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"The Environment Agency HAD withdrawn  from the tyres variation application the section relating to the Climafuel specification change.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?