BYPASS DUST RAINS!

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

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?

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?

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

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

..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

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!

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

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!

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?

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!

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?

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

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

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...

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!