BATTLE OF THE GIANTS:

EA; WCC; TREASURY; CEMEX and MRS P: she who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day!

FOUL PLAY AT WARWICKS COUNTY COUNCIL

WCC are STILL in total disarray over waste plant refusal at Southam as the OFFICERS ATTEMPT to "re-write history" - the "exact reasons" why the county councillors went against the officers recommendation and said NO!! to the Southam application. For 18 months WCC officers and CEMEX insisted the two applications were identical, but on the 17 November MOB RULE was theme of the day as the councillors were over whelmed by Southam supporters.

Of course they cannot invent reasons why Rugby is a "better site" as actually it is by far the "worse site" - but cheaper for CEMEX who always get what they want!

DECEMBER 14 REGULATORY CHAOS IN "CARRY ON COUNCILLORS!!" (See WCC web)

WCC Discriminates : by the naming of only one person (no prizes for guessing who) out of all the public present. Why? WCC keeps incorrect/incomplete minutes for 17 Nov - none of councillors' reasons for refusing Southam minuted; motion against Rugby omitted: WCC causes distress to the six Councillors present at both meetings - who were unable to agree minutes/reasons for refusal. (Councillors Joan Lea; Jose Compton; Eithne Goode;Clare Hopkinson; Mike Perry; Chris Williams.) WCC's solicitor P Endall says they "cannot give the reasons for refusal of Southam waste plant today due to intense work pressure." HA!


START A BRAVE NEW YEAR?
One thinking councillor asks "where does this planning decision stand if no reasons have been given?" Jasbir Kaur says "Minutes now public - we only have to give correct planning reasons, correct terminology for the reasons for refusal, that members gave. (hmm!) We are minded to give no reasons, but to leave it over until the next meeting - next year in 2010!" Councillor: "Its about the process, and if it was not formally agreed and reasons given for refusal I cannot see that it is refused and legal?" "I agree! This is an incorrect process and is not minuted - the reasons for refusal - and it is not valid." Rugby Councillors Cllr Robbins and Hazelton then BRAVELY left the room - because they did not want to hear what was said about it. (HOW VERY ODD??)


CLLRS TRAINING - TO REOPEN APPLICATION
Cllr Sweet said " We have training and If you refuse a planning permission you have to give the planning reasons - I was not here - so will the full application come again before this committee to give the reasons?" Cllr Joan Lea Chair said : " that the reasons had been given VERY CLEARLY at the meeting - but just not written down - just not minuted." HOW VERY VERY ODD!! J Kaur said : "the reasons given were traffic, and others things, and whatever they were we have to make them clear and give them to you." P Endall: " Jasbir can correct me if I am wrong; the decision to refuse must be set out. It is complex, therefore not the reasons stated by the councillors in cases of great complexity. This is too complex and sometimes it is necessary to take the reasons given by the members and take them away and re-write them - write them in planning terms that would not be subject to a legal challenge."


CEMEX NOT TO CHALLENGE - BUT PUBLIC MIGHT!
"How many days do they get for making a challenge?" Officer: "I do not think they will challenge as they had the Rugby permission." Cllr Jose Compton: "I appreciate there are pressures on the officers - but now I would not be happy to say that it was what they said. If there is pressure on the officers they should have finished that off, not bring in more things." Cllr Williams: "So what is happening about the Decision Notice?" Officer: "It does not have one yet - they could appeal against non-determination." "We may be in danger of trespassing on legal time limit." Cllr: "So where doe it leave us?" Peter Endall: "This is slightly different because there were 2 applications and given that the other was passed they will not be challenging."


LESS THAN IDEAL - OR COMPLETE FIASCO?
Cllr: "I cannot accept it!" Cllr: "And I cannot accept it!" P Endall: "It is less than ideal not to give the reason." "Do we need an extraordinary meeting to look at it - to look at reasons for refusal. There is a 40 day time limit, and this is dreadfully bad practice." Councillors cries of "Here Here!!" P Endall: "We will go way and discuss and send out an email today to say whether we need a SPECIAL (in secret???) meeting to give the reasons for refusal - if this is necessary?"


OMBUDSMAN - MALADMINISTRATION
I commented that "Such malpractice and maladministration is disgraceful and unacceptable behavior." Mrs Lea shouting me down from the Chair said I was not to speak! BUT she seems to forget that they have a duty to the public as well - not just to their masters - Cemex!!! OMBUDSMAN should investigate this ABUSE OF PROCESS - yet another WCC environmental disaster, in which the officers misled and misinformed the councillors, by trying to "pretend" the two applications were identical so as to get around the EIA REQUIREMENT to compare the applications openly, and honestly, so that the councillors and public had guidance from the professionals involved. Instead the two applications were treated as "completely separate", but as "completely identical". Many public meetings went on in Southam while Rugby residents were REFUSED any public meetings. County Councillor Gordon Collett , still clutching the keys to the £22,500 CEMEX minibus, (he who said of waste burning in the 2006 meeting - "thank you Cemex - if we do not get hysterical we can get this through!" came in very heavy handed to not only one, but two Rugby Community Cement Forum meetings and insisted that there could be NO PUBLIC MEETINGS IN RUGBY! He said it would be "scare mongering" and "rabble rousing" to allow the people of Rugby to meet and discuss the issues. The very limited Cemex presentation at Rugby was ONLY for Rugby and not about Southam - so how could anyone compare? The whole thing was a stitch-up and a con by Cemex and WCC officers and some disreputable councillors.

GAME IS UP!
There was no comparison; no proper Environmental Impact Assessment; no BPEO; no Proximity Principle; no consideration of the full cumulative Cemex health impact; no consideration of sensitive lorry miles; no consideration of alternative transport; no consideration of the CORBY effect of digging up the CKD landfill; no consideration of harm and loss of amenity; WCC officers said to ignore Rugby Boroough Councils 70 page report. Once again Warwickshire County Council bow down to their masters at Rugby Cement and engage in malpractice to the great disbenefit and harm to RUGBY and its 60,000 residents - as 48 Rugby Councillors "run away!"

Environmental Vandalism!

RUGBY SURVIVAL KIT!

CEMEX RUGBY 500,000 tpa WASTE PROCESSING PLANT -

NOISE; DUST; ODOUR; POLLUTION; LORRIES

ALL TO BE CONTROLLED BY HIGH TECH SOLUTION

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL SAYS DUMP IT IN RUGBY!

WITH A GRUMBLE HOT-LINE FOR COMPLAINTS - A PROBLEM SHARED IS A PROBLEM HALVED!

"WHAT IS BAD FOR SOUTHAM IS EQUALLY BAD FOR RUGBY!" said the thinking councillor. These two applications were described by WCC officers as "IDENTICAL IN EVERY WAY" and there was "NO MEANS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THEM!" We cannot make ANY comparison because they are EXACTLY THE SAME - except for - the differences.

DESPITE THE CEMEX OFFER OF £1,700,000 SECTION 106 TO UPGRADE ROADS IT WAS THROWN OUT AT SOUTHAM ON GROUNDS OF: ODOUR; NOISE FROM FANS;

HEAVY LORRIES, NOISE, VIBRATION, LACK OF SLEEP; HOUSES FALLING DOWN; CANNOT CROSS ROADS; CHILDREN ENDANGERED; SCHOOLS INACCESSIBLE; ROAD DAMAGE, ACCIDENTS CAUSED; VERMIN; FLIES; AND POLLUTION, ESPECIALLY NITROGEN DIOXIDE LIKE THEY HAVE IN RUGBY IN THE AQMA - FROM LORRIES!! CEMEX HAS 800+ LORRIES IN RUGBY ALREADY SO A FEW MORE HUNDRED EACH DAY WILL REALLY HELP IMPROVE AIR QUALITY THERE!! SOUTHAM IS NOT TO BE A WASTE DUMP AND WE MUST PROTECT THE VILLAGES!

RUGBY COUNCILLORS FAILED TO SHOW UP

One WCC councillor said he could have had more concern for the people of Rugby if their Councillors had turned up. A planning officer CRITICISED RBC EHO's air quality report against the proposal for contradicting themselves. Councillors should NOT consider air quality and the AQMA for nitrogen dioxide from HGVs as an issue.

The Environment Agency would/could GUARANTEE the emissions in their forthcoming permit - no need to consider POLLUTION as the Agency would take care AFTER IT WAS BUILT! Just as they do with

the Cemex Cement co-incinerator? WCC thought that the "proximity principle" ONLY applied to building the waste plant NEXT to the Cemex plant, and did NOT apply to the proximity to the WASTE ARISINGS. Waste from ends of earth is fine - for Rugby.

LOCATION is very "nice and convenient" on a CKD landfill, next to the historic River Avon and cement plant that had always been there all their 70 years, and was so good to see and and had a lovely view from the tower. "Goose or dove wing grey" would match existing plant, and not show cement dust all over it. One lady councillor hoped the re-opening of the

landfill would not have a "CORBY" effect.

SO CONVENIENT FOR WASTE - a lovely new Western Relief Road right up to it and a beautiful roundabout. And they would have a lovely conveyor IF they could get it passed after FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT

over the West Coast mainline. That is RICHARD BRANSON'S PROBLEM!

EMISSIONS: HEALTH EFFECTS?

As long as we can say that "ground level pollution is less than the objective" we can do what we want, and also get £1,700,000 highways money.

Short term pollution incidents were not considered nor were any cumulative effects. Health?

HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU?

INCREASE IN TOXIC EMISSIONS

YEAR ON YEAR - PERMITTED IN SECRET BY ENVIRONMENT AGENCY!

HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU?
DEFRA DOES NOT KNOW WHAT ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ARE UP TO IN DEFRA'S NAME!

DEFRA 15 October 2009: "The annual releases of the plant remain well below the MAXIMUM LEVELS allowed by the Permit. The Environment Agency assessed these maximum levels as environmentally acceptable when the ORIGINAL Permit application was determined." Actually, Defra is TOTALLY WRONG! The original IPC Permit was granted IN SECRET contrary to EU and UK Law in September 1999 , before the plant was built, and operated in February 2000. Quite simply there was NO public consultation of any kind, and NO Environment Agency assessment , as it was all carried out in July 1999 IN the GREATEST SECRECY and no MAXIMUM LEVELS were set!!

IPPC APPLICATION in 2001 : (granted August 2003) again there were no maximum levels, and no-one was told that 'year on year' they could WILFULLY INCREASE the pollution year on year "up to the (secret?) maximum level "!! The EA naturally cannot provide any paperwork of 'maximum levels' or of 'any of the public response to that'. Imagine the scene : "We at the Agency reserve the right to increase and increase toxic pollution onto you for ever, increasing and increasing up to a set maximum that we have decided, in secret and we refuse to tell you anything about it." Would have gone down a bomb?!

DEFRA GLOATING:
"The suggestion that an appropriate ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT for the plant has never been carried out has been thoroughly tested and dismissed. This was concluded from a Judicial Review of the Environment Agency's 2003 decision to grant a Permit under the PPC Regulations 2000. This has been repeatedly upheld by the Courts up to the House of Lords, who dismissed the final appeal in April 2008 and awarded the Environment Agency costs." "The Court of Appeal recognised that the EIA Directive is not absolutely clear in respect of the use of waste-based substitute fuels, but were unanimous that IF an EIA was required by the Directive, then the environmental assessment which formed part of the application for the PPC permit had met that requirement." ER no SORRY - once again this is all untrue.


MISINFORMATION and MISDIRECTION RESULTS: The House of Lords gave no reasons for their bizarre decision, but we can only assume they were wrongly persuaded by the "supposedly trustworthy" Agency lawyers? Result - Mrs P now has to pay over £100,000 because the EA, acting on Defra's behalf, has not told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and has MISDIRECTED the courts both on the substance of the case, and about the Rugby residents and about me personally. The EA has made sworn witness statements claiming such: No-one has any concern in Rugby, or elsewhere, about the ongoing (INCREASES) emissions at the plant; this is of no public interest; she is one wealthy individual, who is all alone, with her own private campaign; there is no interest in Rugby or elsewhere (except of course masses of interest to the UK government and European Courts!) and no one else is prepared to speak up about this injustice - and more such drivel! When asked to provide any PROOF for such ridiculous claims the EA has been unable to supply one bit of evidence - for the very obvious reasons.


ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:

"Mrs P repeatedly conflates quite discrete issues, explains complex issues inaccurately, and approaches scientific issues in a simplistic and unscientific manner. She attempts to equate absence of scientific uncertainty with certainty of harm, which is a profoundly incorrect approach. Fundamentally Mrs P fails to acknowledge - but she does not and cannot contradict - a plethora of evidence now showing that (a) the 'normal' operation of the Rugby Cement works does not cause and never caused a significant environmental impact and (b) that the introduction of wastes as fuel has produced significant environmental improvements in performance."

i.e YEAR ON YEAR MASSIVE INCREASES IN TOXIC POLLUTANTS out of all proportion to any claimed increase in production!!

And Defra say the Environment Agency told us this? Pull the other leg!

ACCESS TO JUSTICE?
Not in the UK.
Not for anyone who tells the truth.


HUMAN RIGHTS?
Not applicable to Rugby!

RUGBY FIRE STATION - CEMEX BLAZING

photo by kind permission of geograph.org.uk
© Copyright Ian Rob <http://www.geograph.org.uk/profile/1208>


RUGBY ADVERTISER reports on "anger of protesters as fire service review plans are shot down in flames" - fire stations are cut from 19 to 12 in Warwickshire.
What does the Fire Service know about the highly flammable tonnes of waste and tyres stockpiled outside at the Cemex co-incinerator? Not a lot!
No-one seems to know who is responsible for the storage of so many tonnes of waste in this town?

WASTE OF SPACE!
CEMEX and ENVIRONMENT AGENCY require EVER MORE WASTE to fire up hungry co-incinerator. They apply for 65% replacement by RDF, of ever increased toxicity and hazards. Cemex require as much waste as they can get - where ever it comes from!! They are "in competition with the planned Coventry Incinerator" to get 300,000 tonnes a year of waste as cheaply as possible - actually be paid as much as possible to burn it. Where is the benefit to the community?

RUGBY'S WASTE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!
Cemex require 300,000 tpa commercial, industrial, and a bit of household waste residue (15,000 tpa in Rugby) to make into 150,000 tpa of RDF. BUT this waste is not of a required specification - and needs another 125,000 tpa of already made RDF to BLEND IN to obtain the required specification.

RUGBY'S RUBBISH IS SIMPLY RUBBISH!
NOT a "local solution to a local problem", after all BUT MORE LIKE a "local Rugby problem caused by other peoples faraway solutions!"
Remember Gordon Collett and the Cemex keys to a £23,000 minibus to "help the aged in his village"?

EVER BEEN CONNED?

CEMEX LATEST

SOLD CHEAP to Holcim $1.7 billion in Australian assets - to help get out of mess. Shares re-issued 1.495 billion so prices down 3.3%, running about $12 each.

EU COMMISSION AND NATIONAL ANTI-TRUST BODIES investigate CEMEX in Spain and raid its offices, along with offices of Holcim and other cement companies.
On suspicion of violating anti-trust legislation! Price fixing still being investigated in the UK from November 2008 raid.

MOCK THE WEAK?

RUGBY CELEBRATES ITS HERITAGE!
Rugby Observer 17 Sept front page photo showed a beaming Cemex employee, seemingly looking down his nose on the 60,000 residents. As Cemex proudly celebrated Rugby's HERITAGE with a view of Rugby from the nine-year old Rugby Cement HERITAGE pre-heater tower, the rest of Rugby shut its doors and windows to keep out the toxic fumes! The Daventry plastics fire, on 1 October, caused all schools in the area to be closed by the Health Protection Agency, due to the toxic emissions, even as far away as Weedon.


CEMEX CO-INCINERATE 1,000 T WASTE DAILY
The Environment Agency, "consulting" Rugby residents, asks if it is of "great environmental and health benefit to Rugby residents" if Cemex up the WASTE BURN RATE to 720 + tonnes a day of increased toxicity RDF (along with 240 tones of tyres) in the low-temperature combustion chamber, in the HERITAGE TOWER? No details of the potential emissions are given in this GUESSTIMATE application. The previous 15 tph RDF Trial, (started in unlawful equipment 28 Feb 2008), STILL has not been determined. The decision on those "very extended trials due to the test results SHOWING GREAT INCREASES in METAL and DIOXIN emissions, and thus NOT being what they wanted to see " is on hold," while they increase the CHLORINE content of RDF by 150%; Sulphur by 100%; Fluorine, iodine and bromine by 50%, and lead by 50%. How much extra dioxin and lead is good for you, and can be said to be a "health improvement"?


INCREASED PRODUCTION - INCREASED POLLUTION
Access to the requested CHECK MONITORING, pitot, temperature and gas flows has been denied, and is available ONLY (in secret as usual) to the Environment Agency. CEMEX say: "Diagrams showing plant layout, sampling points and gas flows are not required for the determination of CLIMAFUEL as a fuel." The trials, were a year longer than permitted, due to "issues in obtaining adequate RDF supplies which delayed our ability to obtain sufficient trial hours, and because a test result showed exceedence of the metal and dioxin ELV. " SO WHY then do they want to burn increased toxic RDF at over 30 tph - if they cannot get enough lower toxic RDF to burn 15 tph? Inspection of the POLLUTION INVENTORY shows a year on year INCREASE in the recorded emissions - so goodness knows what the true total is? "We had to undertake a retest" - yes because the results of the "odd sampling test" showed very high readings, which Cemex described as spurious. Normally the plant is only SAMPLED twice a year.

HOW MUCH CONFIDENCE can the public have in this whole charade? NONE!! 4,000 + tonnes a day main stack polluted gases, and the emissions are "averaged out over the day". Plant is "shut down" when emission limits are in danger of being breached, and therefore NO EMISSION LIMITS COUNT AT ALL, as in "start-ups" to 200 tonnes an hour raw meal. Nice move! Job done! As for the short-term Ground Level Concentration - who knows? Who cares about our health? And as for the Environment Agency and its H1 assessment for the dispersion of these TOXIC GASES, Cemex says: " the Agency H1 method software tool would give a less accurate assessment which then requires accurate dispersion modelling." They use a DISPERSION FACTOR of 714,286 main stack. And all sorts of other funny figures! Without the gas flow rate no-one knows what the emissions are - so we are denied the information we need. The AGENCY and CEMEX refer only to the "milligrams in each cubic metre" but they REFUSE to advise us HOW MANY cubic meters there are - so how can anyone predict the LEVEL of POLLUTANTS BEING DEPOSITED ON RUGBY RESIDENTS? Much less the health effects!


RUGBY IN PLUME OBJECT!
ASK FOR UK AND EU LAW TO BE IMPLEMENTED!

THE CEMEX CEMENT RUGBY CO-INCINERATOR IS OPERATING WITHOUT A VALID PLANNING PERMISSION, AND VALID PERMIT
AND IS IN BREACH OF THE :
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DIRECTIVE
* IPPC DIRECTIVE
* PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DIRECTIVE


HILARY BENN SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT has been informed, and Rugby Borough Council has called FOUR times for a PUBLIC INQUIRY.

Rugby in Plume have again asked for a PI, but the government seems determined to incur
millions of EURO fines due to the UK's admitted failing to implement the EU LAWS.
INFRINGEMENT proceedings will soon begin and more of our money will be down the drain,
thanks to the NEW LABOUR and BLAIR and BROWN!

AARHUS CONVENTION?

COMING SOON IN UK - ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE?
AT LAST!!

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

RULES ON COST OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE:
An ECJ decision (C147/07 16 July 2009) related to Ireland has implications for the UK with respect to the provisions of the AARHUS CONVENTION. Pressure on the UK government to deal with the questions on the cost of environmental litigation will be increased by the infringement proceedings being brought against the Republic of Ireland

FAIR EQUITABLE TIMELY:
NOT PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE:
The so-called third pillar of Aarhus requires parties to allow members of the public and environmental organisations access to the courts to challenge the legality of many environmental decisions and other environmental law breaches.

UK/IRISH COURTS GIVEN DIRECTION how to award costs in Judicial Review proceedings, and generally follow the 'costs in the cause' principle, meaning the losing party MUST PAY the winning side's costs. Court principles allow costs to be fixed at their discretion at the start of cases involving SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INTEREST, but the 2008 Sullivan Report concluded that unless more was done the UK risked breaching Aarhus rules. The concerned Court Of Appeal again could not give a definitive ruling because of Lord Justice Jackson's ongoing fundamental review of civil costs.

EIA and IPPC:
The 1985 Directives on Environmental Assessment and 1996 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control were amended to include provisions on access to justice which reflect the Aarhus Convention, thus the obligation of providing independent JR procedures that are NOT PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE has now entered the language of substantive European Commission Law.

Irish and UK Law concerning cost and judicial discretion are similar, but are not proper transposition, which require a more definitive and binding form,
such as a court procedural role. The Commission succeeded on costs and access to justice, and although the Irish Judges had 'DISCRETION' not to awards costs against an unsuccessful party, this was not sufficient to implement the directive's requirements. 'Mere practise which cannot by definition be certain' could not be regarded as valid implementation of the obligations under the two directives.

UK GOVERNMENT'S COLD SHOULDER The UK government has an unrealistic narrow view, arguing that Aarhus costs refer only to minimal £130 fees payable in JR rather than to the HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS costs payable to the other party.
This year the Sullivan Review and Court of appeal rejected the government's unnecessarily narrow interpretation, and the advocate general's opinion was clear that the ban on prohibitively expensive costs extended to all legal costs incurred by the parties involved, and to all 'costs arising from participation' in the court procedures.

EU INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST UK:
concerning the Environmental Assessment directive and the issue of access to justice costs. No formal government response to May 2008 Sullivan Report, and the JACKSON REVIEW, (final due Xmas), noted the challenge of complying with Aarhus, and suggested possible mechanisms of reform.

WILL COMMISSION TOLERATE UK INTRANSIGENCE?
Its patience with UK prevarifications may be stretched to the limit and due to the Irish case the commission may feel confident to move on to the reasoned opinion stage of proceedings, almost inevitably leading to action before the ECJ unless the government concedes.

PAY BACK TIME?!
Is it too late for Mrs P?

DEPUTY JUDGE DAVID ELVIN QC ON HUMAN RIGHTS?

NOT APPLICABLE TO RUGBY RESIDENTS! NOR TO MRS P!
"TRANNIE RAPIST WINS MOVE TO FEMALE JAIL"
..screams the Sun, as deputy judge David Elvin QC decides that a transgender murderer and rapist should have her/his human rights protected, regardless of any public costs involved, so that he/she can wear skirts and make up in prison, and feel better about life. Great isn't it!

HUMAN RIGHTS?
DUAL STANDARDS: And how much does David Elvin care about the human rights of Rugby residents, and our right to a good built environment, amenity, decent air quality and health? And to the human rights enshrined in the AARHUS CONVENTION, and the right to ACCESS TO JUSTICE for all EU citizens, without its being "prohibitively expensive"? Not a jot!


DAVID ELVIN , acting under instruction, was the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY'S barrister who "persuaded" the five Law Lords that Rugby residents were making too much fuss when they asked for a ruling against the Agency, for its part in protecting and permitting the unlawfully built and operated RUGBY CEMENT CO-INCINERATOR. Built and operated by STEALTH and COMPLICITY, by the consortium of Rugby Cement/RMC/Cemex, Warwickshire County Council, Rugby Borough Council, and worst of all by the Environment Agency - all without any public consultation, without any mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment, and by deception, and by concealment of the environmental and health impacts. Secret meetings, secret documents and "ignore, misinform, and mislead" was how the "big four" treated everyone, including even our Member of Parliament. The human rights of the thousands of vulnerable receptors who live in the areas of multiple deprivation and poor air quality round the Cemex co-incinerator count for nothing.

PUBLIC INTEREST NOT SERVED
According to Mr Elvin NO public interest is served by any person acting altruistically to prevent 60,000 residents from being increasingly polluted by the increased quantity of, and increased toxicity of, the thousands of tonnes a day of particle laden acid gas poured out in our SMOKELESS ZONE. It seems that Rugby residents not only do not mind being polluted - but ask for more toxic pollution! Apparently, says Mr Elvin, no-one in Rugby, or elsewhere, except MRS P, has any concerns about the ongoing emissions at the Cemex co-incinerator, and so she must pay £100,000 for speaking up, as it is her own private vendetta, and of NO PUBLIC INTEREST! Human Rights? BLAH!

RUGBY COUNCIL SAYS :

MAKE MORE WASTE!!
Well not exactly - but they do say that the good people of Rugby are reducing, recycling and reusing so that their black bin waste is only about 15,000 tonnes a year, which would only supply about a week's Refuse Derived Fuel for the Cemex co-incinerator. So we need another 50 small market towns to send us their waste - bring it on, from all corners of the world.

ADVERTISEMENT

SAVE US £30,000 A DAY!
500,000 T WASTE REQUIRED FOR THRIFTY CO-INCINERATOR

500,000 tonnes Waste wanted in Rugby for the processing and manufacture of Refuse Derived Fuel to be co-incinerated in the area of multiple deprivation and poor air quality in Rugby's western smokeless zone. Distance, BPEO, Proximity Principal, Pollution, and Human rights not an issue! Help the cement industry to save 500 tonnes coal - about £30,000 a day!! Commission paid!

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL CEMEX RUGBY WAR RAGES ON

RBC PREDICTS ENVIRONMENTAL CALAMITY

SOUTHAM AND RUGBY BATTLE IT OUT!

WHICH will draw the CEMEX short straw, and have the 500,000 tonne a year WASTE PLANT and all its EMISSIONS and LORRIES dumped on them. Cemex has made two applications, at Rugby and at Southam, in a bid to turn 500,000 tpa household, commercial and industrial waste into 250,000 tpa into CHEAP Refuse Derived Fuel - friendly name "CLIMAFUEL." Meanwhile the WARWICKSHIRE WASTE PARTNERSHIP enters into agreements to burn most of Warwickshire's waste in Coventry's enlarged incinerator, leaving bemused bystanders to wonder where ALL this waste will come from? Rugby has beaten its 50% re-cycling target, so why are we being penalised for that?


SAFETY FEARS OVER WASTE PLANT!

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT UNREALISTIC!

PROTECTION OF RUGBY RESIDENTS IS NOT GUARANTEED! as Rugby Advertiser front page 13 August says : Rugby Councillors "hotly contest" and "DAMN the controversial Cemex plans" and tell WCC that "THIS SITE IS NOT SUITABLE" and that Rugby residents are already suffering air quality and pollution problems, and the town is blighted more than enough with the BLOT! The local residents, who live down wind of the monstrous CO-INCINERATOR, in deprived wards, and in areas of MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION, fear a repetition of the CORBY CALAMITY, and now understand that the so-called by the Environment Agency's "ONLY nuisance dust", is actually toxic, and hazardous, and causes health effects.

CEMEX SAYS:

"In addition to the original 2,000 pages of text, analysis, diagrams, and maps we have just submitted a further 500 pages of information as requested. This covered the chimney height, now having reduced the dispersion from 91 metres high to 35 metres - only 14 metres above the building - and information on air quality, groundwater and traffic, and we find it difficult to understand why the Rugby Council feels it needs more information."

12 August the RBC Planning Committee threw it out and dared WCC to go ahead with it in Rugby now!

WARWICKSHIRE TELEGRAPH:

VILLAGE FURY AT WASTE DECISION.
CEMEX WASTE PLANT NOT TO BE BUILT!
14 August Mary Griffins reports : "Villagers feel like second class citizens after RBC opposed the waste plant in Rugby but approved it in the countryside. Long Itchington, Marton and Princethorpe residents fear being bombarded with lorries." (Rugby already has about 1,000 Cemex HGVs each day in the AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA caused by Nitrogen dioxide emissions from lorries and from Cemex co-incinerator.) Traffic will come from all directions, and although we appreciate it is far too close to homes in Rugby, leading to pollution, air quality, odour, amenity and other environmental disasters and FUNDAMENTALLY IT SHOULD NOT BE BUILT AT ALL!

STEWART DAVIES SERCO :

SERCO is to lead the LONDON 6,000 BIKE HIRE as the mayor grants the contract to Serco, with no room for OYSTER.
The 6,000 bikes will be based in nine London Boroughs. Stewart Davies makes good again as Corby and Rugby lick their wounds.


RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSIONS
Warwickshire County Council breaks all records for the most number of unlawful planning permissions granted to a company! RUGBY CEMENT virtually always builds first, without applying, knowing that the tame planners and Councillors at WCC will simply nod it through as usual - without any proper public consultation, any environmental impact assessment, and in breach of the EU and UK laws on EIA and Public Participation.

Indeed this is how the cement plant was built - unlawfully!
And operated by the Environment Agency - unlawfully! And became a CO-INCINERATOR - unlawfully!
THANKS are due to WCC!!

Often the councillors break their own constitution, and attend site visits "in secret" BEFORE the application is even heard in Committee in a blatant effort to outwit the public who are affected. WCC have dug themselves into a fine corner this time. The government position on this is apparently in PPG 18, issued in 1991 and long outdated and superseded by other laws. PPG says they can go on building and building and getting retrospective permissions as much as they want - an the worst thing that may happen to them IF the Local Planning Authority were to pluck up courage and to tell them to "STOP! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" would be a maximum slap-on-the-wrist £20,000 fine. Peanuts!

CEMEX TOLD "NO!"

RUGBY COUNCIL SAYS..

"ENOUGH! CO-INCINERATOR IS ALREADY TOO MUCH!"

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL recognises the increase in toxic air pollution in Rugby and the very real threat now facing local residents, and dedicates about 50 pages on the www.rugby.gov.uk web site in the Committee report to the the planning committee on Wednesday 12 August. It says to turn down the Cemex application for a 500,000 tpa waste plant to manufacture RDF to feed the monster CO-INCINERATOR.
RBC cite many reasons, including the EXISTING POLLUTION FROM THE CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR, and the LACK of any proper air quality assessment (PM2.5 particles ignored) and the FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE HEALTH IMPACT
of the CURRENT OPERATIONS and CUMULATIVE IMPACT.
Seems RBC have been reading my many emails on the subject after all!

DUST FALL OUT NOT OUR FAULT! says CEMEX CEMENT in Rugby Advertiser 6 August. " The overnight dust fall out was not our fault!" as dust rains down, yet again, on Long Lawford,. Townsend Lane residents contacted the Advertiser (yet AGAIN!!!) to report a Monday morning fall-out. The Environment Agency is looking into it, and Cemex also takes samples for analysis. Apparently the co-incinerator's own (very limited, Mickey Mouse) monitoring, according to Cemex, "did not record any problems at that time, and we also had a report of a bonfire in the area, and we will know the outcome in about three days". And the wind, as ever, reported today on Radio Rugby, was blowing in completely the wrong direction!! In June 2009 Cemex was fined a paltry maximum £20,000 at the Stratford Magistrates Court, after the Environment Agency spent no less than TWENTY SEVEN MONTHS "thinking" about it". Then there were THREE very discrete/secret/unpublicised hearings in Rugby), before Judge Sanders, made a judgement, "under the impression" , as created by Cemex, its consultants AMANDA GAIR and the Environment Agency and its EXPERT Professor Roy Harrison of Birmingham University/ Health Protection Agency, that "that 8.67 tonnes of pulverised coal dust was not proven to be harmful to health of the Rugby residents up to three miles away who were covered in black oily dust and particles."

Some might even say 8 tonnes of coal dust is GOOD FOR US!! No weaklings in Rugby - we are the supermen!

RUGBY OBSERVER LETTER:
LONG LAWFORD: "Last week the citizens of CORBY won a landmark case against their local council. To the horror of the community they witnessed a rapid rise in the level of local birth defects, and after what would appear to be insurmountable odds finally managed to prove the negligence of the authorities in failing to protect them from high levels of fugitive metal particulates covering the town during the demolition of the local steel works.

Compare this outcome with the situation in RUGBY, and it is difficult not to believe that our town must now be at a moral crossroads. Do we continue to allow regular illegal clouds of fugitive, potentially dangerous levels of dust to cover our community, with all the obvious health concerns for the elderly, young and weak residents of the borough? Do we continue to stand aside and watch the ever expanding business interests of one company blight our skyline and change the surrounding area into a massive, polluted moonscape? In this modern world of environmental awareness, why do we allow our community to be slowly poisoned and destroyed by one company’s voracious appetite for profit?The people of Corby stood up to be counted, they questioned the ability of the very people who were elected to protect the community, and found them wanting.

In a well attended public speech to RUGBY residents at St Oswalds Church last week Professor Paul Connett criticised amongst many other practices, the lack of credible monitoring for Dioxins and Mercury, both known carcinogenics at this local plant, and the almost obscene level of ‘averaging out’ of all chemical release figures before publication. When combined with a bizarrely high safe limit level requested by the Environment Agency for these emissions (as if there is a safe level for this poisonous stew) one wonders why we have stood aside for so long already.

CORBY had the courage to react when their community was at threat; the people of Rugby need to reach the same level of concern before it is too late."

CORBY DUST IS BLAMED!
AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST MAGAZINE : " The High Court decided that toxic hazardous dust kicked up by disturbing contaminated hazardous landfills from the closed Corus Steel works could have caused birth defects." "The Judgement will have implications elsewhere - for instance protesters in Rugby claim the cement (CO-INCINERATOR) works and associated traffic leads to excess toxic dust in the town. Likewise waste management sites that are known to cause air quality problems because of deposited dust and windblown dust should NOW be REASSESSED, not just for "nuisance", but also for potential toxicological effects."

PLAY "I SPY!"

STEWART DAVIES stood in Peterborough council elections in 2002 for Lib Dems. This Cambridge graduate was at first in 1986 with ICI; then was MD at Corus Steel; then founder of Corby Urban Regeneration; then moved over to cause mayhem as MD of Rugby Cement; then CEMEX; then SERCO: and 2001 Climate Change Agreement; EU Trading; Sustainable Cement initiative, and now highly favoured Commissioner for the Environment - appointed by HILARY BENN for a second three year term.

SPOT CEMEX POLICE BIKE: word on the street has it that this "widely publicised and much acclaimed and world-wide well-reported generously donated bike" has been stolen and auctioned on ebay, for a fraction of the £1,000 Cemex paid to Warwickshire Police to purchase/sponsor this environmentally sound piece of kit. Environmental groups have asked under the FREEDOM of INFORMATION ACT how many other such "donations Warwicks Police have received from industry?"

Professor Paul Connett Talks in Rugby

Last night as the rain came down across Rugby Town, renowned international health expert Professor Connett, chemist and toxicologist, gave a presentation to a busy church hall in Rugby.

The audience comprised of Councilors, Planning officers, Journalists and members of the public concerned for their health.

The talk was on the zero waste program, the CEMEX co-incinerator emissions and possible health effects from the plant's pollution.

A full write up will follow shortly but in the meantime listen to this recording that was made shortly before Professor Paul Connett gave his presentation:

Recording used with the kind permission of Christian Payne

People left the talk educated and inspired.

Watch this space for more!

PROFESSOR PAUL CONNETT

(24 JULY 7.00 PM ST OSWALD'S CHURCH RUGBY)We are delighted to welcome renowned international health expert Professor Connett, chemist and toxicologist, to give a presentation on the CEMEX co-incinerator emissions and possible health effects from the plant's pollution. This could not be more timely as the air quality in Rugby is deteriorating , and the Cemex admitted emissions increase greatly in 2007. Then of course there is the great controversy over the 8 tonnes of pulverised fuel that blew all over Rugby in March 2007. That does not appear on any pollution inventory, nor does the KILN FLUSH from the same day, which caused raised levels of particulate, as they battled to shut down the kiln.

PROFESSOR ROY HARRISON
was asked by the Environment Agency in May 2009 to write a report about the March 10 2007 pollution incident, and a second one after the 11 May meeting with DR AMANDA GAIR the CEMEX air quality "expert", who seems to be not quite as expert as she would try to make out? BARRY BERLIN acting for the EA and supposedly "prosecuting" seemed more inclined to help Cemex "get away with it", and the Judge remarked that there was indeed undue delay in this case from March 2007. The professor was unable to agree with the GAIR figures, but there was some agreement on four points, including that the coal dust leaving the site boundary was between 1.6 and 3.1 tonnes. But wind direction and speed were not agreed and Cemex did not make its data available so they went on too low a wind speed, at 1.6 metres per second from the RBC low level wind vanes, which were no use in this case, being at the wrong height (too low to ground at 3 metres) and in the wrong locations.


THE TWO AIR QUALITY EXPERTS argument ranged between 9 kilos and 8 tonnes of "dispersed" dust! They could NOT agree how much of the 8.67 tonnes of coal dust had actually travelled across Rugby up to 4 kilometres away leaving black sooty/oily coatings everywhere. Cemex and GAIR had refined it down to 1.6 tonne - but no explanation! NOR what the wind direction and speed was; NOR at what height the emissions were released - at the 46 metres actual silo - or as AG preferred at a random 20 metre height; NOR what the particle size distribution would be; AG estimated and calculated and guesstimated - most unconvincingly. JOHN SIVITER witness said there was "some coal dust left on the floor adjacent to the silo, so not all of the coal dust left the site." AG used the wrong air quality monitors - in Rugby Road , Clifton and in Murray Road, but finally they agreed that the Parkfield Road monitor and Avon Valley School were on the edge of the plume , and showed raised levels.

A PERMITTED KILN FLUSH had occurred earlier in the night and all the workers at Cemex were busy with trying to control the kiln and shut it down - so no ELV emission limits count! FABER MAUNSELL were in there too, and the wind direction from Cemex was claimed to be between 215 and 236 degrees at the time. Short lived peaks were noticed at T7 and T15. The AGENCY threw in some graphs for good measure.


CONCLUSION:
depends critically on the amount of pulverised fuel released into the atmosphere, but no-one was able to say if the estimates were reliable. The analysis of the monitoring data was not considered reliable, as the wind direction had not been taken from the cement works as it should have been at 40 metre high. The dust dispersed was possibly 3.1 tonnes, or possibly 9 kilos, and anywhere in between, and up to 8.67 tonnes. "These estimates depend critically upon the assumed settling distance of the coal dust, which is open to considerable uncertainty which consequently applies to these estimates also." "There was a poor knowledge of the amount of coal dust released and the height at which the PM10 particles separated from the bulk pulverised fuel and commenced their downwind transport."

HEALTH IMPACT:
It was unlikely that the recommended limit of 50 micrograms per cubic metre would have been exceeded. "However had the mass of fuel release been greater than 8 tonnes, then it is very likely that an exceedence of the health based standard would have occurred. It should also be pointed out that ANY EXPOSURE to airborne particulate is believed to be harmful to health and the air quality standards and guidelines are set to limit the magnitude of those adverse effects rather than as a no effects level. Consequently any additional exposure carries a RISK OF HARM, but the smaller the exposure the lower the level of harm."

WAS JUDGE SANDER CORRECT
and did he actually have any evidence to allow him to conclude that there were "no health effects and no health risks" and that is why he would keep it OUT OF THE COUNTY COURT and only at this very local MAGISTRATE level with its maximum fine of £20,000? I think not, not based on the two reports and evidence we have since obtained. There was only UNCERTAINTY and no certainty of anything at all!

"OUCH!"

STRATFORD MAGISTRATES 16 JUNE
JUDGE SAID CEMENT PLANT SHOULD NOT BE THERE:
we all agree if we started again it should not be located there!!


AGENCY PROSECUTION FOR 10 MARCH 2007:
Cemex finally said they had to "take it on the chin" and say "SINCERELY SORRY " in a grovelling apology letter for dumping 3-5 tonnes pulverised coal dust from an over full silo, thickly and blackly deposited on Rugby residents up to 1.5 miles away years ago in March 2007.


BOTH THE AGENCY and CEMEX pleaded for this case NOT to go back to WARWICK CROWN COURT where they got a £400,000 fine in 2006, and asked the Judge Sander to "hit them to the maximum of £20,000" (plus costs) so they did NOT have to go to back Warwick; NOT back to Warwick; NOT back to Warwick!!!!!

THE AGENCY did admit there is great concern in Rugby about this plant and tried to convince the Judge that this was most unfortunate and that the giant 1.3 million tonne a year cement plant had always been there since the 19 Century.
NOT MENTIONED: The Financial Times article about the alarms all being "switched off and suppressed" to allow the plant to run and run without hindrance by alarms; and Cemex letter of December 2007 to EA saying they had now "removed the alarm suppression from all the equipment!" They were at pains to say this was a one off thing and that normally alarms worked. They did not mention the massive emissions increase in 2007 over and above those of 2006, nor that during all this the EA was allowing Cemex to experiment with a new bag filter and with burning tyres, which seem to have increased the emissions way above the "claimed" 18% increase in actual production.


The Environment Agency (Mr Burnham?) apologised to the Judge that the bundle had only been received this morning and said he thought they had been sent, but they must have been sent elsewhere; costs had been agreed at £13,469 and that most other things had been already been agreed before the two parties with a lot of correspondence over this weekend. Part two of the case was dropped - without explanation. Cemex pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to this serious breach of the operating Permit, by emitting between 3.1 and 3.6 tonnes pulverised coal dust, some of which blew up to 1.5 miles away over Rugby on March 10th 2007 from the pulverised coal silo that was overfilled by the workers. It was one of two - a petcoke silo next to it. There was disagreement between the two sides as to how much had crossed the boundary, they thought 5% to 22% of the total, but both agreed it was a severe breach. In mitigation Cemex had cleaned up and valeted and window cleaned.

A previous prosecution in 2007 earned a £50,000 fine at the Court of Appeal (no mention of the £400,000 awarded by the Warwick Crown Court!) for depositing health damaging clinker dust on local residents, but this coal dust (shows photographs) has no health damaging potential as far as they know. Professor Harrison of Birmingham University had done two reports and it was only nuisance dust and unpleasant, but no complaints of health effects had been received. There were some PM10 emissions but "there was no evidence that the PM10 levels were elevated and they were as expected in an area of this type", and there was "nothing to show there was any health damage.". Are there any monitors? No! So how do they conclude this?

There was no serious risk in this case, and my learned friend and I were just discussing the fine has to be substantial enough as to make them feel it and also the bad publicity this large company would get. This court can deal with it - away from Rugby and NOT NOT NOT at Crown Court!!

The Cemex lawyer Mr Green then said that he thanked the EA for giving such a fair and balanced account. They had prepared a statement of mitigation and prefer to keep this court case before this magistrates court. "Rugby Cement is a very sensitive site, as you can imagine, but built there historically in the 19th century, or maybe even before Rugby town was built. Cemex have to live together and the people living and working near the works do not wish to be troubled, not in their homes or businesses. Cemex holds a Community Forum that meets regularly to talk about these issues. This was a most unfortunate equipment failure, although we have to accept there were no functionality tests, and we cannot avoid this. A short cut was taken and lessons have been learned. The paper work was missing and there was no written record of the maintenance during shut down,
and no available paperwork, and no audit trail. It was supposed to work but the screen was blank due to a software update that was not checked. We admit it is closing the door after the horse has bolted. Mr Handcock put a full report into the EA and we have had to take it on the chin."

They comment that the EA did not issue the prosecution until late last year, but local people have shown and voiced much concern to Cemex, the EA and the RBC. They say it will not happen again. There was no attempt by Cemex to put profit before health and safety and they admit it was a serious lapse, one thing going wrong after another. Cemex employed a team of window cleaners, car cleaners and valets. There was one car sales business much affected. In the October 2005 incident health was put at risk, and they finally got a fine of £50,000 in 2007, but this March 2007 incident was only coal dust. Since the 2007 March incident there have been no issues at all between the EA and Cemex. HMMMM???

Cemex have to "co-exist with local residents and they want no further nuisances of this kind." They ask the court to retain this case within their jurisdiction and to fully deal with it and ask for leniency because of the delay in this case, and generally because they have been co-operative and generally responsible and keep the fine at the top end of the limit.

JUDGEMENT:
It was a breach of permit at a very large 1.4 million tonne a year cement works located close to Rugby. "If we were to start again no doubt everyone would all agree that it is not a good place to have it." Being located there gives additional responsibility to Cemex, as it has significant impacts on the community. 1.5 to 3 tonnes of coal dust is not insignificant and it was a nuisance, but no risk to health, but was unpleasant. Significant features for sentence are:
* failure of probe and failure to maintain it;
* poor records - no audit trail;
* 6 months with no equipment checks - particularly when failed earlier checks.

The failings were compounded by software failure and the alarm system was frankly inadequate, and the software had been upgraded so that the flashing screen did not work. There was no audible alarm and the workers relied on a back stop because they believed it would work and then silo would be shut down.

"One area of concern, I put it no stronger than that, is the implication that this was a series of individual mistakes that came together caused equally by individual failings but I find it rather more direct systemic failure by the company to ensure regular maintenance, regular checks and software checks. It would be easy to lay the blame on an individual in this case, but there were repeated failures. Cemex did react reasonable and speedily and complied promptly and in a timely fashion, and they did all they could do to put it right. The company regret the position they find themselves in as they have damaged the relationship with the community on which they put 'some' value.

Considering the penalty and sentencing guidelines and the previous conviction, and considering it would have gone to trial at the Crown Court if health had been at risk, I put a £30,000 fined reduced to £20,000 plus costs of £13,469, with 14 days in which to pay."

ON YER BIKE!

"BOBBIES ON THEIR BIKES THANKS TO SPONSOR DEAL!"
BOBBIES on the beat will be patrolling the town on bikes thanks to a sponsorship deal from Cemex. Officers in the Rugby Town North Safer Neighbourhood Team will now be able to use their new specialist pedal bike, worth more than £1,000, to patrol their beat more extensively and respond to calls quicker. PCSO (now a PC biker as opposed to PC Plod) said: 'We are very grateful to Cemex for funding the bike. Travelling around by cycle is environmentally friendly, time efficient and keeps us visible to the public who can approach us." Rugby Advertiser 29 May. Any comments to: rtn.snt@warwickshire police.uk

RUGBY - FIRST CAR-FREE ZONE!
With cement plant boundary security now guaranteed, "sponsored" officers can speedily arrive at the scene of environmental crime, stick their spoke in, and reassure the victims that exposure to hazardous dust will not harm them! With the obvious added benefit for Cemex, of not incurring the expense of funding car washes for the hazardous sticky dust fall-outs. Not only that but "Cemex has recently been working on a cyclist safety programme", and it is rumoured that all Rugby residents will be forced to ride bicycles so that Cemex tankers and trucks can have all the roads to themselves. This will have the added advantage of removing air pollution caused by residents' cars in the AQMA for NOX - thus allowing Cemex more "headroom" to fill up the ambient air with their ever-increasing emissions from the installation and from the lorries. The sky's the limit!

EXCUSES.. EXCUSES
as Cemex struggle with statistics, sums, percentages, and the concept of increases/decreases or up/down, they rush through the unverified 2008 PI data, and write in May 2009: "definitely annual emissions were down during 2008 as production was less." And of 2007 : "the 35% increase in Nitrogen Oxides from 2006 was caused by just an 18% increase in production of clinker." Er? It gets worse : "To summarise, since the commencement of waste derived fuel use as shown in trial reports NOX emissions have been reduced in the order of just under 60%." Shall we send them a calculator?

METALS - UP, BUT NOT REALLY?
And why were metals and other pollutants so increased in 2007? "The periodic measurement CAN provide UNREPRESENTATIVE results" - metals, dioxins etc sampled ONLY twice a year. "However, as ALL these 'unrepresentative' results were nevertheless within the stringent limits set by the EA, retesting was therefore not deemed necessary." Novel response - not mentioned at all in public consultations in 2008, but only when we pointed out the increases on the Environment Agency's Pollution Inventory. And how do you calculate that PI? " We use Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMs) to collect some data for main pollutants - as in the Permit. Periodic monitoring (usually biannual) data is used to calculate the mass emissions figures by applying factors relating to the number of hours operated and the crucial GAS FLOW data." Can the Public see these - NO!

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL
and Faber Maunsell also seem to have a problem with sums! In the April Air Quality Updating and Screening Assessment (which pre-dates Cemex 2008 PI data), they state : "RBC have identified NO installations within the Borough where emissions have increased substantially - by 30%." Oh, so they failed to consider the 2007 figures from the Cemex/Agency Public Register they keep? Nitrogen dioxide is increasing in the ambient air every year, apparently "due to Rugby residents cars", and not from Cemex emissions and its hundreds of HGVs each day. Meanwhile the Council grants planning permission for a 37 bed hotel, four office blocks and a health club in the Conservation Area next to St Andrews Church, ripping out all trees in the process, and increasing pollution. The development requires at least 200 car parking spaces, but they are to get away with providing NONE, while 80 cycle spaces will be provided instead. Are these for the Cemex sponsored bikes?


PLANNING and PERMITTING
are also causing problems! Warwicks CC now have to admit that Cemex have not filled in correctly ANY application (out of 15?) made since 2005. WCC say this was "not deliberate" - which we take to mean "merely incompetent" then? There seems to have been confusion as to who claims ownership of the sites at Southam and Rugby. It now seems THE RUGBY GROUP LTD Company number 206971 says it owns them - and not all these others who have been claiming ownership for five years in the various applications. It is EVEN MORE ODD that the cement plant was run by The Rugby Group Limited using the "unlawful" IPC permit of 1999, which they "acquired in secret" from their mates at the Agency, and then in August 2001 they applied for the IPPC permit, So far so good - however after two years of argument the IPPC permit was granted NOT to the applicant, but to RUGBY LTD 475212 - who never ever applied for a permit.

TOXIC FUMES CLAIM

...OVER BID TO MAKE RUGBY TRAFFIC FREE


Toxic fumes may reach dangerous levels in Rugby next year warn officials in the Rugby Advertiser on 23 April. New figures released this week already show that NITROGEN DIOXIDE levels have increased around the town possibly due to having more traffic. Proposals to close roads for pedestrianisation may clog up the town pushing up levels of nitrogen dioxide above the recommended national health guidance and leading to more congestion in narrow street canyons.

Despite all this RBC and the WCC Area Committee backed the scheme and WCC are to have the final say, but that, in a sanctimonious dismissal "it was too late to change the plans now!"

On 20 April the Rugby Community Cement Forum and the public were alarmed to discover the increase in the Cemex emissions from 2006 to 2007. Cemex said that the increase was "due to an increase in production", but this left many people scratching their heads as to why there was no correlation between the "increases in the different pollutants", as you can see for yourselves in the Environment Agency table (see blog 12 April) : i.e carbon dioxide up 25% ; nitrogen oxides up 50%; lead up 300% etc etc?? Many people think that the TYRE BURNING introduced at 3 tonne an hour, after the fitting of the BAG FILTER in March 2007, in order to "comply with the WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE" , may actually be the cause of the increase in pollution?

TAKE NOTICE OF WARNING! said the Editor of the Advertiser: "Whatever the normal safe levels of nitrous oxide and other chemicals there are in the area, Rugby has a DISADVANTAGE!! . It doesn't matter how safe and efficient the Cemex chimney is, something is coming out of it. Even if it were completely innocent chalk dust it can't exactly be good for you to be breathing it in. But I am not trying to criticise Cemex here - I believe it is a conscientious company with concern for the community - I also have no doubt that the new works is 'a whole lot safer' than the old works. So anyway the last thing we want to exacerbate the situation is by increasing the danger of chemicals in the air by choking the town with a pedestrianisation scheme. Councillor Sandison Chair of Sustainable Rugby warned that taking traffic out of the town centre would turn other streets into fume induced chemical canyons. If air quality is moving quickly towards dangerous levels, then the public has the right to know about the cause and what is going to be done about it - it's more important than spending money on a pedestrianisation scheme!"


POOR AIR QUALITY KILLING THOUSANDS IN LONDON!
Sunday Observer 26 April:

Pollution kills far more people every year in London than the previously accepted and estimated 1,000. The London Assembly said that at least 2,905 premature deaths each year, and probably "many thousands", were caused by dangerously high levels of substances such as NITROGEN DIOXIDE, fine particulates, and ground level ozone that lead to heart and lung diseases, and also affects those who are already ill with an unrelated condition, according to the report.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY RECRUITS:
quote 14042 on its job pages:

"for £60,000 a year, plus exceptional benefits, a National Trading and Regulatory Services Manager to adapt new approaches and to invent new systems and ways of working as carbon trading and producer responsibility become more powerful tools in "improving regulation." (???) This role will be at the forefront of regulation and comes with a £4 million budget. The BIGGER PICTURE is the chance to IMPACT on £35 billion of ECONOMIC GROWTH!"

Now there's an offer you can't refuse - and which give the opportunity to "lead us towards a cleaner, better environment!"

EASTER GIFT

4,000 TONNES OF POLLUTED GAS DAILY

RUGBY CEMEX MASSIVE EMISSIONS INCREASE 2006 to 2007

(see table below)

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY TOLD HOUSE OF LORDS MANY "STRANGE/QUESTIONABLE" THINGS TO WIN CASE; TO SILENCE RUGBY PROTEST; AND TO EXTORT COSTS!!

13 (d) "No-one who lives near the works appears willing to continue the proceedings. In fact local residents other than Mrs Pallikaropoulos have failed to display any continuing interest in operations at the Rugby Cement Works."

13 (g) "In essence these proceedings constitute one relatively affluent and committed individual's own private campaign."

WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH?

AND WHO IS TELLING THE PORKY PIES?

(click table below to view larger)

COMIC RELIEF?

FUNNY FOR MONEY?
"CEMEX: THE BIGGEST RED NOSE IN RUGBY!"
front page Rugby Advertiser 19 March.
RBC SAY 19 March  "CEMEX CEMENT :
THE BIGGEST ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTER IN RUGBY!"

OH NO - NOT IN RUGBY!
LOCATION UNSUITABLE!
Cemex donated £5,000 to Comic Relief, by hanging a big red nose out of its Rugby town centre office block, but that did not help to "soften the blow". Cemex indeed got a bloodied red nose this week at the Rugby Borough Council planning meeting of 11 March when RBC councillors were advised to tell Warwickshire County Council and Cemex "where to stick  it " -  as regards the 500,000 tonne a year waste plant.  NOT IN RUGBY! Southam is the best option - or the least worst of the two proposed.

RUGBY CAN TAKE NO MORE!
THERE IS ALREADY TOO MUCH POLLUTION!
ENVIRONMENTAL DETRIMENT!
AND HEALTH IMPACT!

AQMA -  Air Quality Management Area; pollution  existing near Cemex works and in town overall; pollution incidents; dust storms;  lorries ; noise to already sensitised residents;  MORE chimney stack/s!; site is contaminated landfill; proximity to River Avon; site is semi-wild with mature trees; site too small; 320 plus extra HGVs each day - and many more?; proximity to residential area; proximity to Avon Valley School; risk assessment not complete; risk under-estimated; re-opening of Southam railway not considered; air quality assessment incorrectly carried out - using wrong data - out of date!;no consideration of traffic capacity; failure to consider alternatives; failure to say where the WASTES will be arising etc etc. See RBC web site for all details R08/1499/CM MALPASS FARM.

PARTICULARLY PARTICULATE! and HEALTH IMPACT have all been left out of the application  for obvious reasons. It's what you don't see that gets you! RBC " With the elevated levels of  PM10 generally around the application site, next to the cement works, further significant increases because  of CLIMAFUEL; WASTE or TRAFFIC is considered unacceptable in a high density housing area, especially as there is already a LARGE RISK of EXCCEEDENCE of a HEALTH-LINKED air quality objective!"

CEMEX TRIALS - IF AT FIRST you don't succeed trial and trial again and again! The Cemex trials (6 weeks!) were to have ended on 31 August  2008, but they were extended (in secret) by the Environment Agency to 31 December 2008. Then although the RCCF asked for data from the last-year's trials so we could provide a proper "informed" response to the latest IPPC Variation application for even more trials  at a higher rate and INCREASED toxicity of the RDF, we were not given any data. BUT to our surprise the trials have again been extended - in secret -  by the Agency to 30 April. WHY?

CEMEX BREACHES PERMIT ELVS again - that is why. The extractive tests for metals in the October TRIALS  revealed the TRIALS FAILED: emissions at SEVEN times those permitted: 16 October 12:50 to 13.57 (after removal of uncertainty - so could well be even higher) the readings were 3.43 mg/NM3 against a permitted IPPC PERMIT(safe??) level of 0.5mg/Nm3. Cemex say: "We request an extension to the 6 month trial deadline of 31 August  2008" -  as in the  IPPC PERMIT. "Due to RE-TESTING being required and our annual shut down being extended as a result of market demand this has delayed our ability to complete sufficient testing at maximum substitution rates for each fuel mix stated in the PERMIT VARIATION>  Therefore this has delayed our overall schedule of testing and collation of data, and the additional extension will enable more time to complete the trial as stated in the variation CONDITION 1a."

VICTORVILLE CALIFORNIA $2,000,000 FINE!
In the largest settlement yet in the ongoing USA EPA cement kiln enforcement Cemex must pay a civil penalty  of USD$ TWO MILLION - resulting in cleaner air for California. Victorville  is a 3,000,000 tonne a year production Cement plant - one of the largest in the country.
In 1997 and 2000 Cemex violated the Clean Air Act, and now must install new equipment under the EPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

PRESS RELEASE

Briefing for Press from the Rugby Cement Plant Stakeholder Engagement Workshop 10.03.09
1. BRIEFING for PRESS
RUGBY CEMENT PLANT STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP

On Tuesday 10 March, stakeholders met at the Benn Hall in Rugby to discuss the future public and stakeholder engagement process around the plant. The basis of this work being that all stakeholders are looking for an improved way forward to work together with respect to the cement plant in Rugby. The workshop was a further step towards achieving this.

The context for this workshop is that following The Environment Council’s May 2008 review of stakeholder and community relations around the Rugby Cement Plant (RCP) and production of the report with recommendations for constructive ways forward, it was recognised that face-to-face engagement was necessary. You can access this report from our website: http://www.the-environment-council.org.uk/rugby-cement-plant- stakeholder-engagement-review.html), or contact us for a copy (contact details overleaf).

At an earlier stakeholder meeting in September 2008 it was agreed that a small group of stakeholders (a “Task Group”) would develop more detailed, community owned, proposals for a future engagement process. These proposals were brought back to the wider stakeholder group on 10 March for consideration.

The 10 March meeting considered and finalised many of the Task Group’s proposals on:

> The purpose of a future engagement process
> What activities will take place in a future engagement process
> Ways of working.
And it agreed how things would be taken forward from now.

Agreements arising from the workshop included:

> Confirmation by stakeholders of three key components for future engagement:
• The scope and purpose of the future engagement. This provides a statement and definition about what the process seeks to do, so that everyone is clear about what it can and cannot consider. A summary of the scope and purpose is set out on page 3.
• Ways of working for the future engagement. These express the way and spirit in which people will be expected to behave and work at meetings and between meetings. It aims to make the process more constructive, accessible and practical.
• The future engagement process. This comprises the activities that (together) will form the future engagement process around the Rugby Cement Plant.

> A Steering Group should be formed (to be selected by The Environment Council; with guiding criteria provided by the stakeholder group on 10 March) to oversee the establishment of the new stakeholder engagement process and to ensure it happens in a reasonable timeframe. The intention is that this group may be dissolved once these objectives are achieved. It expected that this group will be established before Easter.

> An independent secretariat and chair would be utilised for the new engagement process.

> The Rugby Community Cement Forum (RCCF) will continue to meet while the new stakeholder engagement process is being set up.


Briefing for Press from the Rugby Cement Plant Stakeholder Engagement Workshop
10.03.09
2. There were some issues that it was acknowledged still need to be resolved, but there was a shared understanding that it was constructive to acknowledge this. They are:

> The future engagement process is still a work in progress. Further development based on the above, agreed components will be undertaken by the Steering Group, which will be accountable to the larger stakeholder group.

The review of the stakeholder and community relations around the Rugby Cement Plant (RCP) process has been funded to date by the Cemex, the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council. Commitment has been made by Cemex and the Environment Agency to fund work into improving future engagement for a further twelve months, to help ensure a constructive and productive way forward.

For further information please contact Winsome MacLaurin at The Environment Council, 020 7632 0108 winsome@envcouncil.org.uk

Briefing for Press from the Rugby Cement Plant Stakeholder Engagement Workshop
10.03.09
3. A summary of the scope and purpose of the engagement:

Scope

> The scope of the engagement has been defined within the following two boundaries:
1) The current state of relations between stakeholders cannot continue; and,
2) Closure of the cement plant is not on the agenda

Purpose

The purpose of the engagement includes the following aspects (in no particular order):
> To establish and maintain a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship between CEMEX, the Regulatory Agencies and the Rugby Community
> An aspiration to generate trust between stakeholders and around issues
> Facilitate the provision to the Rugby Community of timely, clear, full and transparent information and explanations from CEMEX and other agencies regarding current issues, and future plans for changes, relating to the Rugby plant. Information provided to the community should be understandable.
> A way to proactively feed in information about plant incidents and how they will be dealt with
> To enable the Rugby Community to ask questions, raise concerns and seek clarification regarding matters relating to the Rugby plant.
> To give the Rugby Community the opportunity to influence decision-making.
> Mitigation of environmental, transport and other impacts of the plant
> Generation of a clear picture from the engagement about what the view of the community is (and to be able to hand this on to councillors, to the Environment Agency, etc)
> To be able to generate a common view on an issue when this is sought.

There were some issues that it was acknowledged still need to be resolved, but there was a shared understanding that it was constructive to acknowledge this. They are:

> The future engagement process is still a work in progress. Further development based on the above, agreed components will be undertaken by the Steering Group, which will be accountable to the larger stakeholder group.

The review of the stakeholder and community relations around the Rugby Cement Plant (RCP) process has been funded to date by the Cemex, the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council. Commitment has been made by Cemex and the Environment Agency to fund work into improving future engagement for a further twelve months, to help ensure a constructive and productive way forward.

For further information please contact Winsome MacLaurin at The Environment Council, 020 7632 0108 winsome@envcouncil.org.uk

A summary of the scope and purpose of the engagement:

Scope

> The scope of the engagement has been defined within the following two boundaries:
1) The current state of relations between stakeholders cannot continue; and,
2) Closure of the cement plant is not on the agenda

Purpose

The purpose of the engagement includes the following aspects (in no particular order):
> To establish and maintain a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship between CEMEX, the Regulatory Agencies and the Rugby Community
> An aspiration to generate trust between stakeholders and around issues
> Facilitate the provision to the Rugby Community of timely, clear, full and transparent information and explanations from CEMEX and other agencies regarding current issues, and future plans for changes, relating to the Rugby plant. Information provided to the community should be understandable.
> A way to proactively feed in information about plant incidents and how they will be dealt with
> To enable the Rugby Community to ask questions, raise concerns and seek clarification regarding matters relating to the Rugby plant.
> To give the Rugby Community the opportunity to influence decision-making.
> Mitigation of environmental, transport and other impacts of the plant
> Generation of a clear picture from the engagement about what the view of the community is (and to be able to hand this on to councillors, to the Environment Agency, etc)
> To be able to generate a common view on an issue when this is sought.

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE!

CAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY LEOPARD CHANGE ITS SPOTS?

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY has pledged to "start" sharing information with the public of Rugby and the Rugby Community Cement Forum, but so far it is just not happening. In October 2007 the process of "renewing engagement with the local stakeholders, and becoming open, honest, and transparent and to "start" (after 8 years!!) to share information with the Rugby residents in a timely manner" was begun under the auspices of the ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL. For more details see their web site. As "expert facilitators" they have been called in to renew community engagement.


AGENCY LITTLE GEMS: Officer : "there was no such thing as hazardous waste in the UK before July 2005." "Bypass dust is the same as cement kiln dust."
Er.. no it is actually dust taken from the bypass, that is to say dust taken from the bypass that bypasses the cement kiln, and never goes into it. A bypass may be?

CEMEX IN TROUBLE - AGAIN!
$528,000 fine at Lyons Colorado - too much mercury in the CKD (cement kilns dust) found in the houses of local residents.

PINNOCCHIOS STAR IN PANTOMIME

NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
The dead parrot obviously  touched a raw nerve,  and prompted  Cemex (later same day 26)  to circulate Draft Minutes of the 17 February Forum. These included  SURPRISE SURPRISE an account of a  discussion that NEVER happened!  Section 4 e) was referring to the "Cemex Application for a Variation to the Permit (same permit EA have no copy of!) to trial 10 tph tyres", but included plenty of other sneaky changes to the plant operations,  and increases in pollutants in Refuse to be burnt there,  as previously explained. After a discussion about the chlorine content - that increases dioxins and risk of dioxin formation - this mysterious addition:

RE-WRITING HISTORY  quote:

"The Environment Agency HAD withdrawn  from the tyres variation application the section relating to the Climafuel specification change. This latter section was designed to bring about consistency across the industry and WOULD  apply to ALL cement plants, but would not NOW be considered as part of this 10 tph tyres application."

Err... sorry who said so, and when, and where, and how? No-one told us and certainly  not at the Forum.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE UNEXPECTED!
Cemex finally on 10 Feb provided RCCF with the "September 2008 duly made Application to burn 10 tph tyres etc" which had closed for consultation on 31 January! Now the Minutes seem to say that the application provided 10 Feb was incorrect.  Meanwhile Agency's report of 10 Feb made NO mention of any changes  to be made. Cemex notes of 12 Feb claimed "the EA will be deciding in week  COMMENCING 16 February on the application for 10 tph tyres". OH - so no mention there of any changes! What suddenly happened?


MINISTER FAILS TO ANSWER LETTER ABOUT PERMIT. The draft minutes quote MP Jeremy Wright as saying "it was difficult for anyone to be able to comment on a variation due to the nature of the (non-existent) permit, and it must even be difficult for the Agency to know what they were determining."
Could we have a PERMIT to look at FIRST instead of a list of 6 years of pages of long variations, and also the data and the results of the last whole years RDF trials - as promised in the application?  The Minister had simply passed the letter on to the Agency saying it is ONLY a Rugby operational matter.

OH NO I DIDN'T!
OH YES YOU DID!!
In typical panto style we are told by Cemex "Please find attached the draft meeting notes which have been APPROVED by the CHAIR for circulation."  But the Chair throws a custard pie : "I queried 4e). He sent an email explanation. He did amend the notes to include some, but not all of the explanation. As a result it still did not make enough sense. He is now having 'another go'."

OH YES! THE AGENCY DID IT!
CEMEX has another go March 2:   "As you know the application also contained information seeking to amend (INCREASE pollutants HUGELY!!) the climafuel (RDF) specification.  This is SOMETHING that is  BEING DONE across the industry following a programme of work led by the EA to produce standard waste derived fuel specifications for the cement industry. The cement industry was advised by the EA at the CENTRAL LEVEL to CHANGE (and thus to secretly increase with no consultation??) the specification the next time a variation was submitted.  The EA decided that this was better undertaken separately from the tyres variation and informed us of this. The Variation applies therefore only to tyres.  This is SIMPLY a decision by the Agency to deal with these matters as separate items, as opposed to dealing with them in a single application as they had originally advised."  But this still does not explain why the Minutes were being subjected to "creative writing".

AS PINNOCCHIO'S NOSE simply grows and grows one "wonders" why the Agency has just WASTED OUR TIME over and over again in more sham consultations. This time Cemex and the Agency never even let us see the correct application - IF there is one? Why did they not  "simply" provide information about what has  been withdrawn  and when and why, instead of us learning of it second hand from Cemex?
After all this was supposed to be a duly made application - now it seems it is not! It strengthens and further evidences the complaint to the Minister that the Agency fails to show any respect. There seems to be an agreement between the EA and cement industry to surreptitiously increase the chlorine, sulphur, lead etc without anyone realising.  No doubt the "increases" will  just be "written into the new EP permits"  that are having NO applications, and no consultations and will be issued April to September."

HOW MANY PINNOCCHIOS STAR IN THIS PANTOMIME?