes a day in;360 tonnes burnt; 640 tonnes OUT AGAIN in another form. You know it makes sense! IMPORT Up to 240,000 tpa of MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, or COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL waste materials, Plus about 125,000 tpa of imported SRF or Climafuel ready made: to produce 240,000 tpa of Climafuel. Of this 130,000 tonnes can burnt in the Rugby Co-incinerator - and the balance 235,000 tpa to be re-exported? Unless of course they decide to double the burn rate? When asked this they said they would do whatever the AGENCY allow them to do!

MALPASS WASTE PROCESSING PLANT PROPOSAL Out of 1,000 tonnes a day to be imported to Rugby apparently about 30% will be "steam with dust" to be emitted from a chimney, of indeterminate height, or from vents. When questioned about this proposed dumping of 300 tonnes waste a day onto us, they said it might not be as much as 30% as they need to keep some moisture.

WHY DID CEMEX AND WCC PLANNERS NOT TELL US ABOUT MALPASS? The debate became confrontational and acrimonious, as usual, because the forum members and the public realised we had been DUPED yet again! Despite two WCC planning officers attending the 29th January RCCF meeting, organised and controlled by CEMEX, neither they, nor Cemex itself thought to inform the Forum that this new application was "in" and the public consultation was to start on 31st January. Then bungled emails of gobbledygook were sent out on 6th February to a few selected people. What a deliberate mess!