RUGBY.. DIRTIEST GRUBBIEST TOWN

TOWN COATED IN MYSTERY DUST - YET AGAIN!
THAT'S OFFICIAL!

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY IN DENIAL - YET AGAIN!

* "Our 2006 air quality survey (see RBC web) does not support Lilian's suggestion that she is merely a spokesperson for an actively-concerned public : it indicates that most people are broadly satisfied with their local environment and air quality."

* "Local residents have failed to show any continuing interest in operations at the Rugby plant."

* The Agency simply does not believe people in Rugby are bothered at all about the cement works, nor about being covered in dust and pollution, and claims "the extent of the residents' concerns is questionable".

* "There is no evidence of widespread public support or concern in Rugby."

* The Agency criticised the Rugby public's lack of response to the continuous consultations on yet ever more Cemex applications, describing Rugby residents as having no "active interest"!



RESIDENTS UP IN ARMS - YET AGAIN! as yet another bank Holiday is spent washing their cars and windows after an over night coating with dust. The "dust", which was so thick that residents could not even see out of their car windows, has coated cars, conservatories, caravans, window ledges and any other flat surfaces, and has been reported across the whole of the town after a still, airless night.


ENVIRONMENT AGENCY BESIEGED - YET AGAIN!
Complaints have deluged the Environment Agency switchboard, with calls right across the town from Long Lawford, New Bilton, Bilton , Hillmorton - postal codes CV22, CV21, and CV23.


LORDS JUDGEMENT RIGHT - YET AGAIN! * "After all the inhabitants of Rugby had been living with A cement works for a long time..."
* "In other words there was already so much dust in the air of Rugby..." that perhaps adding a few more hundred tonnes a year makes no difference?
* "The local people were sceptical and reluctant to be experimented upon."


DR EVANS OF RUGBY CEMENT EXPLAINS - YET AGAIN!
that Rugby Cement did not consider it necessary to tell the public AT ANY STAGE, - not during the "secret" WCC planning application/s, nor during construction, nor during the secret IPC, nor during the grossly misleading IPPC application that they cunningly called "tyre burning application" - about the levels of dust to which they would be constantly exposed from the Low Level Point Sources, and about the frequent exposure to "fugitive dust".

House of Lords 19/20:

QUOTE: "The application said nothing however about the effect of adding the contribution of emissions of PM10 from LLPS to the ambient air quality.
The consultants had not been asked to include these emissions in their computer model. Dr Evans explained in his second witness statement: 'The rationale for this was that releases from the main stack were considered to be of more significance than those from other point sources such as the cement mills, where there would be lower discharge volumes and concentrations. We considered the general risk assessment approach to be satisfactory and in line with general guidance.' One reason for excluding the LLPS from the company's modelling exercise MAY have been the GREAT DIFFICULTY of doing so with ANY PRETENCE AT ACCURACY.

Whereas emissions from the main stack are continuous (???!) and from a single fixed point above all surrounding buildings, the emissions from the LLPS are from a number of different places at different heights for irregular periods of time and MAYBE (???!) affected by the layout of the buildings. An attempt at modelling MAY therefore not have been able to produce very helpful information."

LILIAN'S COMMENT :"A LIKELY STORY" - YET AGAIN!
Is this a joke? So they built a 2,000,000 tonne a year capacity cement works, with NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT!
Then they admit that neither the EA nor Rugby Cement, and much less so the hapless Warwickshire County Council planners, had ever considered WHAT EMISSIONS were to come out of it from the various sources, and WHERE the emissions were to fall and what environmental, air quality and health impact this would have on the long-suffering Rugby residents?

Even though the plant had, by the time of the IPPC application, been running for 18 months still there was NO REAL LIVE DATA available from the 19 LLPS as they have NO MONITORS at all! Rugby Cement "attempted" to do some dispersion modelling of what they said was "from the the installation", but it was in fact of the "main stack only", in order to convince the "sceptical public who were reluctant to be experimented upon" that there was "no problem".
No information was in the public domain, and with repeated complaints by the dust-coated public the Agency then decided to "dispersion model" the emissions from the LLPS - in two secret AQMAU reports - which shocked both them and Rugby Cement so much that they decided to hide them. "Rugby Cement expressed great concern about this information getting into the public domain!" Even at the end of 2002 the Agency could not get information
out of Rugby Cement as to what was being emitted from where, because no-one had EVER considered it as important, and Rugby Cement struggled to find any "ACTUAL DATA" to give to the Agency. The Agency's top scientists in the AQMAU team said this application fell far short of what would be considered adequate, and there were so many gaps in the data - despite the plant having run for THREE YEARS!!

However the Health Protection Agency, under its former name of the Chemical Hazards Research Unit at Birmingham University had already pointed out in response to the IPPC application, in 2001, (the application that ONLY they ever saw!!) that the mills and other low level sources were emitting at far too high a rate and were likely to be very detrimental to the air quality in Rugby. No level of particulate is safe!