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re-opening of Southam railway not considered; air quality assessment incorrectly carried out - using wrong data - out of date!;no consideration of traffic capacity; failure to consider alternatives; failure to say where the WASTES will be arising etc etc.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?