Dead Permit

RUGBY COMMUNITY CEMENT FORUM
members declared the "Faulty Towers" IPPC operating Permit Dead, and were dismayed to find the Cemex co-incinerating cement plant has only a long series of Variations to the original 2003 IPPC Permit and nothing up to date. Apparently it would take the Agency a " long time " to write a Permit - so how do they expect the public to be able to follow this paper chase and to piece it all together from years of rambling files - that is IF the public could obtain all the pieces of this "jigsaw"? And how can we respond sensibly to this latest (sham) consultation for "yet another" variation to the "existing permit". They are taking the mickey here! Under the guise of an application for 10 tonnes an hour of tyre burning they are slipping in a few crucial other changes to the chemical content of the RDF (climafuel) which has suddenly morphed into a more contaminated waste. NOW the only difference between the hazardous waste SLF and the non-hazardous RDF seems to be the group III metals - 1800 as opposed to 800.

Then we won't mention the extension of the range of calorific value from the originally consulted 15-23 CV, as in the (invisible) PERMIT, and now "suddenly" to be 10-40CV - allowing "lots of scope!" And a few more hours with no emission limits, and a few more reasons to burn waste during instability. And not to mention the results and trials from last year - starting 28 February in "unauthorised equipment" and supposed to end on 31st August - but the old pals at the Agency then extended the trials for another 4 months. Thanks for telling us guys. And can we see the results of the 15 tph RDF trial - before we respond to the new consultation? In a word "NO!"

AGENCY FAILING IN DUTY CLAIM
according to the Rugby Advertiser, reporting on the RCCF complaint to the Minister for the Environment. This was down-graded (ignored?) as "only an operational matter" according to Director of the Agency and he soon passed it, like a hot potato, to the Midlands office, where three intrepid forum members will "discuss the issues." The complaint centred around a refusal to share/provide information, to answer questions and to attend any meetings in Rugby. "It is true to say there is resentment on both sides and now relationships have reached rock bottom."

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY STATEMENT
"said they were keen to improve existing engagement with the community and stakeholders, (another meeting 10 March) and is working closely with the Environment Council, Cemex and Rugby Borough Council to come up with a more effective way of sharing information". Thing scan hardly get worse than they are at present, the point blank refusing to give us any information, and not allowing us to see the Public Register when we twice drive 100 miles in a week to see it.


500,000 T CEMEX WASTE PLANT
was discussed - to be located either at Southam or Rugby. Southam residents after their PUBLIC MEETING had written 170 letters of objection, but Rugby sent only 7. When we suggested a PUBLIC MEETING should be called in Rugby to give the same equal opportunity, a very agitated Councillor Gordon Collett said that calling a public meeting was "SCARE MONGERING" and "RABBLE ROUSING". No the people of Rugby were not to be informed - and this Decision will NOT be taken until after the Local Elections in June - as it is potentially political! Meantime a full contaminated land survey has to be carried out on the MALPASS landfill to see what harmful effects there may be to local people during the construction, if it goes ahead there - never mind the harmful effects in an area of Multiple deprivation after construction.


RAILWAY TO BE RE-OPENED
After two very costly PUBLIC INQUIRIES the disused rail link between Rugby cement and its clay quarry and two hazardous bypass dust landfills, (CELL 3 and CELL 4) was "safeguarded for future re-opening" and the Western Relief Road that was supposed to run on it was re-aligned into the green belt at a cost of many millions, and of forcing unwilling farmers off their land. That is to be appraised again - would get 140 clay lorries off the roads, and possibly another 300 waste lorries everyday - as well as other lorries - save 13 X 500 = 6,500 miles a day (approximately). Then presumably the Southam and village residents would withdraw their objections which were based mainly on traffic concerns? In Rugby concern is pollution and air quality; health; lorry pollution; and more overall detrimental impact on an area of multiple deprivation where life expectancy is already less, and where so many more people would be affected by the pollution.


LOCATION, LOCATION...
Is this the very best location? What would they do on this "small site" with the mountains of waste and/or RDF in the urban smokeless zone during shut downs and/or break downs of either plant? They plan to bring in about 1,000 tonnes each day for processing, plus another 360 tonnes a day of ready made climafuel. 1,000 tonnes a day - that is 30,000 tonnes a month all PILED UP? And the RDF is highly flammable as the west Coast main line cannot have a "pipe or conveyor over it because of the fire risk". Not to mention a few hundred tonnes of tyre chips as well. Then there is the Highways charge that was agreed in 1997 - £975,000 Section 106 agreement to develop the site - that is now about £1.7 million. And the contaminated Malpass land, and river Avon, and green belt, and existing high pollution, and air quality management area, and vulnerable receptors, and railway - perhaps they ought to think the LOCATION over again?

SOUTHAM HAZARDOUS LANDFILL

DIRTY BUSINESS!

PLANNING INSPECTORATE
FREEDOM INFORMATION
ACCESS APPEALS REGISTER.

ABEYANCES GALORE SINCE 2004! Authorised abeyance ended 31 December 2008 (AS I POINTED OUT!) Planning Inspectorate agree abeyance 13 MAY 2009 (from October 2004!!)  Cemex say WCC have finally agreed Planning Permission of 3/4/07 and hazardous waste bypass lorry  routing agreement,  but not signed!  EA cannot grant IPPC permit as CELL 4 has no planning permission - yet! Constant stream of abeyances since April 2005 "to get planning permission from WCC; to get IPPC permit from EA; to have time to build new landfill CELL 4; to submit closure notice for (unlawful?) CELL 3 - cannot legally submit CLOSURE NOTICE while CELL 3 is still under appeal!

INSULTATION SECRET  PROCESS
FOR 4 YEARS BY EA AND  PI UNTIL TODAY. EA PR STILL CONTAINS NO INFORMATION ON SOUTHAM EXISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL CELL 3! STATUTORY CONSULTEES -SOUTHAM/STRATFORD/RUGBY BC still left out of the so-called CONSULTATION for 2006 IPPC APPLICATION for CELL 4.
No-one been properly consulted as the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY HAS REFUSED ALL ACCESS to the PUBLIC REGISTER.
CELL 3 landfill "appears" to have no planning permission and  no operating permission - so they HIDE all the information!

SUMMARY
18/04/05 EA to PI: "This appeal to the Secretary of State is against a decision of the EA to issue a landfill Permit no BV1666IX dated  14 October 2004 to carry on in respect of a Schedule 1 Section 5.2 A (1) (a) activity, disposal of waste in a landfill at Southam Long Itchington Warwicks. 21/04/05 start date. "The EA has agreed.
WHILST THEIR APPEAL IS LODGED THE APPELLANTS ARE ABLE TO OPERATE UNDER THEIR WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENSE. These PUBLIC REGISTER papers will be held at the EA office!" OH really?

ABEYANCE NOT ALLOWED INDEFINITELY!
21/02/06 How many years are they permitted to go on in ABEYANCE and working under WML - how many extensions? Does this WML include the dumping of hazardous waste? They have NO valid planning permission - infringing EU Law! QUOTE: "The PI  DOES NOT AGREE TO INDEFINITE ABEYANCE,  but if the EA is in agreement and the PI agrees that PROGRESS IS BEING MADE, and specifically in this case a second PPC application is being made the abeyance in the Inspectorates' opinion is appropriate. The Southam works landfill site would be able to accept waste in accordance with their WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENSE. (Check with EA public register for SPECIFIC TYPES) An IPPC Permit cannot be issued until an appropriate planning permission is in force. However IF the parties do not come up with sufficient reasons for abeyance for both sites we may point out to them that the appeals have to proceed as APPEALS CANNOT BE PLACED IN ABEYANCE INDEFINITELY."

CLOSURE OF EXISTING  CELL 3 SOUTHAM HAZARDOUS WASTE?
" The EA discuss LONGER TERM CLOSURE of LANDFILL SITE that is subject to the appeal but CLOSURE NOTICE cannot be issued while under appeal but a closure report could be produced."
A review October 2007  of long term  management to EA, following  agreement of a CLOSURE REPORT for RUGBY LANDFILL. No feedback and as   SOME OF THE OPTIONS IN THIS REPORT WILL IMPACT ON THE CLOSURE OF THE LANDFILL AT SOUTHAM therefore Cemex is not in a position to progress a CLOSURE REPORT for Southam at this stage". Where can anyone see this?

PUBLIC REGISTER REQUEST 29/01/08 access for this case.  NO! This appeal not yet been decided - AND IF YOU WISH TO SEE THE PUBLIC REGISTER FOR THIS CASE I SUGGEST YOU CONTACT LOCAL EA OFFICE. All boxed up at Tewkesbury! Files left BY MISTAKE at the Tewkesbury office! Finally AT Lichfield  on Friday 6  February 2008 - NOTHING on the  EA files at all about this appeal.

Denied access  to information.

SECRET PROCESS
03/03/08 Please can I see the files? EA have NO INFORMATION only  a file years out of date! Despite repeated requests and another two visits to the EA office LICHFIELD they REFUSE to make any papers available.
PI: "To obtain information you have to make a request under the FOI requests scheme and you MAY BE ABLE TO OBTAIN INFORMATION"
Abeyance until 30 June 2008. 24/06/08 CEMEX: EA request extension to PPC application due to KNOCK ON EFFECT BY WCC - legal requirement not met - no planning permission!

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - WCC LATEST:
12 /02/09  "EA is minded to issue a PPC permit and has drafted a permit and decision document to that effect. However we are unable to issue a permit until planning permission is received so the application remains on hold. We would therefore request an extension to the abeyance period for a further THREE MONTHS."

POSITION REGARDING REPEATED ABEYANCE
"Abeyance periods for appeals is not unusual and reasons can differ, but most common is continuing dialogue between parties which could lead to the appeal being withdrawn. Often this dialogue can become protracted and takes time (in some cases years).  PI are here to process appeals. Whilst there is the possibility that agreement can be reached between parties then we are able to keep a valid appeal (for which this is one) in abeyance for as long as both parties are in agreement to do so. It would not be beneficial to anyone for us to force both sides to come to a Hearing or Inquiry to be heard and a decision to be made, when neither currently wants to follow that course of action, and is therefore seeking positive dialogue. We can only continue as we are currently.

BYPASS DUST RAINS!

SOUTHAM QUARRY - CONFUSION REIGNS!

CURRENTLY NOT AVAILABLE ANYWHERE:
1. WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENSE for CELL 3.
2. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF CEMENT KILN DUST, BYPASS DUST AND CLINKER DUST from old style coal burning cement plants only - such as the old Rugby works, and from the new waste co-incinerating cement works at Rugby. 3.EU WASTE CODES, which are MANDATORY for the CKD and/or BPD - as that should be on the planning permission, on any IPPC/WML permission for land filling and on the Waste Transfer notes that are supposed to accompany every delivery of waste and to kept for two years.
4. ANY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT for this cement plant and its whole impact.
5. ANY IPPC PERMIT for landfill CELL 3.
6. COPY at Stratford of (new) OCTOBER 2006 IPPC application (new) CELL 4.
7. ANY PLANNING PERMISSION of any kind for CELL 3.
8. RESTORATION PLAN FOR LODGE FARM RUGBY!

MARCH 4/2008 WCC REGULATORY COMMITTEE:
S965/06CM036 Waste Management and classification of waste? "There is a cross over here between the roles and responsibilities of the County Planning Authority and Environment Agency. The County Council are concerned with land use principles - is the development acceptable in this location, whilst the EA deals with matters of detail, such as pollution control through the Licensing and Permitting Regime.

Concern has been raised that the land filling of CKD at Southam Quarry is unauthorised as the time limited planning permission has expired." (on 31 DECEMBER 2007!)

MINUTES:
RUGBY CEMENT Originally sought temporary PP to deposit CKD and subsequently a series of renewals granted. Concern BYPASS DUST BPD being deposited but EA advice was BPD was "broadly the same" material as CKD. The temporary PP had lapsed but the deposit of material still continued. UNAUTHORISED DEPOSITING was NOT a FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM because neither the EA nor Stratford-on-Avon Environmental Health had any objection. They "did not appear to be overly concerned" about the application and the Committee had granted permission for BPD to be deposited at (CELL 4) Southam Quarry close to it,(03/04/07) but not overlapping the section (CELL 3) covered by the current application although this had not been implemented due to agreement not having been reached on lorry routing."

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY FAILURE:
EA failed to clarify the issue about the difference between CKD and BPD and UNFORTUNATELY the EA's email had been confusing - "the two materials were broadly the same and that permission for the depositing of CKD included BPD." BPD contained about 10% LIME (only??) which meant that it was classified as hazardous material. An application to the EA for an IPPC Permit 2004 for depositing hazardous waste had been rejected and was the subject of an appeal.


DECISION:
In view of CONFUSION engendered by EA email they DEFERRED the application to vary condition 1 of PP "S965/06CM036 to allow ONLY the importation and deposit of CKD Cement Kiln Dust, spillage materials, road sweepings, laboratory samples and kiln bricks at Southam for a further temporary period to 31/12/08", to enable clarification of the status of the CKD and BPD. EA refers to Southam WML as being amended and "in a transition stage between WML and IPPC and EPR permitting" - but no copy available.

TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE:
HGVs seem to be transporting (for 8 years 140,000 tonnes) hazardous waste with no hazardous markers on HGVs, nor any telephone numbers, and the BPD has been reported by many different people and statutory health bodies as escaping during transport. Calls have been made by various councillors, statutory bodies and the public for proper tankers to be used, with hazardous waste markers and telephone numbers on the sides.


PLANNING INSPECTORATE AND CEMEX APPEAL:
EA 2004 refused IPPC operating permit for CELL 3 landfill for various reasons, and as NO VALID PP for hazardous waste dumping. This appeal has VERY STRANGELY been held in ABEYANCE ever since (FOUR years!) at the Planning Inspectorate, while they make a new IPPC application for a new site - CELL 4.


CLASSIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE - BPD.
WCC made several references to bypass dust as "recently being re-classified as hazardous waste". Oh - When? BPD seems classified as Hazardous Waste category H4 irritant, and H8 corrosive.
KETTON Cement plant has a good description of retro-fitting bypass system to allow waste burning in old plant, and how to extract highly volatile pollutants at bypass, collected in BPD.