GAGGING GOES ON

RBC ISSUES A FURTHER GAGGING ORDER:
RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM 24TH JANUARY ALSO TO BE GAGGED.
RUGBY PEOPLE HAVE UNTIL 31ST JANUARY TO MAKE THEIR FEELINGS KNOWN, TO MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD - EXCEPT THAT RBC HAS BANNED ALL PUBLIC DISCUSSION!

COMMUNITY FORUM is NOT ALLOWED to discuss the CEMEX TYRE TRIALS REPORT!

NOT ALLOWED to discuss the issue of the cement plant becoming a CO-INCINERATOR!

NOT ALLOWED to even discuss the cement plant at all.
RBC TELLS 90,000 PEOPLE OF RUGBY TO SHUT UP!
RBC WILL NOT ALLOW ANY DISCUSSION AT ALL IN THIS GULAG! UNTIL WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THE CO-INCINERATOR! SILENCE!

Following on from their successful limiting of the discussion on the TYRE BURNING TRIAL to a few carefully chosen councillors, and the banning of any input by the community or any community groups at the 14th December closed meeting of the Environment Panel, the RBC MAFIA now turns its attention to the Community Forum and issues a gagging order on that. The Public must not be allowed to speak on any account! The red herring of "health experts" is introduced just in time to prevent any discussion on TYRES and CO-INCINERATION until it is TOO LATE!

RUGBY IN PLUME WELCOMES THE HEALTH EXPERTS and feels sure they will learn a lot first-hand from the first item on the AGENDA that must be the CEMEX TYRE REPORT, and the principle of CO-INCINERATION. They, LIKE US, will be able to ask the Agency and Cemex questions, as realistically how can they discuss the health effects if they do not know what the emissions are? And for how many hours a day no ELVs apply? There are many issues still outstanding from the Cemex 353 page Tyre Trial Report - such as the MOST BASIC one - that the EMISSION LIMITS being used in the FINAL REPORT seem to be the wrong ones? Regarding the 2003 agreed Critical Success Factor 1: The Emission Limit Values quoted in the report do not seem to have come from the table in the 2003 Permit, and are much HIGHER than those agreed in 2003. Where have they come from?

So far five of the panel members have requested that the TYRES to be given the top slot. If you OBJECT to the GAGGING of the FORUM, and if you want to have your say at the FORUM, which is the ONLY OPPORTUNITY for the public to speak, please write to Carolyn Robbins, and MP Jeremy Wright who is a member of the Forum, and to the PRESS.

RE: RCCF Meeting 24th January 2007
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006

Sean

I think that it would be very SENSIBLE to RESTRICT the next forum meeting to the health issues and as Chair of the forum I would suggest that ANY OTHER ITEMS ARE LIMITED. I welcome the opportunity to have this discussion as it has long been an issue of contention amongst all forum members. If, as you suggest, the item is dealt with first, there should be ample time for questions and a full discussion. The minutes and any other business can then be dealt with for the remainder of the time available.

Thank you for organising this.

Regards

Carolyn

Councillor Carolyn Robbins
Member for Brownsover North Rugby Borough Council
Email; Carolyn.Robbins@Rugby.gov.uk

-----Original Message-----
Sent: 19 December 2006
Subject: RCCF Meeting 24th January 2007

Dear Forum members,

I am writing to advise you of a number of matters that I am sure will be of interest to you all and may perhaps influence how the agenda for the next meeting is developed.

Firstly, all forum members should understand that the Environment Agency are intending to make their decision on the use of tyres as a fuel by the end of January. Some individuals seem to have taken this to mean that they can leave making comments to the Environment Agency until the end of January, this is not an approach that I would encourage. In order for any individuals or groups comment to have the maximum potential to influence the Environment Agency's deliberations then all comments should be submitted at the earliest possible opportunity. For this reason, I would consider it to be unwise to postpone the submission of any comments to the Environment Agency. It is questionable whether having any significant debate on this issue at the
meeting on the 24th has much merit, as it would be very unlikely that any outcomes from the RCCF meeting would have the time to have a significant influence on the decision making process.

The Council's response will be formally submitted immediately after Cabinet on the 8th January, but the attached report, which has just been published as part of the Sustainable Environment Panel Minutes, has been conditionally submitted to the Agency in order to have the maximum potential influence on the process.

Secondly, We have been seeking to arrange for a number of specialists to discuss the health of local populations in the vicinity of the plant and health impact assessments. This has been an issue for many of the forum members for some time, and we have been successful in being able to have everyone available for the next forum meeting after a great deal of diary searching. I am pleased to be able to advise that Dr Tim Davies, Warwickshire NHS Director of Public Health has agreed to attend the meeting along with Pat Saunders from the Health Protection Agency to give a presentation and to discuss these issues. I would currently suggest that this issue should be the principal focus for the meeting on the 24th.

The presentation by Dr Tim Davies DPH NHS Warwickshire will cover the Rugby health profile, followed by questions. Then the presentation by Pat Saunders, of the Health Protection Agency, will discuss small area health surveys and how they are applied, again followed by questions>

I would suggest that this may well take up to at least an hour of the meeting and should perhaps be the first piece of business, ahead of minutes etc in order to ensure that this issue receives the attention it deserves.

Finally, I would advise all forum members that Cemex have formally submitted the application for a variation to their permit to allow the use of Climafuel. A copy of the application is available to be viewed on the copy of the public register that the Council holds. I am sure that the forum may wish to discuss how the Environment Agency are intending to consider this application.

I do hope that you will all consider these thoughts, when Frances asks for agenda items shortly, as it is very unusual that these meetings actually run to time or cover the full proposed agenda.

I would take this opportunity to wish you all a peaceful Christmas and a healthy new year.

Sean Lawson
Head of Environmental Health Rugby Borough Council

WHAT THE EDITOR SAYS:

ON C0-INCINERATION AT RUGBY?

AS COUNCIL ISSUES GAGGING ORDER!

1. THE EDITOR'S VIEWPOINT
(Peter Aengenheister)
(Rugby Advertiser 14 Dec.)

COUNCIL GAGS PLUME CAMPAIGNERS
Tonight (Thursday) there is a public meeting to further discuss Cemex's report justifying tyre burning. (see below). Members of the public are able to speak on the basis of having produced submitted questions - all except Lilian Pallikaropoulos, and anyone from
Rugby in Plume! Anti cement works campaigner and RIP stalwart Mrs. P. although now unable to attend was told she was barred from making any vocal representation.

Mrs. P. had submitted seven written questions but Sean Lawson Head of EHO at RBC says the questions were not relevant to the issues on the Agenda. The aim of the meeting was to scrutinise a Cemex report which justifies tyre-burning and Mrs. P. Claims the Council is trying to GAG HER!

That WOULD APPEAR TO BE THE CASE - at least that is the way it appears. It also APPEARS that the Council is being DICTATORIAL and MANIPULATING, and not in the most constructive way. It might give the Council a smoother meeting, but, true or not, it will be considered WHITEWASHED WITH SPIN, and the DEBATE STIFLED and UNREPRESENTATIVE!

We will be there tonight at the Town Hall at 5.30pm to see whether the Council's jack-booted storm troopers are forced to eject Mrs.P's GANG of AGITATORS, DISSIDENTS and INSURGENTS from Rugby in Plume? I hear on the grapevine that RBC may soon be investing in a PR man - not before time!

(Lilian's footnote: What, a PR man to tell people "nicely" to "shut up and go away!"? A fat lot of good that will do them, but maybe they can get one from the Environment Agency - or Cemex? They have plenty!)


2. WHAT THE ADVERTISER SAYS:

CAMPAIGNERS "GAGGED" BY COUNCIL
(Philip Hibble)

An anti-tyre burning campaign group claims it has been "gagged" after being told none of its members are allowed to speak at a crunch public meeting about Rugby Cement (tonight). Rugby Borough Council has defended its actions to SILENCE pressure group RUGBY IN PLUME, claiming the questions it has submitted were not relevant to tonight's debate. But the group's spokesperson, Lilian Pallikaropoulos, believes the decision will anger many residents who are concerned about tyre burning.

However the group said it had been lifted by an independent report that advises the Council to tell the Environment Agency NOT to allow tyre-burning at Rugby Cement. The Report written by Dr Mike Holland for RBC's Sustainable Environment Panel said that Rugby Cement owners Cemex has not provided enough information to prove tyre burning is safe for the residents of Rugby.

Mrs Pallikaropoulos said:

"The report only says what I have been saying all along - but it is ridiculous that I am not being allowed to say it myself. It seems I have been gagged and silenced and the people of Rugby should realise what's happening here is very, very serious. I admit that I have got cross and become rather 'insulting', but this has been totally justified by the Council's treatment of me."

But Sean Lawson, Head of Environmental Health for RBC said his (and Chris Holman's) decision is totally justified, as the questions RIP wanted to ask were not, (in his view), relevant to the meeting. He said the public meeting has been arranged to specifically scrutinise Cemex's report on its tyre-burning trials, and recommendations will be passed on to the Environment Agency, who has the final say on whether tyre burning should happen in Rugby.

Cemex, who have been trialling tyre-burning at its Lawford Road plant claim the report shows that the alternative fuel method is both economically and environmentally friendly. "There was an open invitation for anyone to make their submissions and speak to the meeting" said Mr Lawson, "but the questions RIP put forward did not address the issues that will be debated. However anyone is WELCOME to make their comments directly to the Environment Agency. Anyone is welcome to attend tonight's meeting which will be held at the Town Hall at 5.30 pm."

3. WHAT THE PEOPLE SAY:
POSTBAG

COUNCIL JOB FOR LILIAN?

I rang RBC today to ask about benzene emissions during the recent tyre trial at the cement works in Rugby. The officer I was put through to suggested I make any representations to the Environment Agency. I pointed out that the Borough Council is responsible for Air Quality Management, including benzene levels, by Law.

I asked if the benzene levels outside the works were monitored and recorded during the burning of tyres. He said if I wanted detailed information I could visit the Public Register, or contact Mrs Lilian Pallikaropoulos.

Finally the officer I spoke to - Mr Sean Lawson - admitted that NO low level measurement of benzene had been carried out, to his knowledge, during the tyre burning. As the only monitors were in the stack (which recorded benzene) there must be a whole raft of emissions missed from the calculation.

Perhaps the Council could employ Lilian to explain about LOW LEVEL FUGITIVE EMISSIONS and EFFECTS on HEALTH from benzene etc - preferably BEFORE RBC puts in its submission?

Mrs M Horner
Clitheroe.

HONESTY NEEDED IN THIS DEBATE!
(letter of the week)

If you were hoping to attend the RBC meeting tonight regarding plans to turn the Cement Works into a CO-INCINERATOR for London's refuse, and watch democracy in action, or perhaps dive in with a question, then think again! It would seem that unless your question was at the Town Hall by last Friday to be scrutinised, vetted, or discarded by council officers to ENSURE NO DISSENTING VOICES ARE HEARD then YOUR VIEWS ARE NOT WELCOME!

Here's one question you will not hear answered. Why is it that vast amounts of data relating to the chimney emissions are simply left out of the published figures simply because they do not provide the sanitised view that both the Environment Agency and Cemex want us to believe?

When the kiln is lit it's similar to starting your car on a winter's morning with the choke fully out, but they don't count that. When they switch the kiln off it's pretty much the same, and again that's not included in the figures: ONLY when the KILN is STABILISED does the clock start ticking!

Now you may say to yourself "that can't be right; I still live under it, and breathe the air that it contaminates, and how can this be allowed?"

Well just so you are in no doubt about how skewed the figures they want us to believe are, the chimney is allowed to run for a total of 60 hours per year with absolutely no filtration at all as a government provided loophole, just so that the figures do not rise during the frequent emergencies at the plant.

While all this is going on 90,000 residents - that's you and me - are breathing this cocktail of chemicals. We can't don breathing apparatus during these periods. Just when are we going to get some honesty in this debate?

At the present time the Warwickshire County Council wants the INCINERATOR: The Borough Council wrings its hands and refuses to STAND UP and BE COUNTED, and the Environment Agency has NEVER REFUSED A LICENCE IN ITS HISTORY.

Just what do we have to do to ensure the HEALTH and SAFETY of future generations?

Gareth Prewett.
Long Lawford.
Rugby.

4. WHAT THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY SAYS:
"Nothing" - struck dumb as usual. Refuses to answer any questions.
Attended 14th December Council meeting. Why? As observers?

5. WHAT CEMEX SAYS:
In 13,000 Community Matters December Newsletters delivered somewhere (?) near you:

TYRES:
"The company’s final report to the Environment Agency shows that six out of seven critical success factors were met during the use of chipped tyres. The seventh factor involves an acceptable assessment by EA officers which is now awaited. Those already achieved include the fact that, using EA methodology, the overall environmental impact of the plant was lower when using tyres as an alternative fuel.

# In particular there was a significant reduction in oxides of nitrogen emissions.
# The plant complied with emission limit values set. (oh??)
# The energy efficiency of the process was unchanged.
# Operation of the plant was stable.
# Stability was achieved between fuel changes.

Alternative fuels are important to us in reducing costs and remaining competitive without which we could not stay in business."

FACT FINDING MISSION:
"Sean Lawson; Chris Holman and Carolyn Robbins (have I heard those names somewhere before?) "Flew to Germany to see for themselves a Cemex plant that has been using tyres and Climafuel for some years. Also involved were neighbours whose garden (SINGULAR) backs onto the plant."

APPEAL ON FINE:
"Cemex UK has announced that it is appealing against the £400,000 fine the company was ordered to pay by Warwick Crown Court for a "dust incident" in Rugby in October 2005. While Cemex UK deeply regrets and takes full responsibility for the incident the company feels the level of the fine is excessive and disproportionate. It is expected that an appeal could be heard by the High Court in London in early 2007."

FILTER ON COURSE:
"£6.5 MILLION bag filter to be connected in February shut down. Cemex UK have confirmed that, regardless of the outcome of its application, it will not use tyres on a permanent basis until the installation of the new bag filter has been completed" in February 2007.

(Footnote: How magnanimous of them! What is that supposed to mean? So if the answer is "NO to tyre burning" they will not burn them until after the bag filter is fitted?)

CLAY SOURCE SWITCHES:
"2,000 tonnes a day of clay is now required to be transported by road from Southam to Rugby. In order to minimise the impact of the traffic a circular route has been devised. In addition the "small amount of dust" produced at Rugby that have to be disposed in landfill at Southam can be carried by clay lorries returning to Southam by a different rout.

Prior to despatch the dust undergoes a heat treatment process which creates nodules that cannot be wind-blown. The nodules are still hot when they leave the plant and it is QUITE COMMON to see STEAM rising from vehicles as they travel to Southam."

(Footnote: This dust is hazardous waste called BYPASS dust. Many people have
experienced the white spots all over their cars on this route as the dust
escapes from the clay-lorry covers, dropping in the town and villages
along the 13 miles to Southam. RIDICULOUS: Rugby has NO RAW MATERIAL and has not had any for many years LONG BEFORE the new plant, which opened in 2000, was even at the planning stage. At Southam they have clay, and a landfill, and a pipeline with the chalk from Kensworth, so there was no NEED AT ALL to dump the POLLUTION and the cement plant on 60,000 Rugby residents - where there are NO RAW MATERIALS: NO ROADS: NO RAILWAY CONNECTIONS: NO LANDFILL: They dug up a bit of clay temporarily in desperation at Lodge Farm Rugby, after Southam quarry was suspended in 2003 due to a shortage of suitable consented reserves.)

6. WHAT THE TYRE BURNING REVIEW GROUP SAYS:
Concluded that the consultation draft by Cemex did NOT PROVE THAT ANY OF THE SEVEN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS HAD BEEN MET, and that there are significant deficiencies in the Cemex report, and many gaps in the data. This group was formed by the RCCF and will meet again on January 17th at the RCCF meeting.

7. WHAT THE RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM SAYS:
Find out on 17th January 2007 when they will meet, with members of the public also allowed to have their say, before a final reply is given to the Agency on the "Final Cemex Tyre Report".

8. WHAT RBC'S SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT PANEL SAYS:
This is still in draft from 14th December CLOSED meeting, but they try to exorcise any mention of the TYRE TRIALS that were taking place 11th October to 20th October 2005, and which included the 14/15 October pollution incident and £400,000 fine. The Chair did his utmost at the 14th December
NON-INCLUSIVE meeting to get any reference to that incident REMOVED from the draft Report of Dr Mike Holland. We will soon find out how much the Chair (fresh from his visit to Cemex Germany with Cemex Rugby managers, and Sean Lawson and Carolyn Robbins) managed to sway the Councillors who attended. It is worth re-iterating at this point that it was Sean Lawson and Chris Holman who decided to exclude me, and any or all member of Rugby in Plume from the meeting - presumably in order to ENSURE that ALL REFERENCES to this INCIDENT and TYRE BURNING get removed. We will see if Dr Mike Holland has done the bidding of Cemex and Chris, and cleansed and santised the report, or if he will add a disclaimer? His draft report is very clear on this issue "INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PERIOD 11-20 OCTOBER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AND IS ESSENTIAL FOR ANYONE TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF WHAT WAS DONE DURING THE TRIAL AND WHEN IT WAS DONE. NO EXPLANATION IS PROVIDED FOR OMITTING THE PERIOD 11-20 OCTOBER FROM THE TYRE BURNING TRIAL, ALTHOUGH IT IS KNOWN THAT TYRES WERE BEING BURNED AT THIS TIME. THIS IS IMPOTANT AS THERE WAS AMAJOR INCIDENT AT THE PLANT ON 14TH OCTOBER 2005."

9. WHAT RUGBY IN PLUME SAYS:
As we survey the scene from our vantage point, on the moral high ground, we watch the other players down below scratching in the mire of their own making. We have always behaved with propriety, and have followed a proper, open, informed, professional course of action. Rugby in Plume are not prepared to fight the Chinese army in hand to hand combat. Why should we attend the Town Hall when we were told we would be most unwelcome? Just to give them the pleasure of evicting us from the Council Chamber? It is clearly in RIP's best interest not to argue with idiots, who drag you down to their level and beat you on experience - of which they obviously have plenty!

Time is on our side as we have until the end of January to make our submissions, long after the meeting of the RCCF, the TBRG, and after studying the final report of RBC. I am sure the Environment Agency is in no hurry to make yet another unworthy, unwarranted and unjustifiable decision?
After all if they have learnt anything from their past mistakes they will not want to repeat the same misdemeanours and be tied up for years in yet another JUDICIAL REVIEW?

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