MYSTERY DUST EXPLAINED?

AS MERELY SPRING CLEANING?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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