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"
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment