14.12.06 Briefing Documents

Please click on any document to enlarge..

Mu lryaning mrediots

RBC SHOOT THE MESSENGER

RBC DOES NOT WANT TO KNOW!
TYRE TRIAL TRUTH MUST NOT BE REVEALED!
RUGBY IN PLUME GAGGED BY COUNCIL:
NO CONTRIBUTION ALLOWED:
CONFINED TO PUBLIC GALLERY.

This is the reply from the Environmental Health Office at Rugby Borough Council who, as predicted, screened out any and all searching questions. RBC have unconstitutionally and UNDEMOCRATICALLY chosen the terms of the consultation; the time limits; the venue; who can speak; and now seemingly what questions they will allow in order "TO GET THE RIGHT ANSWERS?"

"BRING ON THE CO-INCINERATOR!"

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Lawson [mailto:sean.lawson@rugby.gov.uk]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 6:52 PM
Subject: RE: For 14th December 2006 meeting her concerns regarding the procedural propriety of myself or the Council are again not matters for this panel to debate. I will of course log this issue as a formal complaint and can assure you that it will be investigated appropriately.

In the circumstances therefore I have no alternative but to determine your e-mail to be invalid with respect to the Council scrutiny event. It therefore follows that you and Rugby in Plume will be unable to speak or contribute at this meeting.

You are of course welcome to attend and observe proceedings from the public gallery. I would also encourage you to make a detailed submission of salient points directly to the environment agency.

Thank you for taking the trouble to make this submission and I hope that this decision will not inconvenience you unduly.


From: "L Pallikaropoulos"
Date: 8 December 2006 12:02:25 GMT
To: "Sean Lawson"
Cc: "Patricia Wyatt" , "Jeremy' 'WRIGHT \(E-mail\)"
Subject: FW: For 14th December 2006 meeting


THE FARCE CONSULTATION:

I would add that the Agency have NEVER refused a TRIAL or a PERMANENT burn for ANY TYPE of wastes at any cement plant and they just go on and on having more trials until the "data" provides what they want it to provide.

-----Original Message-----
From: L Pallikaropoulos [mailto:lpallikaropoulos@dsl.pipex.com]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 11:49 AM
To: 'Sean Lawson'
Cc: 'Patricia Wyatt'; 'Jeremy' 'WRIGHT (E-mail)'
Subject: For 14th December 2006 meeting

Dear Sirs

RUGBY IN PLUME will be speaking at the meeting of 14th December along the following lines:

We are glad to note that the Environment Agency have now delayed the decision to the end of January to allow a proper consultation to be carried out and presumably to ALLOW A FULL AND OPEN REVIEW OF ALL THE DATA THAT THE AGENCY ARE USING ON WHICH TO BASE ITS DECISION AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC TO DATE.


FIRSTLY: We question the Constitutional and Procedural propriety of the actions taken by Mr. Sean Lawson and the Rugby Borough Council in relation to the consideration of the tyre burning trials, the corporate management of the TBRG, and the information available to be considered by it. We will quote the RBC constitution and RCCF constitution.

SECONDLY: We question the reasons why, and how, the Agency has reached its decision to carry out NO CONSULTATION.

THIRDLY: We ask for an explanation as to why and how the Agency then suddenly decided to allow an extension from the previously quoted 20th December cut-off date for the DECISION, to the "end of January 2007" which was announced to RBC on Saturday 2nd December - too late to allow a proper review of the Tyre Burning Report in time for the deadline set by RBC of 12.00 noon Friday 8th December.

FOURTHLY: We question the Agency's failure to follow the Tyre Protocol stage 7 which says that:

It says: "On receiving the report the OFFICER will ensure that it is placed on the Public Registers." TICK BOX - OK.

The Agency received the Final Report on 24th October. They passed it to RBC on 8th November. The members o the Rugby Cement Community Forum and Tyre Burning Review group were told that it had just come on 21st November, and that as time was short (THIRTEEN days being lost already by RBC) then there was "no time" for a proper consultation, nor to reconvene the Tyre Burning Review group which RBC summarily disbanded. The Public have learnt of it only through the press some time later.

Then it says: "AT THIS STAGE the officer should ENSURE that ALL the Critical Success Factors have been achieved and be FULLY SATISFIED that the operator is capable of operating the kiln using tyres." This box cannot be ticked.

A) According to the Protocol the Agency has to have been at THIS STAGE - "FULLY SATISFIED that ALL the CSFs have been achieved" - then HOW have they become so? Surely they cannot be satisfied when most of the people in
this room, and people round the world, remain unconvinced and are not at all satisfied on the evidence available to us into Final Tyre Report? The Agency should explain how they have passed this Stage 7 of the Tyre Protocol.

B) Will the Agency share with the CONSULTEES the OTHER INFORMATION and DATA that they are using on which to make their Decision. Why have the PUBLIC been supplied with only partial data, while the Agency conceals the crucial evidence?

If you will not supply the full information please advise on what grounds the Agency seek to conceal this data, which is obviously crucial to the Decision Making process?

# We had three months consultation run by Cemex on the partial 168 page Draft Report.

# Then 200 more pages, some it seen by us already, and some of it new (being data on the Continuous Emissions Monitors that we had asked for many time over several months) were added in for which we are told there is no consultation, no time for any proper consideration, and that the Decision would be made by 20th December.

# So do we understand correctly that the Agency had already made up its mind to permit the plant to become a fully fledged co-incinerator, based ONLY on the information in the Final Tyre Report that had been with held from the Public all along? Or has the Decision been made based on other information that they are concealing?

FIFTHLY: Can the Agency and Cemex explain why it is SO IMPORTANT that tyres are NOT BURNT when there is instability and disruption at the plant, but they can go on putting in oil and coal and petcoke during these times? What is so very dangerous about the tyres that this has to happen - as in the Permit?

SIXTHLY: WHAT CONFIDENCE CAN ANYONE HAVE IN THE AGENCY OR CEMEX WHEN EVEN THE ACTUAL DATES OF THE TYRE TRIALS ARE CONCEALED?

WHAT CONFIDENCE CAN THE PUBLIC HAVE WHEN THE TRUE FACTS ABOUT A SERIOUS POLLUTION INCIDENT DURING THE TYRE TRIALS IS WITHHELD FROM THE RUGBY MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AND TWICE FROM WARWICK CROWN COURT - BY BOTH THE EA AND BY CEMEX? It is very serious to withold any evidence from the courts as the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth must be given. To conceal or to tell half truths would be viewed as bad as a lie.

WAS THIS INFORMATION ALSO WITHHELD FROM PROFESSOR HARRISON AT BIRMINGHAM UNIVERSITY WHO WAS CALLED IN TO WRITE A STATEMENT ON THE LIKELY HEALTH EFFECTS?

WAS IT ALSO WITH HELD FROM AMANDA GAIR WHO WAS CALLED IN BY CEMEX IN A SIMILAR VEIN?

This is crucial as it concerns the emission of products of incomplete combustion, and the production of and emission of much smaller HEALTH DAMAGING particles. I provide copies of the COURT TRANSCRIPT as evidence to the people in the room.

FACT: The Agency, Cemex, RBC and MP Jeremy Wright all stated in various verbal and written communications that the ACTUAL TYRE TRIAL STARTED ON 11th OCTOBER 2005.

Now the Agency and Cemex seek to change the facts "after the event". Why would they seek to do this?

Could it be in order to hide the fact that on day 4 of the Tyre Trial the plant suffered severe malfunctions, instability and disruption, which lead to a very serious pollution incident that earned Cemex a £400,000 fine?

How does this sit alongside the Critical Success Factors - which in any case were written by the OPERATOR and AGREED by the Agency without any consultation with the public who do not have to be LIMITED to looking ONLY at what Cemex and the Agency want us to look at?

The Tyre Burning Review Group was formed by RBC and paid for by Rugby residents but was STRICTLY LIMITED to looking ONLY at whether the Critical Success factors had been achieved, or not, based ONLY on the 168 page Draft report. Cemex kept back the data we repeatedly asked for until AFTER the consultation was closed.

Rugby people are not only limited to the facts the Agency and Cemex want us to look at - we can look at the WHOLE PLANT and whether it is suitable to become a CO-INCINERATOR.

We can ask ourselves whether the Public can have ANY CONFIDENCE in the Agency and Cemex (and RBC) to regulate and operate this plant, and to go on allowing increased USE OF WASTES as they now seek to do - at this point tyres, but soon also to be London's Household and Commercial waste, - when they have apparently concealed VITAL CRUCIAL INFORMATION about pollution and possible health effects from the public, and even from the Courts.

The Primary Care Trust stated in a letter of 16th June 2004 that there was no public confidence in the Agency as a result of the PPC Tyre Burning application, and that the failure to consult openly and honestly and transparently served only to exacerbate this situation.

How can anyone KNOW or TRUST what is going on there?

Lilian Pallikaropoulos

I will attach the appendices for distribution when I have them all on one email but wanted to get this in in time for the todays 8th December RBC 1200 noon deadline.

Coming Soon At A Co-Incinerator Near You:

WASTE BURNING!

Rugby residents sit by their Yuletide fires in happy anticipation of what the Bright New Year will usher in; content in the knowledge that the CO-INCINERATION DECISION is on the back-boiler till 31st January 2007; saved, in the short-term, by the Environment Agency's sudden brain-storm, and late-night reprieve of Saturday 2nd December, when an amazing about-face heralded bright and gay the prospects for the New Year.


TYRE PROTESTERS HIT AT DEADLINE "SHAM"

Saturday's headlines of Warwickshire Telegraph: cited RESIDENTS as having less than two weeks to assess the Final 352 page Tyre Report.
It commented on the "lack of data" being unconvincing, and questioned WHY the Courts, and public, had not been informed that the POLLUTION EPISODE of 14th OCTOBER 2005 was during the TYRE TRIALS that began on 11th October 2005 - exclusively in ET 28 November.
RBC said "There is no formal consultation by the Agency but we hope to help the community make up their own minds..." presumably about whether they are prepared to PUT UP WITH IT - OR NOT?


TAX PAYERS MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN ON SECRET SURVEY

In the meantime these RBC representatives have been on an intrepid "information gathering exercise" to a DIFFERENT KIND OF SMALL cement plant in Kollenbach Germany:
CHRIS HOLMAN;
CAROLYN ROBBINS;
SEAN LAWSON :

These intrepid explorers travelled at Rugby RATEPAYERS expense on this PROPAGANDA exercise on 7/8 November 2006 (where they were accompanied by Cemex paid-for managers Brian Handcock and Ian Southcott) MERELY to visit a modest Cemex waste burning cement plant , and to ask local people how they liked it - or not!

BURNING QUESTION:
WHY DID THEY NOT MERELY GO A COUPLE OF HOURS UP THE M6 AND EXPERIENCE THE JOYS OF THE CLITHEROE WASTE BURNING PLANT IN ACTION, AS SEEN ABOVE?
PLENTY OF WASTE BURNT THERE!
EVERY DAY! LOOK AT IT!

Why was Council tax payers' money WASTED on an unnecessary long distance ENVIRONMENT-DAMAGING air trip for 3, when ALL the 48 RBC councillors and ALL the office staff could have jollied together and ENJOYED some "BONDING TIME" and "TEAM WORKING" on the day out in CLITHEROE; AND visited a LOVELY waste burning co-incinerator plant, all for a FRACTION of what WE had to pay for them to jolly to Germany. What was the attraction - duty-free cement and model cement kilns? We could have got a special Clitheroe deal on the cement for a "bulk buy"! Meat and Bone meal included for no extra charge.

I urge you to ask RBC for a copy of the GERMANY REPORT, for which we have all JOINTLY PAID, and of which we were all promised a FULL COPY. Just see what happens if you deign to ask! Why the delay in issuing it?
Is it being sanitised and de-contaminated?

Do ALL the 48 Councillors support this terrible WASTE of OUR money?

Do ALL the people of Rugby support this terrible WASTE of OUR money?

What about an ACCOUNT of what Rugby Cement costs Rugby ratepayers?

In terms of TOTAL BURDEN:

# environmental detriment;
# property and structural damage;
# devaluation of whole town;
# reports, consultants, experts;
# air quality;
# and health effects;
# tourist revenue losses;
# car and window clean up for sticky dust;
# hours of hot air at Council meetings;
# even trains won't stop here now -
# they might get dusty?

SHOW US THE ACCOUNTS! WELL?

What's Going On!?!

Send for the Spanish Inqisition!!

No one expected the chaos and misinformation at the council chambers today either!

Not only was a public meeting scheduled without the public being told about it.. People who did get a whiff were fed a pile of baloney when they phoned for details..

more later...


BREAKING NEWS!

Agency do have Christmas spirit after all!

Good will and glad tidings to all men!

We are NOT insensitive! We do not wish to ruin Rugby's Christmas by permitting a giant CO-INCINERATOR as a gift. No, we are more kind than that! We will hide it for a bit, let you first enjoy yourselves, CAREFREE for the FESTIVE SEASON.

The Environment Agency and Cemex have now bowed to pressure from the Campaigners:
The RUGBY CO-INCINERATOR decision is delayed a month until the end of January.

Unfortunately they somehow forgot to inform Rugby Borough Council, so the RBC hastily put-together "non-consultation" consultation, being rushed through by RBC in a week:

# public meeting on December 14th at 5.00 Rugby Town Hall #

..now looks even more the SHAM we always said it was. Rugby people were given one week in which to read and digest the 353 page Cemex Final Tyre Burning Report, and get any comments into RBC EHO by noon on December 8th, IF they could download it from the web : cemex.co.uk (sustainability), or sit in RBC offices for a few hours. Alternatively you could have YOUR VERY OWN copy for £42.50 - this would have bought you a "fairly useless" copy with no colour graphs, contours for isopleths etc.

SPECIALLY FOR YOU

At Christmas time, this season of Good will to all men, Rugby Cement, the Environment Agency, and Rugby Borough Council take great delight in jointly wishing the Rugby Residents a Very Merry Christmas, and A Very Happy New year too!

You have NO CHOICE but to accept our generous GIFT, especially chosen for YOU!
We hope you will accept it in the spirit in which it is intended. We are sure you are going to have loads of fun and enjoyment from our surprise GIFT, that we have rushed through in secret, just in time to bring you GREAT JOY at Christmas time:

A lovely CO-INCINERATOR for Rugby residents, to endure for years, and to ensure you really do have a white Christmas! And summer too! It can do lots of things, give out black smoke, and pollution, odour and dust, Plumes, and fumes, from many different stacks and vents, and burn/cook 3 million tonnes material a year.

It can emit about a million cubic metres gas an hour just from the main stack. And 600,000 cubic metres from the low level sources : "pure air with particulate!" And it can burn almost anything including, tyres, London's household and commercial waste; Hazardous waste, sewage sludge, and even the protesters known in the
industry as "mad cows".

We are sure you will all simply love it, though we cannot guarantee that it will not break down every day!

Guaranteed hours of fun for old and young. There is even an I SPY pollution
handbook.

Have your say on cement plant in the Rugby Advertiser
CONCERNED residents and supporters alike can help shape the future of a controversial scheme at Rugby Cement works.
Rugby Borough Council's Sustainable Environment Panel is hosting the event to discuss their response to plant owners Cemex's own summary of tyre-burning trials at the Lawford Road site.

The meeting, provisionally scheduled for 5.30pm on Thursday, December 14, was arranged following publication of the company's report, which is currently being considered by the Environment Agency (EA).


Sean Lawson, head of Environmental Health at the council, said he hoped for a 'focused' debate.

He said: "It's not what you think about Cemex, it's about issues in the document.

"There has obviously been great interest in the community in relation to tyre-burning and as the council, we wish to represent those views.

"The time scales don't allow too much discussion, so it has to be a short and focused process."

The EA - responsible for the plant's permit - are set to make a decision on the long-term future of tyre-burning at the plant.

Cemex - who hosted the trials last year - say the scheme will provide an environmentally-friendly and more ecomomic way of producing fuel.

However, opponents have voiced fears over potential health effects from the process.

Cemex's report has been logged on their website at www.cemex.co.uk and at the council's public register at the Town Hall.

The EA will consider all comments before making a decision, scheduled for the end of the year.

Guests wishing to speak at the meeting - at the Town Hall offices - should make written submissions beforehand.

These can be sent to Mr. Lawson at the council's Environment Health Department c/o Town Hall, Evreux Way, Rugby CV21 2RS or left at their reception.

Speakers can clarify their position and elaborate on their comments at the meeting.
Meanwhile, Mr. Lawson has also addressed some of the issues raised by letters to last week's Advertiser postbag.
We received several letters from people supporting anti-cement campainger Lilian Pallikaropoulos and questioning the council's role in scrutinising the plant.

Mr. Lawson said: "It keeps being repeated that it's our fault.

"But the environmental regulation of the plant lies fully with the Environmental Agency. They are responsible for the plant's permit."

Mr. Lawson also pointed out that the decision to build the plant was given by Warwickshire County Council, with the borough council only used as a consultee.
30 November 2006

POSTBAG

ADVERTISER: TOXIC FACTORY EMISSIONS AFFECT BEHAVIOUR OF NORMAL PEOPLE

I note your reports on Mrs. Lilian Pallikaropoulos, some alleging that she is a strange obsessive or that she is manifestly

unreasonable. Mrs. Pallikaropoulos was perfectly normal when she left Hargrave, her native village. Is it possible that the toxic factory emmisions (the subject of so many local complaints),have caused these changes?

The complaints from the council employees are to be expected from the type of person who is asked to wake up from their normal state of torpor, and to perform the duties for which they are handsomely rewarded by the long-suffering local taxpayers to whom they owe a duty of care.

William Steele,
Hargrave,

THREE CHEERS FOR LILIAN P IS WHAT I SAY!

Lilian P should be congratulated by Rugby people for standing up for our rights to breathe in fresh air. No one knows the effects of tyre burning on susceptible people's health. RBC haven't stood up for our rights like she has - I wonder why? They were quick enough to bring in the Clean Air Act years ago. (The first Clean Air Act was in 1956 after the Great London smog of 1952).

Regarding there being no complaints about Cemex's toxic dust emissions in October 2005 causing skin allergies and irritation, people may not have connected this to the dust, as evidence would not have been collected. Presumably Mr Hancock does not suffer from asthma or other breathing problems?

Mrs Dodd
Alwyn Rd Rugby.

LETTER OF THE WEEK.
WHO APPROVED THIS MONSTROSITY?
LILIAN SHOULD BE GIVEN £50,000 TO PROTECT HEALTH!

Lilian P, on behalf of a large group of ratepayers asks questions of her local council which complains that it has cost £50,000 to respond. It's a sum that pales into insignificance related to that paid out to staff and councillors.

Her questions relate to whether it is right that a company recently fined £400,000 (during TYRE BURNING TRIALS) for seriously polluting the environment should be operating within the town boundaries. I doubt they would have been fined such a considerable sum if they had not caused a very serious hazard to the health of a town that is governed by our local council.

Prior to granting consent for the new development there were warnings given which were completely ignored, giving rise to serious questions, and this lady has asked them in the interests of the whole suffering population. Given the responsibility of the council for our environment it is laughable that not only have they set out to actively thwart this woman in her efforts to greatly improve it, but they are whingeing at the sum it has cost them to do so.

It would have been a more appropriate action to have allocated her £50,000 in the INTERESTS of PUBLIC HEALTH to take on this task for which they have no inclination!

At an interesting presentation by executives of Cemex a few weeks ago the Chief Executive was asked "Why did they not put the development in the wilds of Bedfordshire at the site where their raw material was quarried, rather than maintain a multi-million pound pipeline across three counties to transport it to Rugby?" His clear response was "We'd never have been able to get planning permission for it." I think that simple statement says it all. If only we had planners with the wisdom, and common sense of the Bedfordshire Councillors.

Our Council grizzles that she asks the same question more than once. Would that be because she is till waiting a straight answer to the first time of asking? Only one question intrigues me "Who, by name, on the Council voted for the development of this HAZARDOUS MONSTROSITY within the town boundaries in the first place?

Roy McCarthy
Newbold.

WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AID

The people of rugby and surrounding areas should be grateful for the hard work that Mrs P, Rugby in Plume, and others including "some" councillors have put in to help save health and the environment. The adverse effects of incineration processes are well-known. Nationally and Internationally people are campaigning against incineration including : The Zero Waste Alliance; Friends of the Earth; Communities Against Toxics; Greenpeace: the Global Anti Incineration Alliance; doctors and professors.

We will probably never know the real cost of incineration: the heart attacks; cancers; respiratory problems; birth defects; infertility; premature deaths etc. Some of the health effects of chemical and particulate pollution are cumulative; some may take decades to become evident, making it difficult to evaluate.

As well as the human cost there is the pollution of the natural environment, and the unsustainable use of what nature can provide - we are burning valuable re-usable resources.

Name and address
Supplied.

LILIAN PROVES WE ARE NOT PROTECTED

You asked what the public think about the campaign that Lilian has been running and the cost to the Community on last week's front page. I fully support Lilian's stand for the greater public interest.

IF our elected representatives stood up for the residents then her campaign for CLEAN AIR would not be necessary. Time after time we have seen that our councillors do not listen to the electorate , or look after our interests. I can name the parking in Rugby as one example amongst others in your paper recently.

RBC Chief Executive Officer and members of the Cabinet appear to have little respect for the electorate. If you dare question decisions they are not prepared to discuss or explain them, but would rather discredit those trying to work for the public good. Lilian has shown that we are NOT being protected from what will be an incinerator in the middle of a built up area. A visit to any search engine on the internet, to check on TYRE BURNING, will show world-wide concern on this matter - even when far away from built up areas.

The question of why a CO-INCINERATOR can burn anything from tyres to clinical waste, and needs less safeguards than an incinerator, is perhaps another point, but one that needs exploring.

When looking at the £50,000 cost of the campaign to the council, if letters sent to RBC were replied to, or the questions in them answered, not sidestepped, it would save a lot of time, effort and cost on all sides. Could anyone explain why four senior officers need to look at a request for information, and then need to spend another two or three hours answering it. Perhaps this shows that the officers in the council do not have the expertise to deal with this matter, but have not informed the councillors, who are not experts themselves.

Vaughan Owen
Marton

FIRST - INFORMAL TYRE TRIAL

NOW - INFORMAL NON-CONSULTATION

Why are Rugby residents so very UNGRATEFUL?
This is ALL for your OWN GOOD!

The Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council continue to work well with (for?) Cemex!
They insist this is an "informal non-consultation" into the Final Tyre Burning Report.
They all continue to collude, hold un-publicised meetings, and to hide as much damning data as they can.

RBC are rushing through extra un-publicised meetings :
e.g. such as 20 November "Climafuel Task and Finish Group" - designed to help get London's waste burnt here as soon as possible.
e.g such as 23 November extra item for Cemex added onto end of Agenda by Chair Chris Holman.
e.g. Agendas and Minutes not released.
e.g. the gaps in data on Cemex.co.uk web site - click "sustainability" to get full Final Tyre Report.

e.g. JOLLY TO GERMANY - to see "another cement plant". LOVELY!
They perhaps have not noticed but we have a TWICE as BIG one in Rugby? RBC council tax payers "willingly" paid for the 7th November trip to Kollenbach Germany by RBC EHO Sean Lawson, and Councillors Carolyn Robbins and Chris Holman; and do not forget to mention Cemex Rugby managers Ian Southcott and Brian Hancock. (I presume we did not pay for them). A good time was had by all, courtesy of Rugby Council Tax payers - and STILL the LONG PROMISED report has not been produced. So why DID they go there - duty free bags of cement?

e.g. the Final Tyre Report (NOW 352 pages!) was placed on RBC Public Register on 8th November - but "no-one" was told about it till 21st November, when we were told by Sean Lawson that it had just come, but UNFORTUNATELY it was JUST TOO LATE for the COMMUNITY Tyre Burning Review Group to be reconvened as "we have to rush it through" - "The Agency and Cemex will not give us any time!"
e.g. The Council Tax payers funded a Facilitator for the Community Tyre Burning Review Group, to Review the DRAFT Tyre Report (168 pages) and we repeatedly asked Cemex and the Agency for data to make our work complete. They REFUSED to give us the data. Then after the end of 4 months of consultation "with no data" they suddenly found (24 October 2006) some data, that was related to August 2005 to February 2006 to stick in the Final report!
SHAME really they put it in THREE weeks TOO LATE for the Community Group to look at it!

WHO WASTES AND CONSUMES ALL THE COUNCIL TAX PAYERS MONEY?
It would be great to witness open, transparent, informed, honest, CONSULTATION. We dream on!
We continue to live with the NON co-operation on behalf of the environment and air quality and health of Rugby people!

WHOSE INTERESTS DO THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL AND CEMEX SERVE?
Will we soon be hearing such rubbish as:
# "the use of shredded tyres has obviously only a BENEFICIAL effect on the environment in comparison to the fuels for which it is substituted, such as coal and oil and petcoke."
# "the Agency's ongoing and dynamic regulation of the works should be compared to the protesters demand for POINTLESS CONSULTATION, and DESIRE to create a WORSE ENVIRONMENTAL REGIME than that already existing in Rugby?

ANGER OVER REPORT ON TYRE BURNING.
Rugby Advertiser November 23 Stuart Turner

A KEY group investigating the effects of tyre-burning trials has been "sidelined" by the Council, it has been claimed.
A 350 page document by Cemex outlining the effects of the trials has been lodged with the Agency who are due to make a full report on the scheme before the end of December.
However Sean Lawson, head of EHO at RBC, said "the short time scale and expense" made it "impractical" to reconvene the Tyre Burning Review group.

The group which includes councillors and member of the public was set up in 2004 to evaluate the results of of previous tyre-burning trials at the plant. Lilian P a member of the group said "They are trying to get rid of us and rushing this through at a CHRISTMAS PRESENT for Rugby people. By not letting us finish the work they are just WASTING MORE MONEY!"

Cemex hosted the trials last October (2005) as part of its ongoing investigation into the use of alternative fuels. It's hoped the process could supply a more cost-effective and environmentally-friendly source of fuel. However opponents claim the trials pose health risks to the town and need further evaluation.

Meanwhile Mr Lawson also hit back at claims of his department's "incompetence". Last week the Advertiser revealed that Mrs P had cost the Council £50,000 dealing with her multiple complaints and requests for information. Mrs P claimed this was partly due to the Council's EH department failure to answer her questions. However Mr Lawson said "As far as I am aware she has had all the answers to all requests she has made, although SHE MAY NOT LIKE THEM!!" "We have only a finite amount of resources and it is my job to balance that. It's for the people of Rugby to decide!"

SO WHAT DO PEOPLE THINK?

POSTBAG
Letters on this subject can be seen at www.rugbytoday.co.uk

RUGBY COUNCIL SHOULD COME CLEAN
The following is a letter from Richard Buxton, a solicitor.
"It may help to clear the air to say part of the dispute between Mrs P and RBC is that the Council (as they earlier this year admitted) never responded to a PUBLIC CONSULTATION in 1999 on behalf of Rugby people. It is getting to the bottom of that that is causing such a rumpus.

IF RBC were to come clean about the details of what they did, and did not do, and why, then perhaps progress could be made. There are also various other issues relating to rugby Cement plant and air quality in Rugby where the Council just do not appear to have done their job.

IF, on the other hand they have, we would be DELIGHTED to see the evidence, but to date they have been UNABLE or UNWILLING to provide any ADEQUATE RESPONSE"

Richard Buxton
Environmental and Public Law
Cambridge

I believe that in time Lilian will be regarded as one of the great environmental campaigners.
Very few people have the perseverence, intelligence and sheer guts to stand up to the combined might and huge resources of a cement company, a local council that doesn't want to know and an Environment Agency that doesn't care.
As for the money - it has been estimated that the health costs from a large incinerator are about £30 million annually.
The health costs from a cement kiln would be far far greater. The £50,000 cost to the council bears no comparison.
To complain about this minor cost and yet ignore the huge health costs and health effects shows a hopeless misunderstanding of the issue by the Council.

Dr Jerry Thompson
(Member of the British Society of Ecological Medicine and author of 'Health Effects of Waste Incinerators')
40 Ragstone Road,
Slough,
Berks


I have followed this debate from far away Tasmania for several years and I am astounded at the evasive actions of Rugby Cement, Cemex, the Environment Authority and especially Rugby Borough Council.

If they had all done the correct thing, obeyed and policed the law openly and not evaded the issue about the pollution and damage to the health of the ordinary Rugby citizens then Lilian Pallikaropoulos would not have had to ask her questions.
A town in the centre of the UK should exhibit 'world's best practice' in the 21st century and not treat its citizens and this planet worse than many third world countries.

Whatever it costs to protect the health and future of the children and people generally will be worth the expenditure in the long term.

Tasmania may be one of the cleanest and greenest places on earth and we sympathise with all the residents of Rugby for the way they are being treated.

Mike McBain
Derwent Terrace
New Norfolk
Tasmania


Is it any wonder that RBC has a £1.1 million pound shortfall when according to Mr Warren, the Council's chief executive, it takes four officers and 2/3 hours to reply to just one letter from a member of the public.
Admittedly Lillian probably knows more about the subject of
Rugby Cement works than the people we charge with securing our health in the community, but surely if they stopped prevaricating and running scared from questions posed by this formidable lady then this can only be good for the people of Rugby.
Using the cost of replying to letters as a means of denying the electorate access to public information is a very slippery slope which can only eventually, bring about the demise of all we respect about Local Government.
We need to know that the Council is completely above suspicion and the only way we can achieve this is with open and honest dialogue.
If you have nothing to hide, you should not fear the truth!
G C Prewett
Railway Street
Long Lawford
Rugby

If there were more people like Mrs Pallikaropoulos asking questions we would not find ourselves in the position where a new born baby is allegedly born with more than 300 groups of chemicals in its tiny body, many of which are carcinogenic and/or known to cause brain damage and neurological development problems in a developing foetus. This contamination is primarily a result of slack regulations on industrial emissions and even weaker enforcement of this regulations.
I think the councillors and officers of Rugby should start looking more seriously at the number of scientific studies showing the huge amount of toxic compounds allegedly being released from cement kilns around the world rather than dismissing Mrs Pallikaropoulos's concerns.The latest news for your readers interest is that a Lafarge North America cement plant allegedly 'belches up to 263 kilograms of mercury a year into the atmosphere - about 10 times more than previously believed'.
Wishing you good health.
Ralph Ryder
Coordinator, Communities Against Toxics,
Ellesmere Port,
Cheshire,

Mrs. Pallikaropoulos claims an injustice from the council and the environmental health not to mention Rugby Cement. But all have bent over backwards to try and help her.
She has also appeared on the news campaigning about a chicken farm in Northamptonshire - how much has she cost that council?
The cement works has been there since the early 1800s and is part of Rugby's heritage. I bet there are not many families in the town who have not any involvement with the plant. Can't you see Mrs P. - most of use do not agree with you, just accept defeat if you don't like the cement works it's simple - leave town.
It is people like you why we have not got a town centre, Western Relief road, ect. You have had very little support on your marches from the normal everyday people of Rugby.
I hope that when it is all over RBC sues you to recover the cost of it all.

Mr P Hancox
Westbourne Grove
Rugby


I AM appalled by the amount of time and money spent by the council in addressing Mrs. Pallikaropoulos' concerns. Given that the £50,000 represents only 0.1% of his budget, I look forward to hearing from Mr. Warren how he intends to significantly increase his focus on Rugby's major environmental threat.

Julian Relph,
Hillmorton.


Lilian Pallikaropoulos may be a thorn in the side of Rugby Borough Council, but without her and Rugby in Plume's campaigning RBC would not have lifted a finger to fight the burning of tyres and other waste materials at the Cemex's cement works.
Rugby needs characters like Lilian who are prepared to question authority, and who will fight for a better environment for everyone in Rugby.
It may cost time and money to answer Lilian's awkward and detailed questions, but the cost of not doing so would be far greater. It would mean that RBC was unaccountable and its actions left unchallenged.
Perhaps that's what Simon Warren wants. But for those who care about our town and the environment that would be a disaster.
Rather than pandering to cheap attacks on Lilian and Rugby in Plume, people in Rugby should ask themselves why Lilian has to ask RBC all these questions, and why - unlike the fight against the airport - the council has never played a prominent role in the campaign against tyre and waste burning at Rugby cement.
It's a great shame that RBC doesn't have the courage and vision to lead the fight against the largest single threat to our town's environment and the health of its people: Cemex's Rugby cement plant. Instead, what do we get from the council's chief executive? Unpleasant and nasty personal attacks from an unelected official. Is that the kind of leadership we want for our town?
Adam Woolf,
Manor Lane,
Clifton.

TYRE BURNING EMISSIONS

NO WONDER THEY REFUSE TO ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS ON:
# WHO DID THIS?
# HOW DID THEY DO THIS?
# AND WHY?

Why DOES RBC do this to its own Council Tax Payers?
Who would knowingly increase the TOXIC BURDEN on its own residents?

RBC's own report 03/09/01 states that TYRE BURNING IN RUGBY CEMENT will increase the emissions of :
# finer particulate;
# zinc;
# copper;
# THALLIUM;
It says: "Zinc and copper are relatively harmless, but thallium is toxic and is known to cause cancer!

"The Environment Agency advise that if there is an incident with the plant it is unknown if it will result in the release of DIOXINS and FURANS as there is currently insufficient information on this issue!"

RBC Cabinet - well C Humphrey and A Gabittas got together, and decided:

1. Not to allow the Cabinet to answer my questions - they said they were not "worded as they would have liked them"!

2. Not to answer Parish Councillor Pat Wyatt's POLITE AND WELL WRITTEN questions - as they did not think they were polite enough!

3. RBC decided NOT to answer any lawyer's questions.

4. A Gabbitas decided NOT to answer Chris Holman's questions.

Why not?

And what are the COUNCILLORS doing now to help Rugby people?
In the meantime they plot in hardly publicised meetings at the "Task and Finish Climafuel Group" how to get London's waste imported for incineration in Rugby Town Centre!

Holman (Chair); Avis;Bragg;Cassedy;Day;Elton;Kaur;New;Parker;Sandison;Watson,

Thallium may kill Russian spys, but in Rugby it is the healthy way to start your day! And you can enjoy it 24/7!! All for free, courtesy of Cemex Rugby Cement, ably supported by Rugby Borough Council!

# What do the World Health Organisation recommend as a daily dose of it - and why are Rugby people not susceptible to it?

Rugby residents are apparently even tougher than Russian spies - they need to be with this Council!

All 48 Councillors are jointly responsible for this "carry-on", but the long-standing ones have aided and abetted it, or turned a blind eye to it all!

The fact that the Council refuses to answer questions of its own citizens, lawyers, and long-standing ward councillors says it all!

GUILTY AS CHARGED!

Witch is right !?

BURNING QUESTION:
When Cemex got fined £400,000 for the 14th October 2005 POLLUTION EPISODE, under the watchful eye of the Environment Agency:

Was it during the Cemex Rugby Tyre Trials which actually started on 11th October 2005, and NOT on 21st October 2005 - as officially claimed in the Tyre Burning Draft Report - that went out to extensive public consultation?

OR

Were Cemex burning tyres from 11th-21st October 2005, UNLAWFULLY and OUTSIDE of the Permit?

APPALLING DECISION TO APPEAL!

Now Cemex have "decided to appeal" the £400,000 fine? A definite case of " Out of the frying pan into the fire!"

FURTHER FLEECING: by RUGBY CEMENT of the hapless Rugby Council Tax payers who funded the Tyre Burning Review group, from whom so much essential data was with held, and who were even told the WRONG starting date for the Tyre Burning Trial. How wrong can you get?

COMING SOON:
What Rugby Cement, and the colluding Grubby Borough Council, have cost the Rugby Council Tax payers!

Local Hero Or Crackpot

"Obsessive crackpot with spurious bee in her bonnet" now let loose in House
of Lords much to dismay of RBC who keep on persucting and defaming in order
to help prop up ailing Environment Agency and cement company?


In Today's Rugby Advertiser...

CAMPAIGN'S A '£50,000 DRAIN'
A FURIOUS campaigner has hit back at claims that £50,000 of council funds have been 'unreasonably' spent, dealing with her long-term battle against Cemex's Rugby works.
In a recent letter to Lilian Pallikaropoulos' lawyers Simon Warren, chief executive for Rugby Borough Council, said the figure was an 'estimation' of money spent dealing with her continuing protests over the Lawford Road site.

The letter said Mrs. Pallikaropoulos - a member of the Rugby in Plume group - sent more than 350 requests for information and other correspondence to the council's environmental health staff alone, since July 2005.

Mr. Warren described her behaviour as 'totally unreasonable' and condemned the 'frequently abusive or derogatory tone' of requests.

However, Mrs. Pallikaropoulos said: "This figure is totally unjustified.

"They are trying to fight someone who is only asking questions that they should be able to answer. It's malicious and vindictive and it's an attempt to hide the truth," she claimed.

Mr. Warren said the figure was a 'reasonable' calculation based on the volume of correspondence from Mrs. Pallikaropoulos.

Any single request for information had to be sent to four senior council officers and a minimum of two-three hours of workers' time then had to be spent dealing with each single query.

Mr. Warren described Mrs. Pallikaropoulos's behaviour as 'manifestly unreasonable', and claimed it diverted resources from other matters and in many cases were repeats of previous requests.

She said: "The reason we put in these questions is because we want to unearth the truth, and I would say the people of Rugby would say it's a small amount to uncover that."

Mrs. Pallikaropoulos' solicitors have since written back, rebutting the 'distressing' allegations.

WHAT do you think? Are Lilian Pallikaropoulos's protests worth £50,000 of YOUR money? Contact us via our postbag or email us on stuart.turner@rugbyadvertiser.co.uk.

The Editor Peter Aengenheister said this...

Editor's Comment: Local hero or crackpot?!

THIS week Advertiser editor Peter Aengenheister talks about one of the town's most well-known people - Lilian Pallikaropoulos.

Lilian Pallikaropoulos - a local hero or a strange obsessive?
Lilian, as most will know, is Rugby's greatest campaigner against the Cemex Cement Plant in Lawford Road.

She would like to see it closed down. She claims, backed up by an incredible amount of alleged evidence, the cement works is poisoning the people of Rugby.

Despite hiccups and incidents which clearly have caused problems, Cemex most vehemently denies this is the case, and says the filtering is far safer than ever at the plant.

Rugby Borough Council is integrally linked to the issue, being the organisation which issued planning permissions and has been monitoring emissions.

In her own words, Lilian has spent thousands of pounds of her own money in her battle to prove her point - she has also used acres of space on the Rugby Advertiser's letters pages.

But now, Rugby Borough Council's chief executive has written to Lilian's lawyers pointing out that her persistent requests for information have cost the council, and therefore the tax-payer, at least £50,000 to date.

So, is Lilian P an obsessive crackpot with a spurious bee in her bonnet? Or will history show that lives could have been saved if people had heeded her claims...

I have no idea... but I defend her right to campaign. If she is found to be right, £50,000 is nothing. If not, I think the council has spent big money in far worse ways... one only needs to mention the Princess Diana memorial..

OBVIOUS DELAYING TACTICS

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL AND THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY :
PARTNERS IN ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME?

LATEST UNBELIEVABLE DEVELOPMENTS

RBC REFUSE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS:
ABOUT UNLAWFUL PROCESS OF 1999 IPC PERMIT AND WANT ASBO TO GAG.

RBC COUNCILLORS STANDBY HELPLESS TO INTERVENE AND TO OBTAIN THE TRUTH.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY FINALLY ADMIT THAT CEMEX £400,000 FINE FOR POLLUTING RUGBY WAS DURING TYRE TRIALS! MORE OR LESS!

Regarding the EA: well SUDDENLY out of the blue on 8th November they come up with this cock and bull story: The incident of 14th October 2005 was during the Tyre Trials, which started on 11th October 2005, BUT we at the EA do not NOW count that as part of the "formal" tyre trials, and now we have just decided to say to all gullible people that that was just a TEN DAY "pre-trial trial" - know what I mean - just pretending, just practising, - yes that's it, that's the story! Yes! that ten day period in October 2005 is now NOT considered to be part of the Formal Tyre Trial - even though we never told anyone this for a WHOLE YEAR, despite endless meetings with Rugby residents at the Cement Forum, and the Tyre Burning Review Group, and officers at RBC, nor do we have any paperwork to show that, but now we have just now today decided to say that. Got it?

WHY THIS SUDDEN STUNNING VERSION OF EVENTS?
Could it just possibly be that this "new version of events" has occurred because a little bird had just told them, on that very day, 8th November, that the Rugby residents fight for ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE had moved up the ladder with the Petition proceeding to the next stage in the House of Lords? Surely not?

Regarding RBC : what can possibly have rattled their cages so much? Could it just be the distinct possibility that they might now have FINALLY to tell the WHOLE TRUTH? About WHY and HOW and WHO DUNNIT? Who are the OFFICERS at RBC that made the decision to collude with the Environment Agency to give the Rugby Cement plant the UNLAWFUL IPC operating permit in September 1999, IN SECRET behind the backs of the unsuspecting public, and trusting gullible councillors.

WE WILL ACCEPT NO QUESTIONS:
NOR FROM A PARISH COUNCILLOR - WHO ALSO SUBMITTED POLITE QUESTIONS:

Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:24 PM
Dear Mrs Pallikaropoulos,

After consultation with the Leader of the Council and reference to Council Standing Orders, your questions to Cabinet on 13th November are rejected.

This is on the grounds that:

a. The questions are offensive and possibly defamatory.
b. They relate to legal proceedings.
c. They relate to individuals employed by the Council.
d. They relate to your own personal circumstances.

Simon Warren
Chief Executive

WHAT IS HE ON ABOUT?
A. The questions can in no way be considered "offensive or possibly defamatory" to any open, honest, transparent, proper record-keeping, democratic, law-abiding, and procedurally correct Council. They could appear to be offensive to any Council more concerned with protecting its reputation, and concealing the facts and evidence of maladministration.

B. What legal proceedings is RBC involved in? Unless it is involving itself in trying to cover-up for the Environment Agency in the House of Lords Petition and Judicial Review brought by Rugby residents against the Agency for malpractice, and failing to comply with UK and EU Law. I would comment that RBC's repeated refusal to answer the questions over this last year could be viewed as a blatant attempt to PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, and to damage Rugby residents further than this Council has already done.

C. Of course the questions relate to officers employed by the Council, because they are employed by this Council because (presumably) they are "trained" in their jobs, and it is those people who have advised Councillors and made Decisions to do this to Rugby people, in secret, and who have been party to this environmental crime, and allegedly acted and colluded to obtain the grant of an unlawful IPC operating permit. Officers are supposed to advise the Councillors who are supposed to make the
decisions in an open, transparent way. This is not to go on behind closed doors, with no records, and no witnesses. If they would only tell the truth we might all know more.

D. They are not "my personal circumstances" but circumstances this Council has put on me. I have merely asked the questions and told the truth, and for this the officers and 48 Councillors have colluded (January 9th meeting) to take many "operational tactics against me" and considered putting an ASBO on me with no justification.
Naturally I want to know why.

The questions were relating to:

# The RBC's dereliction of duty in failing to respond to the June 1999 IPC application, the failure to ensure that the public were consulted, the failure to place it on the Public Register, and the failure to keep any files at all about who made the decision/s, and how they did so. There is apparently NO PAPERWORK at all. After months of insisting that she has "no memory" of the events, the Chief of the EHO department suddenly regained her memory and told the Rugby Times October 31st 2006: "Paperwork relating to the decisions may be hard to find, and SOME of those decisions were made by people who had retired or died". We merely asked for the names of these "dead and retired" decision makers, who kept no files at all? The RBC microfiche of Committee Meetings and Minutes reveals endless reports into every minutiae of environmental crime in Rugby, such as the heinous crime of "DOG FOULING", but surprise there is no mention at all of a NEW massively polluting CEMENT PLANT PERMIT.

# The EA's copy of the IPC Application sent to RBC on 24th June 1999 allowed 28 DAYS for consultation and appears to contain a "gagging clause", about the application. What did RBC do to CHALLENGE this gagging clause?
Again there is no paperwork about what happened.

# Assuming the RBC officers' have some formal training in IPC and IPPC applications, then why did they not ensure the public were consulted as they had to be by LAW, and why did they collude in hiding the application - and from the councillors?

# Why has RBC accused me of wasting £50,000 in Freedom of Information costs when all I have done is ask for copies of the records. Their problem is that they do not like the questions, they have no records, dare not reveal the TRUTH, and clearly "making up answers" takes a whole lot more of officers' time than just photocopying old files. They have even gone to the lengths of taking legal advice on how to "shut me up" and considered an ASBO. That would be just great - the first person in the UK to get an ASBO for:
# "telling the truth"
# "asking questions"
# "trying to protect the environment and health of 90,000 Rugby residents!"

Instead of answering the questions, and being truthful, open and transparent, RBC seek to tie me up in the "mess of their making", and to waste more of my time, and money, and to delay the inevitable MOMENT OF TRUTH when all will be revealed. RBC write and tell me to get their own Council and Councillors investigated. Can there be an investigation by the Standards Board into the behaviour of 48 Councillors who have just stood by and refused to ask for the TRUTH? COMPLAIN they say COMPLAIN:

# "GO TO THE OMBUDSMAN" about the maladministration.
# "GO TO THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER" about our refusal to answer
questions and supply information.
# "GO TO THE STANDARDS BOARD ABOUT THE COUNCILLORS" who refuse to help and work for Rugby residents despite being paid about £1,000, 000 a year from our Council taxes.

It is the DUTY of the WARD COUNCILLORS to help the residents in their own patch to make these formal complaints. Watch this space for futher updates on the response my request for HELP will get.

YET MORE OFFENSIVE QUESTIONS??
YOU BE THE JUDGE!

FROM A LONG-STANDING PARISH AND EX-BOROUGH COUNCILLOR:

RBC REFUSES TO ACCEPT :

To: Patricia Wyatt
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:23 PM
Subject: RE: Questions for Cabinet 13.11.06

Dear Mrs Wyatt,

After consultation with the Leader of the Council and reference to Council Standing Orders, your questions to Cabinet on 13th November are rejected. This is on the grounds that:

a. The questions are offensive and possibly defamatory.
b. They relate to legal proceedings.
c. They relate to individuals employed by the Council.
d. They relate to a particular application.

Yours sincerely

Simon Warren
Chief Executive
Rugby Borough Council
01788 533532

From: Patricia Wyatt [mailto:wyattwyvern@talkgas.net]
Sent: 10 November 2006 01:50
To: Simon Warren
Subject: Questions for Cabinet 13.11.06
Importance: High

For the attn of the Chief Executive - Mr. Simon Warren.

Please accept the following questions for Members of the Cabinet to answer during their meeting to be held on the 13th. November 2006.

With particular reference to the Question I raised on the 18th. October 2005 with the Council and the answer given by Cllr. Craig Humphrey - Conservative Leader of the Council regarding a request to be considered to hold a Full Environmental Impact Assessment into the Rugby Cement Works, Lawford Road. His answer was not acceptable as true at the time and has since been proven as untrue. He said the Council had carried out an assessment and that to carry out another would be a waste of resources and time. Therefore:-

1. Will this Council undertake A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT INTO THE CEMEX/RUGBY GROUP CEMENT WORKS WITH FULL PUBLIC CONSULTATION?

2. Will this Council undertake every ACT and APPLY ITS FULL LEGISLATIVE POWERS to this Lawford Road cement plant immediately, as laid out in the letter from Richard Buxton - Solicitor dated 25th. October 2006 regarding IPC Authorisation and IPPC Application appertaining to AP8314? as the people of Rugby and Long Lawford expect NO LESS!!!

3. When will Rugby Borough Council accept it's full responsibilities to the residents of Rugby, including myself, and fulfil it's duties to FULLY PROTECT OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT?

4. Who is and was responsible on behalf of Rugby Borough Council for making the decision, as a Statutory Consultee, not to make a formal response to the Permit consultation? (see letter 16.05.06 signed Head of Legal and Administration - RBC)

5. Given the same chances/opportunities and with hindsight, would this Council still choose not to respond to such a massive and important issue?

Yours faithfully,

Patricia Wyatt

Mrs. Patricia Wyatt.

Click to read letter...

Grubby Borough Council

Meeting this month!!

INSTABILITY IN RUGBY CEMENT KILN
THIS TIME NO FINE - WHY NOT?

HOW SAFE ARE RUGBY RESIDENTS?

Ever wondered what happens when things go wrong - as they frequently do? A typical example of a kiln being run at 9 times over the permitted emission limit for nearly an hour is shown in this Notification Schedule A Report from an "incident" on 15th September 2005. No trials of waste burning are supposed to be allowed in an unstable kiln, but the EA permitted them to start the coal and petcoke trials on 11th October, and then there was the huge pollution incident of 14/15 October during the Tyre Trials resulting in a £400,000 fine!

From the attached you see that from 14.30 to 15.15 they "estimate" that the plant ran ON AVERAGE at 458 mg/m3 instead of the maximum permitted 55 mg/m3.
This presumably takes into account the anticipated 20,000mg/m3 that occurs immediately after an ESP trip. And, so they say, at the same time 100 kilos of particulate were also emitted from the cooler and kiln inlet.

Note well that both the main ESP and the BYPASS ESP had tripped. The main ESP is to be replaced by a bag filter, but the BYPASS ESP (and CLINKER COOLER ESP) will still be there and still be subject to trips.

Click to see pic bigger

Who let the dust out?

TYRE BURNING CASE NOT PROVEN
Critics attack lack of details

Cemex are all tyred up!
Culture of Secrecy of great concern to Community!


HUGE CEMEX FINE SPARKS NEW WAVE OF RESIDENT FURY Hot off the press: straight after the shock of the "excessive and disproportionate £400,000 fine" of last week , Cemex now finds itself in even more trouble as the Tyre Burning Review Group dismiss the Cemex Public Consultation document, and state that the Environment Agency should permit no more tyre burning until Cemex provide the necessary evidence to demonstrate whether they have met the crucial Critical Success Factors.


The Rugby Times today reported that there was an "ongoing culture of secrecy" and Cemex had come in for more criticism after being accused of withholding information about its controversial tyre-burning trials including apparently even the date on which the trial started. According to the Agency it started on 11th October, but no data was made public until 21st October, which, surprise, surprise, neatly "left out completely" the incident of 14th October, about which no evidence is shown on the Public Register. No wonder public confidence is at an all time low.

Angry residents, used to dust as they are, are not convinced that similar accidents will not happen again, and they joined local councillors to call for a "change in attitude", and for all facts and figures to be made available to ensure a fair assessment of the likely impact on people's health in the long term. Long-term sufferer Mrs Judith Judge does not think the fine will stop all the dust, which she says worsens her asthma and causes "bad days" when the wind blows from the plant.

Cemex continue to apologise to the local community and assure them a wide range of measures have been put in place to ensure this type of incident does not happen again - i.e. they have shut the door - so we can all sleep better knowing that. Meanwhile Cemex are now quoted as saying that the Tyre Burning Consultation (on which we have spent many hours in discussion, and thousands of pounds of public money), is just a "draft" and a final report will be issued once all reaction had been received.

How's that!


Click 'press release' to enlarge

Open Door Policy

(Click pic to enlarge)

SLOPPY ATTITUDE REVEALED AS CEMEX BRING IT ON THEMSELVES.

CEMEX HAVE AN "OPEN DOOR" POLICY but is this what they mean?

At Warwick Court on 3rd October Judge Recorder Michael Stephens put a £400,000 price tag on Cemex for "having an open door on the Clinker Reject Silo." Prosecuting for the Environment Agency was Barry Berlin who made good his case that Rugby residents should not have been exposed (on 14th October 2005) to tonnes of sticky potentially-toxic hazardous dust that rained down on them, coating cars and houses, up to 4.5 kilometres away during a time of instability at the plant. Despite being told about the door and dust Cemex continued to re-start the kiln after a kiln flush and a fire. Ms Lucy Allen said in their defence that they "had no option" to shut down the kiln and that they "had" to keep the kiln running and to restart it in order to protect the kiln and conveyor from expensive damage from hot materials, and to protect the workers, and to prevent an even worse disaster - more emissions. It was said that the kiln flushes cannot be controlled or predicted and when they happen the molten rock rushes through with a fury, and the REJECTED (only partially processed) clinker is diverted into the Reject Silo, causing excessive dust to build up. Unfortunately, so we are told by an early morning vigilant Lawford dog walker, the dust was not contained and was seen to be coming out of the open door. Goodness knows what GAS, dioxins, VOCs etc also escaped - this aspect was not touched on, nor was the exact nature of the dust, except to say it was "potentially hazardous and toxic", and about seven tonnes - according to the BBC report on Midlands Today.

During this time of plant instability an excess of Reject Clinker was made and this was reported to contain more smaller particles that have the potential to be inhaled and absorbed by the lungs and blood stream. The impact of this on human health was simply not quantifiable, but was regarded as "not insignificant" and as an unacceptable "increased risk" to the public. The arguments ranged about the alkalinity of the dust, chemical burns and damage to nerve endings. It was said to be lucky that it was not raining as the dust is only dangerous when wetted, causing a chemical reaction - as when it gets in people mouths? Unless they have a dry-mouth? Rugby Borough Council's one TEOM monitor at Lawford School was quoted as "not showing an exceedence of the PM10 daily limit", but it was rightly recorded that the "dust plume" may not have gone over that particular monitor, and that no one could say what impact the 7 tonnes of "dust and particulate" had had on the long-suffering residents. Lucy Allen pointed out that " a year on and no one has complained of any health effects from it", so she claimed it was "only a short-lived episode with no apparent health impact". The event had, unfortunately for residents, co-incided with high background levels of particulate in the region. An argument went on about how much Cemex had contributed to these unusually high readings of PM10 particulate, that had apparently come from "other polluting industries in the region".??

The Court heard how Cemex did not have a proper system of checks, or record keeping, and that they failed to check every door on every shift, and that this particular door was only "viewed from the ground" some 150 feet below. They could not see that it was hanging off its broken hinges. The poor plant maintenance was criticised and the Judge also criticised them for not closing the plant when the problems were revealed, and said they were guilty of having a "sloppy attitude" and that this was a "recipe for disaster". Cemex said they did not mend it properly on the first day it was discovered because the "shift had ended", so they apparently just "botched it up", and then repaired it properly the next morning.

Small wonder (ashen and trembling) Cemex managers were too shocked to hardly stand up in the Courts after the sentence was read out, as they could not believe their ears, as normally all these "pollution incidents" go on, to a greater or lesser extent, without ANY penalty. The Agency usually dismisses all our complaints and disregards them. How many times have the people been coated in dust, since this new plant began operating in February 2000 - but oh I nearly forgot, that is "different" that is "permitted dust" from a "permitted stack, or source" and this October 14th incident was "not permitted", well at least not permitted from THAT source anyway!

CONFUSED?

Dust on the brain? Let me explain and help you.. See there is dust, and er, mmm, er, well - dust. Got it?

The Judge had trouble getting his head round it - in common with most people, including the Agency and plant operators. When is dust "permitted dust" from a "permitted source" and when is it "not permitted dust" or a "dust from a not permitted source"? What difference do the Rugby people notice about the dusts? Do they feel better to know they are being coated in "permitted dust"? Is some dust positively "good for us" and a daily dose recommended, or is all dust bad for us? Or is some dust worse than others, whether permitted or not permitted? I hope that is clear to you now, clear as dust. Oh and I did not mention particle size as you may become rather confused - leave that till another day shall we?


WHAT IMPACT DID THE TYRE BURNING TRIAL HAVE ON ALL THIS?

The Tyre Trials had started on 11th October 2005 after the baseline test with "coal only" had been completed. We have no evidence to say whether tyres were in the system at the time of the event on 14/15 the October - we have no data at all about this period, no data about the tyre trials until 21st October. In the Court we heard the main stack particulate emissions were running for some unspecified time at 630 mg/m3 instead of the maximum 55 mg/m3 that is "permitted" by the Agency.

In cement kilns any changes in raw materials and fuels have to be handled very carefully, else the kiln will become "upset" and "unstable". When you are "cooking" daily about 7,000 tonnes of mixed raw materials with about 700 tonnes of fuel to heat it to make 5,000 tonnes of clinker then it is easy to see how things might and do EASILY and FREQUENTLY go wrong.

The Agency usually has its hands tied behind its back as they have "permitted" this plant to "pollute Rugby people to a certain (agreed by the EA and Rugby Cement) extent". RBC also claim that they have been involved all along and that they have AGREED the "quantity and type of pollution" to be put on Rugby people. This was NEVER agreed with Rugby residents as we simply were NOT CONSULTED and were NOT INFORMED. This information was NEVER revealed to residents and indeed Rugby Borough Council and the Agency went out of their way to act in SECRECY and TO KEEP IT OFF THE PUBLIC REGISTER and keep it OUT OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. The reports and IPC applications were headed "do not divulge to anyone outside of your organisation." The IPC application in June 1999 was COMPLETELY hidden from Rugby people, and the subsequent IPPC application (2001) was only "partially revealed" with the MOST damaging pollutants being hidden by RBC, the EA, and Rugby Cement.

SLOWLY SLOWLY THE TRUTH IS BEING REVEALED.... despite the attempts by all the authorities involved, including Warwickshire County Council, to hide the FACTS about how this plant came to be UNLAWFULLY built and UNLAWFULLY operated in Rugby. As everyone now AT LAST apparently accepts, and knows, no one can possibly cart 3 million tonnes of dusty raw material and various dusty industrial wastes into a town by lorry and pipeline, and then dry it out, and cook it up in a monstrous frequently-unstable plant, heated by about 300,000 tonnes of "various fuels and wastes" in order to make 2 million tonnes of a different DUST (cement) without dumping a WHOLE LOT of DUST and other pollutants onto local people.

Small wonder Cemex and DAVID EVANS, long-term employee of RUGBY CEMENT, are shocked by the size of the fine, as they know too well that "cement plants are always dusty", and Cemex "bought the plant in good faith", and naturally they expect to dump dust all over us. They turned off the 3,000 alarms - to help it run better - according to a Financial Times report last year.

IN COMMON WITH EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD CEMEX will rightly be wondering WHY the b. hell the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council and Warwickshire County Council actually HELPED Rugby Cement to design and build and operate this polluting plant IN the urban smokeless zone of RUGBY TOWN. They will also wonder why the public complain so much when there is obviously NO DESIGN FOR A NON-DUSTY CEMENT PLANT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.


MANY PEOPLE COMPLAIN AND MANY PEOPLE DESPAIR BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN CHEATED AND LIED TO FOR SO LONG BY ALL THE AUTHORITIES INVOLVED. WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM HEALTH IMPACTS ON OURSELVES AND OUR CHILDREN. WE ARE SICK OF BEING LIED TO AND BEING GIVEN FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION. AND WE ARE FED UP OF BEING OVERSHADOWED IN EVERY AREA OF THE TOWN BY AN UNLAWFUL MONSTROUS DEPRESSING UGLY INDUSTRIAL BEHEMOTH. WE ARE SICK OF BEING COVERED IN DUST, PLUMES, AND POLLUTION, AND LORRIES, THAT HAVE CERTAIN, BUT UNKNOWN AND UNQUANTIFIABLE, HEALTH EFFECTS, THE SEVERITY OF WHICH CAN ONLY BE GUESSED AT DUE TO THE LACK OF DATA PROVIDED ABOUT THE EMISSIONS AND THE POLLUTANTS.

WE ARE FED UP OF BEING EXPERIMENTED ON, WITH MORE EXPERIMENTS SET TO START IMMINENTLY AS THE AGENCY PERMIT TYRE AND PETCOKE TRIALS, BEFORE THEY THEN START TO EXPERIMENT WITH THE BURNING OF LONDON HOUSEHOLD AND COMMERCIAL WASTE. WE ARE MORE THAN FED UP BY THE WAY THE AUTHORITIES HAVE TREATED US, AND BY THEIR ATTITUDE TO OUR REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION, AND BY THEIR REFUSAL TO ANSWER ANY STRAIGHT FORWARD QUESTIONS.


WE ARE FED UP WITH THIS ATTEMPTED COVER-UP WHICH HAS UNNECESSARILY COST US A VAST AMOUNT OF MONEY. RUGBY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN RIPPED OFF!

I trust I have made my point clear? And not only that but the Tyre Burning Review Group have just issued a damning report which will make everyone EVEN MORE WORRIED!

Watch this space.

MEPS WEAKEN AIR QUALITY DIRECTIVE

IS THIS CHILD IN DANGER?

NO HOPE IN SITE FOR RUGBY RESIDENTS AS AIR QUALITY SET TO GET WORSE IN EUROPE: MORE SHORT TERM EXCEEDENCES PERMITTED

Rugby residents learned today that they can now officially be more polluted, more often, as the MEPs gave way to the pressure exerted by lobbyists working for polluting industries, and RELAXED controls on short term pollution incidents which are of GRAVE concern to Rugby residents who know of the HEALTH DAMAGE the exposure to short term high levels of PARTICULATE can cause.

350,000 premature deaths occur in Europe every year due to PARTICULATES (PM10) emitted from polluting industries, road traffic, and other smaller sources. The Directive would streamline existing air quality legislation and set new controls on particulates.

BUT MEPs (no doubt being lobbied by the thousands of paid professional industrial lobbyists) voted to DELAY compliance with existing limits for air pollutants by up to four years beyond the 2010 deadline, plus an extra two years on top of this for PM10 and Pm2.5, under certain conditions.

They also voted to weaken the daily limit on concentrations of PM10 by increasing the number of exceedences from 35 to 55 days per year. (This is much worse for people living round polluting industrial sites such as in New Bilton and in Rugby town where the cement plant's low level sources give out an estimated 100 TONNES a year of particulate - and no one knows anything about the particle size and speciation of particles!!) MEPS also voted to make the new limit on PM2.5 proposed for 2010 NON-BINDING until 2015.

Some requirements were supposedly strengthened, but with a "sting in the tail."
PM 10 annual limit to be reduced from 40 micrograms/m3 to 33 micrograms/m3 - BUT with 55 exceedences.

The COMMISSION called the changes UNACCEPTABLE and would expose people to EXCESSIVE and AVOIDABLE levels of pollution.

The EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL BUREAU said that the changes had WEAKENED the DIRECTIVE. "There is a clear risk that polluters will simply do nothing if they are given these elastic deadlines. The apparent strengthening of these limits is largely cosmetic."

Money To Burn ?

RUMOURS OF A HANSON TAKEOVER BY CEMEX

The financial papers have recently been full of rumours of a 6.3 BILLION POUND Cemex takeover of the Hanson building and aggregates company, which has a large market share in the USA, and the UK. In the UK any acquisition would probably fall foul of the anti trust laws, and be regulated.

The suggested price is £6.3 billion, more than DOUBLE the $5.8 million price tag Cemex paid last year for RMC.

So the Warwick Court Recorder need not overly worry himself over the size of the Cemex piggy bank! They obviously have money to burn and the anticipated fine, to be imposed on 3rd October, will no doubt just be "small change" for these guys!

UNDER FIRE CEMENT FIRM BLASTED AGAIN

COMPLAINTS: Campaigners appalled by new figures on Rugby plant - says

Evening Telegraph 25 September.

Critics hit out against Cemex today after new figures revealed the factory had been investigated 25 times in the past 3 years. The new figures showing the Rugby Cement factory had one suspected breach of Environment Agency regulations every 6 weeks follows a Freedom of Information request by the Evening Telegraph. In a statement an Environment Agency spokesman said "In the last three years there are a total of 25 incidents on our system which have led to justified complaints. For 7 of these 25 incidents we have received multiple complaints."

Lilian said "It is terrible. 25 incidents might sound not like a lot to some people but this is just the tip of the iceberg. The EA gives them a good "Operator Score" (OPRA) but their compliance level is very low. That means Cemex wheedles their way into the Agency's good books and then the Agency does not regulate them as much. Then it is a case of 'while the cat's away the mice will play'."

Earlier this month the plant was named in a pollution black list in the environmental journal ENDS report. In August the company pleaded guilty at Warwick Crown Court to breaching regulations set down in the company's operating regulations. The breach followed a fallout of dust from its factory in October last year. Cemex is due to be sentenced at Warwick Court on 3rd October.

SITE COMPLIANCE FAILURES

It comes as no surprise whatsover to Rugby residents to find that the Environment Agency, using the favoured "lighter touch" regarding the regulation of the Rugby Cement plant, has now discovered that the plant it rated "A" for operator performance (OPRA) has now, in reality, scored a "D" for compliance. Or should that read for non-compliance?

Poor management at industrial sites caused more than 1,700 incidents of non-compliance with permit conditions that may have led to serious harm in 2005, according to official figures. The figures are likely to have caused red faces at some sites hitherto classed as "well managed" by the Environemnt Agency.

The Health Protection Agency stated that "well-managed, well-maintained waste burning cement plants" should (hopefully) not cause any health problems for local residents. So far they have failed to give any opinion on "UNmanaged and poorly-maintained cement plants" which are very much the "norm", and that is what we seem to have here!

No surprise for guessing who tops the list of offenders! The "A" list, or should that read the "Z" list, includes:

# CEMEX Rugby and CEMEX in various locations and guises,

# Blue Circle Cement works at Aberthaw,

# Lafarge Cement Hope,

# Castle Cement.

Its about time the Authorities admitted the dangers that face the population of Rugby instead of trying to hide the facts, allay all fears, and falsely re-assure the residents with their "exaggerated" and "unsubstantiated" claims about air quality and health in Rugby.

It is the TIME for TRUTH!

WAR RAGES ON IN RUGBY

IS THE CEMENT PLANT TO BECOME A CO-INCINERATOR – OR NOT?

The focus on the significance of the stack emissions has now moved away onto the previously hidden air quality and health impact of the Low level Sources. Rugby people require a TOTAL BURDEN figure for this plant, which has been increasing pollution year on year as production increases, and waste burning increases, and as raw materials are replaced by other wastes. The old plant was very polluting and dirty, but they closed down six dirty old kilns and built this new semi-wet process plant, (in order to replace them all), in the most ENVIRONMENTALLY DETRIMENTAL SITE of all – in the middle of a town, surrounded by vulnerable receptors in an already deprived area, with no available raw materials, no transport, no rail connections, no road connections, and no possible justification – except it was cheaper for Rugby Cement as the other real estate was worth more to them. The Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council claim to have been party to this and helped in the design and development of this plant all along the line.

“Experts” now chew over last year’s tyre trial results as the Agency and Rugby Cemex Cement try to prove that Rugby town centre really is the Best Practicable Environmental Option for the disposal/co-incineration of waste – tyres for starters – and soon to be London’s household and commercial waste. Unfortunately for them the Jury is still out, with claims that their case is “not proven” - that not enough data has been provided, that short term impacts have been left out, that the speciation of particles (particle size and adsorbed pollutants) is missing, and that it is simply not enough to reduce the emissions of nitrogen while increasing some other hazardous pollutants.

The row goes on, and on, about the emissions from the myriad of small stacks and vents known as Low level Point Sources. The Agency claims these are regulated, but in fact only the cement mills have any limits imposed on them, and then these are not monitored or reported. It was the emissions from these 18 sources, and their HUGE environmental and air quality impacts, that the Agency and Rugby Cement were so desperate to hide from the public during the SHAM consultation into the IPPC application, which the EA and Rugby Cement and Rugby Borough Council all connived together to cunningly and falsely describe as a “Tyre Burning Application” – giving out ONLY tyre burning information, and advising the public that we could ONLY be consulted on the difference between the mains stack emissions “with coal” and “with tyres”!!

And so they hid the dispersion models of these sources, known at AQMAU 1 and AQMAU 2, and also hid the H1 assessment, which relates to the environmental assessment. When members of the public, and even the MP Andy King asked for these, they received evasive and misleading answers, and even in some cases “threatening and bullying” letters, in order to prevent any more questions from being raised.

Slowly the information is being dragged out of them, but each new report they issue contains information at variance with previous reports, so everyone is even more confused – which is what they want!! The facts are quite simple however:

1. The cement plant as built had no Environmental Statement of Environmental Impact Assessment.
2. Officers at Warwickshire County Council, under “an assumed (very convenient) delegated power” permitted the construction of a much larger plant, that had not been applied for, advertised, or consulted on. Hence the SHOCK as Rugby residents realised that, by stealth and connivance, and misinformation, a 2 million tonne a year plant was belching out massive plumes, and fumes, and dust, accompanied by 800 heavy lorries in narrow Victorian town centre streets. As described by the Agency itself, a “giant industrial behemoth” was suddenly a hideous reality.
3. The IPC Permitting process was flawed and unlawful, with the Agency and RBC conniving to hide the application and avoid the public consultation. The application was completed by Rugby Cement on 16th June 1999 and was then sent to the statutory consultees for comment, but with the proviso that “you must not tell anyone, or let any member of the public see this.” That was in order to get the IPC permit granted on 13th September 1999, “under the wire”, as by November 1st 1999 they would have had to go through the much mores stringent IPPC process for a “new plant” which would have caused outcry – and subsequently did – but then they claimed it was “an existing plant” and that the “consultation is only about tyre burning and differences in the main stack emissions!”
4. The Health Protection Agency was extremely critical of the Decision Document and IPPC Permit issued by the Agency in August 2003. They say this, amongst many other criticisms: “In our view the Decision Document is too DISSMISSIVE of HEALTH ISSUES and is NOT RFELECTIVE OF THE WIDE RANGING CONCERNS OF LOCAL PEOPLE. If you read this document you would not come to the conclusion that considerable questions have raised about the (IPPC) application, and the proposal to burn tyres. It is NOT CLEAR whether the Agency agreed or took into account all of the comments made by the statutory consultees. Many of their explanations relating to health concerns are extremely brief and NOT wholly convincing. It is also not clear why certain concerns were discussed in the Decision Document, but others concerns not? There is reference to the Agency’s state of the art dispersion model. We have yet to see any out comes of this model. It does not appear to have been made publicly available. At no point in the Decision Document do they mention that the Primary Care Trust obtained advice from the CHMRC – now the Health Protection Agency.”
5. In the IPPC permit the Agency decided NOT to ensure that BAT (Best Available Technique) was implemented, but merely to set in train a number of “Improvement Conditions”, all the time permitting the what has been described as a “state of the art” new plant to pollute Rugby residents unnecessarily. One of these conditions was that Rugby Cement should provide a “Particle Inventory for all Sources”, which OF COURSE should have been part of the IPC application in 1999. And even failing that should have been part of the 2001 IPPC application. However the Agency chose to HIDE its own January 2003 report (AQMAU) and allow Rugby Cement a further 2 years in which to produce the report. It was finally issued in January 2005, and admits that the cement mills alone are responsible for about 100 times MORE particulate pollution in Rugby than the main stack, which is why the Agency and Rugby Borough Council only wanted the public to look at the main stack emissions.
6. “The highest predicted ground level PM10 concentrations occur due to emissions from the cement mills, due to the HIGH VOLUME of emissions and the number of emissions from this source type.”
7. The Environment Agency had been told this by the CHMRC in an October 2001 report that was kept secret from the public: “Maximum modelled particulate emissions to air from all the cement mills also clearly exceed the benchmark values for air. Although exceedence of these benchmarks alone is not necessarily a cause for concern for the Health Authority as its interest lies in ground level concentrations, the significance of an exceedence of these benchmark standards should nevertheless be considered by the Environment Agency.” They did consider them and decided to hide them!
8. The result was that, in order to gain the IPPC PERMIT, the public were told LIES!!! that the contribution from the whole plant and installation plant was “very small”, and “insignificant” and only added about 0.17 micrograms to long term values of PM10 particulate.

SLOWLY, SLOWLY, SLOWLY, THE TRUTH IS BEING DRAGGED OUT OF ALL THOSE INVOLVED IN THIS WICKED AND HEINOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER.

CEMEX to produce company accounts

Due on the 3rd October at Warwick Court.

Warwick Court No.2. 25th August : Cemex Committal for Sentence: EA to prosecute Cemex for dumping about 4 tonnes dust on local people/houses/cars up to 4 kilometres away - apparently from an open door on 14th October 2005. Cemex had already owned up at Rugby Magistrate's Court, from where the Case had been transferred for sentencing.

The presiding court recorder was not happy as he had just received an unsigned Witness Statement from Cemex, and an internet printout, a 165 page Bundle, and a new report from Professor Harrison at Birmingham University, and in order to be fair to the Company he needed to call for an adjournment for Cemex to provide company accounts.

He had realised there were NO FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS from Cemex. He said that it could mean great ramifications for the Company, when they could be fined an unlimited substantial penalty. He was adjourning it to received written submissions to keep the court focus.

The Recorder mentioned the Milford Haven and Anglian Water Appeals which had been lodged against an amount which the Companies said they could not pay as they "did not have enough money in their piggy bank." It must be a matter for Cemex to bring their accounts (or their piggy banks) and to do Justice we need as much information as possible.

Lucky for Cemex they had "discovered" in a "cloud of pollution" a healthy defending barrister from under the now defunct Southam Rugby Cement plant, who had lived 20 years in Long Itchington "under Smokey Joe" (as all the children called the Southam cement works), and she, being one of the lucky ones, has not got Asthma.