RUGBY AIR THICKENS AS AIR TURNS BLUE.

The bus stop on Lawford road..

RUGBY TORIES BAN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TO SAVE - ONE POUND!

DUST NOT PERMITTED ON TORIES
The Environment Agency sees no dust! and see no cement plant. Unconfirmed reports say Rugby CONSERVATIVES, overheard in Conference, say: "There are no dusts on us! Cement plant dust is not permitted to fall on Conservative voters. We have a different way of life, and breathe different air from ordinary Rugby residents. We are clean." Conservative/ Agency envoys have special top-secret plan, to randomly locate three one metres disks to measure "falling dust" in Rugby. Cement Boundary site monitoring requested for seven years is not permitted as the Agency sees no cement works! Tories see no dust. Bets now being taken on outcome of "random dust survey."

AUTHORITIES CHASING OWN TALES?
The Environment Agency refuses to answer any questions about where similar Frisbee dust gauges have ever been used before. The officer said he had no information about any definition of "nuisance dust"; no data about where the frisbees have been used before; no idea to what effect these have ever been put; Faber Maunsell, the Agency's contractor, would ONLY be allowed to answer ANY questions once they had finished the monitoring in a few months time; RBC said they have no idea, but that "nuisance dust" is merely a matter for "officers' professional judgement", and in unenforceable under any existing Law, and has no definition whatsoever. So what are they trying to catch? FALLING STARS?

RUGBY RESIDENTS RIPPED OFF YET AGAIN!
FABER MAUNSELL, the "unlucky" consultants, who seemed to have learned nothing from the three year fiasco of their/our own £500,000 air quality saga, said that they can answer no questions. "We are contracted to RBC who are our clients." SO THE AGENCY IS NOW NOT THE CLIENT AFTER ALL THE CHARADE!


Faber are not allowed to speak, or to give out any information about the monitors. Rugby residents must "Pay up and shut up!" as the Agency and the Council collude to deliberately waste even more of our cash, and to prevent any PUBLIC CONSULTATION and to prevent any worthwhile information from being given out Meanwhile the Agency pretends that they are funding the latest farce. You be the judge - look at the above photos: Is Rugby dirtier than elsewhere?

RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM UPDATE:
HEATHER TIMMS: (of WCC - a main perpetrator in this "game") SHE SAYS COUNCIL TAX PAYERS AND ALL PARISH COUNCILS HAVE NO RIGHT TO ASK WHERE THEIR MONEY IS SPENT!! Following on from the "Silence of the lambs" we now present WCC CLLR TIMMS' own response telling Rugby people to keep on paying, and to STOP asking where their council taxes are being wasted.

From:
To: "Cllr Chris Holman" "Patricia Wyatt" Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Sustainable Environment Panel 27.09.07 Item 10. RCCF.

Dear Pat and Chris
As explained at the meeting, it is for Council to decide how to use rate payers money. And this applies whether it is A POUND or TEN THOUSAND..
It is apparent that officer time used in supporting RCCF runs counter to the principle of the "polluter pays" which I feel none of us would disagree with. Therefore the BREAKDOWN of AMOUNTS etc becomes TOTALLY IMMATERIAL and indeed requires further officer cost for no perceived benefit.

The decision is to facilitate the transfer of the Forum to be fully community owned based on this principle. (????) The expenditure agreed is a maximum figure agreed to facilitate this transfer and is not an annual grant. (NB : This refers to £7,500 from existing Protective Health Budget to appoint new uninformed members for the NEW Cemex controlled forum.)

The questions for the scutiny officers I am not able to respond to and may be areas Chris that you wish to investigate?
With best regards
Heather Timms

IN REPLY TO QUESTIONS FROM RUGBY PARISH COUNCILS' REPRESENTATIVE:
From: Patricia Wyatt Sent: 28 September 2007 20:32
To: Cllr Chris Holman; Cllr Tina Avis; Cllr Ish Mistry; Cllr Neil
Sandison; Cllr Noreen New; Simon Warren
Cc: Cllr Carolyn Robbins; Diane Pask; Lilian Pallikaropoulos
Subject: Sustainable Environment Panel 27.09.07 Item 10. RCCF.

"Dear Councillor Holman, - Chairman of Rugby Borough Council's Sustainable Environment Panel.

LACK OF INFORMATION IN THE REPORT. ITEM 10.

Having attended the Sustainable Environment Panel meeting last evening, the decision taken by members of the ABOVE MENTIONED panel was based and taken on, THE PROPITIOUS reason spoken of by Councillor Robbins, ie "Affecting this Council's, namely Rugby Borough Council's expenditure".

1. Can you explain a breakdown of that supposed Rugby Borough Council's expenditure?
2. Is Rugby Borough Council prepared to make a grant of £7,500 per annum?
3. How much is the cost to HIRE,
a. The Council Chamber,
b. Committee Room 1.
c. Committee Room 2.
for an evening meeting scheduled for two 2 hours?

4. How much money was set aside in the 2007/2008 budget to hold RCCF meetings including refreshments per annum?
5. How much of 2007/2008 budget will this decision have under spent? I wish to record my personal appreciation of the five knowledgeable respresentatives to whom this email is addressed, and their contributions made to the meeting. What happens in the future remains to be seen. Party Politics showed abundantly clear just how undemocratically, decisions are made.

Finally, I point out how inappropriate/inaccurate the last four items on the Agenda Management Sheet (Agenda No. 10 (set on green paper)) are as printed. May I recommend this matter to the scrutiny officers.

1. There are Financial implications - that is what it is all about!!
2. There is a risk of maladministration.
3. There certainly are environmental risks and implications.
4. There could be legal implications from the report... ref. SR letter and other.
5. At 2.1, what is meant by RRCF? (twice is same paragraph overleaf)
Mrs. Patricia Wyatt.

LUNATICS NOW IN CHARGE OF ASYLUM? RBC EHO TALKING HEAD SEAN LAWSON (5.10.07): Email to RCCF members:
"A decision for the Council to hand over the responsibility to Cemex has now been made and approved through the Council's democratic process." (oh???) For "operational reasons" the meeting of 1st October was changed to 16th October - without telling any of those involved. "Your emails were not ignored", but we like to play our cards close to our chest.

"The Council determined to withdraw its secretarial function from the RCCF. Rather than just to cease its support we have decided to hold a final meeting on 16 OCTOBER 5.30 pm TOWN HALL. Any future meetings and arrangements can be discussed then. I look forward to a lively debate and discussion at that time.

I DO NOT EXPECT THAT THIS RESPONSE WILL SATISFY ANY OR ALL OF THE RUGBY RESIDENTS CONCERNS."


BUT TOUGH! RBC CONSERVATIVES AND MEALY MOUTHED EMPLOYEES HAVE ABANDONED ALL AND EVERY DUTY TO THE ELECTORATE, ENVIRONMENT, AIR QUALITY, HEALTH, AND TO THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED IN RUGBY!!
RUGBY RESIDENTS ARE NOW: ON THEIR OWN!

SACRIFICED!

SEVEN TORY DWARFS..
..wanting more cash for their teas sacrificed the Rugby Cement Community Forum to Cemex at last night's Council meeting. Sean Lawson wrote a bigoted report making many unsupported and unjustified false claims, not least that the RCCF "cost too much", but he refused to provide any figures or costs. Nor to say what part of the "excessive costs" were incurred by his unnecessary presence at the RCCF meetings. Maybe his salary should be cut - seeing as how he costs too much?

All this left Councillors uninformed and ridiculous, floundering in the dark, and wondering what exactly they were talking about - as usual! Labour and Lib Dems spoke up well on behalf of the Community, and on the damage that Cemex does to Rugby. One long-standing councillor said that Rugby Cement had always lied! This "handover" to Cemex was an unmitigated disaster, and that the Tories haven't seen anything yet. They spoke about how the community would rise up against the Tory dictators in Rugby.

Tory dwarfs:
TIMMS the ringleader: Robbins; Bull Sewell; Allen; Cranham; Hazelton; Spiers; Watson. The new boys looked so embarrassed and uncomfortable, being whipped in to toe the party line, that they only managed to hold up their hands about three inches off the desk to vote.

Robbins argued that "the polluter should pay" but could not say why they were not insistent that Cemex pay for the Forum as it is now. £7,500 is to be used from the HEALTH PROTECTION budget to find some new, more compliant, naive, uninformed people to "actively support Cemex" on the the new Cemex controlled Forum. At least they at last acknowledge that the cement company is a polluter and IS a HEALTH ISSUE..

Labour's Tina Avis, Ish Mistry, and Lib Dems Neil Sandison, Noreen New and Chris Holman all spoke up well to try to protect the community from the growing excesses of Cemex, and are making a minority report to the FULL COUNCIL. All the committees at RBC have a majority of Tory members on them so they can just vote through what they want. Tories clearly do not have a majority in the IQ stakes - in fact they are very poorly represented as far as intelligence is
concerned - which was well demonstrated by last night's abysmal display!

WHAT PRICE HAS BEEN PAID?
Not only that but also the Agency had been working in secret with Cemex and RBC, behind the backs of the Councillors and community representatives, and breached the Council's Code of Conduct. A total lack of respect, and the usual failure to consult.

Typical Agency behaviour!

What price Rugby's silver medal in the national IN BLOOM competition? The main sponsor was Cemex. So far the Council refuses to say how much Cemex has paid them. Instead of properly funding the RCCF Cemex have given Rugby people a few dead flowers - weeds even! How cheaply this Tory Council has sold out Rugby residents, disposed of any democratic or community involvement, and handed control of the Forum to Cemex.


ENVIRONMENT AGENCY SPOTLIGHT
This year's just published Spotlight revealed a growing perception that the report has lost its way. The problem is that the Agency has erred, and strayed from Spotlight's original purpose - to put public pressure on poorly performing firms. Unfortunately by including case studies of good performance, and by covering other issues such as data on releases, waste production, and site management, the report lacks analysis of what the data means in context of the Agency's strategic objectives. It chose to focus this year's report on climate change, despite the fact that it does not regulate most green house gases.

TOP TEN POLLUTERS 2006
Cemex Rugby £400,000
Thames Water £191,600
United Utilities £137,300
Van Dalen £100,000
Castle Cement £ 99,000 PADESWOOD DIOXINS
Anglian Water £ 75,000
Wiggins Transport £ 63,000
Wessex Water £ 56,250
Agresol £ 54,000
Southern Water £ 52,625
Cemex Rugby £ 50,000 Fine reduced June 2007.
Coe of Ilford £ 48,000
Erith Haulage £ 48,000

The Agency claims pollution incidents have (just) reduced to an all-time low. However that is not the experience in Rugby - it's simply that the Agency puts the burden of proof onto the public. We have to prove where the pollution has come from, and the polluter usually denies it! The Agency covers for them. And then, for example, during the pollution incident of 10th March 2007 when Cemex "admitted" to dropping eight tonnes of pulverised coal on our heads, heated in the recirculated gasses from the combustion process, the Agency STILL, seven months on, has not managed to assess the size of the particles; the chemical content nor the potential health impact. Apart from a little enforcement notice Cemex remains unpunished.
How many tonnes constitutes a pollution incident? Eight tonnes are not enough, so no chance of any action for the daily grime!

RugbyTown.org.. Now in Video!

Wow..

Is this the beginning of me taking things to a new technological level?

I want to thank Documentally.com for taking the time to put my video clips together and also John and Lucy (more clued up R.I.P. menbers) for giving me the idea..
If you have a story you want me to 'Vlog' (Video Blog.. new word I have learned) perhaps your health is directly affected by the works, the traffic or you have piles of dust and particulates piled up against your door?

Email me at lilian (at) rugbytown.org (change at for @) or leave a comment and I will rush round with my camera and record the evidence or your story to add the the growing archive of wrong doings forced upon the people of Rugby.

READ ALL ABOUT IT

STARTING TODAY, WE Publish ONLINE A SELECTION OF RUGBY RESIDENTS LETTERS WHICH HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED IN NATIONAL OR LOCAL PRESS.

(Let us know if some slip us by..)





EAST JOURNAL:

To the Editor,

BUILT IN THE WRONG PLACE.

During my visit to the Environment Exhibition held at the NEC, Birmingham a few years ago, Baroness Barbara Young said to me quote “Pat, you and I are never going to be able to agree with each other because the Rugby Cement works should not have been built there”. (Adjacent to 60,000 Rugby Town People)

Fellow campaigners and I have for the past seven years tried in vain to protect our Environment, especially in and around RUGBY, Warwickshire. I have been extremely active as a founder member of Rugby in Plume trying to stop tyres and municipal solid wastes and other "alternative fuels" fro being burnt in the nearby cement factory. (Now a Co-Incinerator)
During 2002-2006 I represented the residents of Long Lawford on Rugby Borough Council. The constant deluge of changes made by the cement industry (profit before Health) makes everyone concerned, because of the known problems of dioxins, particulates, dust, nuisance, odour, hundreds of additional daily movements of lorries and fall-outs over the residents. The "expansion" of the existing cement works, (under the disguise of the word “Up-Grade”) commenced in 1995 was the start of something BIG, unbeknown to the people who happen to reside in the area. The growth of the cement works, to treble its size, was accompanied by a great lack of any proper consultation, a great deal of misinformation and a huge amount of economy with the truth. There has been so much “Impropriety” through the years, now scrutiny and thorough investigation is urgently required. The Environment Agency does not protect our environment, WHY?, Is it because they are unaware of what goes on.? Is it because the are politically constrained or short of resources? They are unable to make and administer any meaningful safeguards, because the applicant constantly requests variations. The threat of claims for COMPENSATION causes fear, and an inevitable paralysis in the minds of many otherwise worthy local councillors, and who pays for this showcase, we the public. The residents feel powerless to bring about change to their dilemma, because it is always the applicant who gains meaningless permits. Frustration is the flavour of the day followed by apathy. Local residents have attempted to use the Judicial Review process in order to have the dreadful decisions of recent years reversed. So far that process has been unsuccessful, but the effort continues. Such complicated matters, brought before Judges in a condensed form for a few hours, remain so difficult for them to share our experiences and to fully understand our grievances. The powers and duty of the Environment Agency need strengthening to enable them to serve the defenceless public on a stringent level playing field. The Health Protection Agency was formed to assist and advise the EA with it’s work load, but it has failed Rugby citizens. They have not applied the precautionary principle in order to safeguard the citizens of Rugby, especially the young and elderly and to provide protection for future generations.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs. Patricia Wyatt.
Long Lawford Parish Councillor.

IS TYRE BURNING SET FOR 100% INCREASE?

OR DO THE £1,000,000 TYRE HOPPER, CONVEYOR & ELEVATOR FACE DEMOLITION?
RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION REFUSED! PULL IT DOWN!

Well if it's good enough for Bury St Edmunds' Councillors, SURELY it's good enough for Rugby and Warwickshire! Or is something wrong with these councillors in Rugby?

Tesco's at Bury St Edmunds recently built an unlawful extension, and then applied for retrospective planning permission, no doubt assuming it would be just nodded through. Now Tesco is in shock as for once someone has stood up to them, and called their BLUFF, and a halt to such under-hand attempts to bypass correct procedure and attempts to bypass PUBLIC CONSULTATION!

Smart Councillors went against the "advice" of their own council's planning officers, (who were only too willing to recommend turning a blind eye), and told Tesco to pull it down! The David and Goliath battle has begun - with mighty Tesco set to appeal, and presumably to bankrupt the local authority? Tesco now "wishes to work with the local council to resolve the impasse. And how might they achieve that - some cash for the "in bloom" perhaps?

RUGBY AND BURY ST EDMUNDS But local people said it wasn't in keeping with the surroundings, either in scale or material, was too big, was as ugly as you could imagine, doesn't fit in with anything, and the developer should have been more sensitive to the local residents where it dominated the backs of peoples gardens blocking the light and spoiling the enjoyment of the neighbourhood.
RUGBY HEINOUS CRIME!
In addition in Rugby the "unlawful development" permitted by the gutless councillors also rains down pollution near and far, day and night, and has 1,000 HGVs a day - and blocks out light even in the Conservation Area!
WARWICKS COUNTY COUNCIL seemingly useless, uninformed, untrained, blissfully ignorant of planning law and EU directives, and cowed by Rugby Cement's power and clout, subserviently gave a retrospective planning permission, (with no informed public consultation), to not only permit the retention of the extra unlawful constructions, in which to convey and burn the waste, that Rugby Cement said they had built "for £1,000,000 at our own risk", but they also managed to permit - presumably in blissful ignorance - the cement plant to morph into a CO-INCINERATOR - without so much as a mention of the word, and without any public consultation.

JOHN DEEGAN (Blind leading the blind!)
(Warwicks CC R410/02CM025 Rugby Cement) Received retrospective planning application Sep.2002 for plant to convey/burn tyres, that required planning permission. See Regulatory Committee Report Appendix B on 28/01/03 to understand how little these planning officers comprehend about what they are doing. DEEGAN even argued that there was no need for any public consultation, and advised gullible councillors that turning the cement plant into a co-incinerator does not require any consideration except - "the visual and the operational impacts of the development, rather than the burning of shredded tyres."

He crassly justifies his "attitude" by saying that RBC Environmental Health Office is satisfied the development will have little impact". It will apparently cause no dust either - nor run off into the River Avon when 600 tonnes are stored outside on the ground to breed mosquitoes!
He does not understand what 600 tonnes chipped tyres is like - stored in a town's residential area. Sad case!

DO I HEAR IT FOR WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL OFFICERS, and their lead-by -the-nose 62 County and 48 Borough Councillors.
Not to mention Member of Parliament Andy King?
BOO BOO BOO!

MAKING MONKEYS

(click to enlarge print and wear!)

..OF RUGBY RESIDENTS YET AGAIN!

Speaking of Rugby residents a reliable source informed "They have been duped yet again. It is easy when you know how. We do it all the time. Making monkeys is us!"


PUBLIC CONSULTATION ANYONE?
The new-Labour Environment Agency promised much - "better regulation; open transparent governance; access to information; public participation; adequate effective meaningful consultation; environmental protection; air quality and health improvements; stricter controls on industry...."
The EA already had the Cemex Application to increase tyre burning by 100% was by 12th July, but "somehow" it was omitted from the July 18th RCCF meeting, and now we are being scrambled to consider it on 29th August, with only five days notice. No time to inform the public either! Typical.


RBC ON EXTRA TYRE BURNING * "While it is accepted that the statutory period for consultation is 28 days it is not considered appropriate for the voluntary sector, which have valid reasons to consider this application. Under the Warwickshire Compact Agreement 12 weeks is normally provided for consultation, in line with Government recommendations. "
* "Only 2 weeks is proposed for the trials. This is considered very short especially as new bag filters have been fitted and the proposal is a SIGNIFICANT increase in tyres as a substitute fuel. (100%.)"
* "The previous tyre burning trials had shown an increase in respirable particulates. The area has elevated levels of particulate. The Council requests the impact of the trials on particulate emissions be closely monitored and carefully considered."


BUNCH OF FLOWERS BUYS OFF TOWN - COMMUNITY MATTERS?
The Cemex Rugby Cement Plant Community Matters newsletter has dropped on the mat of the lucky few thousand houses in the areas CV21 and CV23 nearest the works. Funny it is not delivered in the town centre, nor of course in the nearby Rugby School conservation area, where residents seemingly do not need to know, and do not breath the same air? The latest charitable donations, £125,000 to Church Lawford Village Hall, and unspecified sums to RBC for the Rugby in Bloom competition are proudly announced. Never let it be said that these "timely select donations" are not specifically designed to buy-off, divide up, or compensate sections of the Community.

As the World Business Council for Sustainable Development admitted, the cement industry is not sustainable in the long term. It advised the cement industry to target decision makers, divide up the politicians, and to deal with protesters by isolating them or by engaging them in things the cement industry wants them to do, to keep them busy, and to keep the population happy by telling them plausible stories for the future.


TIME FOR REFRESHMENT?
Cemex say: "In a recent report to RBC Sean Lawson, Head of Environmental Health Services set out the options for the future of the Rugby Cement Community Forum or RCCF.
The RCCF was set up over five years ago to provide a means for the community and the company to meet, exchange information and examine any issues concerning the plant's operation. It was, he states, a short term measure which should now be reviewed. A number of options were presented and these included carrying on in its present form, disbanding it completely, or passing the responsibility (and the expense) to the company.
He believed that the Forum had become 'adversarial in nature' and this had contributed to it not achieving its objectives.

It is certainly more common practice for such liaison to be facilitated and financed by the company involved and it was this option that was accepted. However a final decision has been put off until later in the year. If the original decision is upheld, independent research would be carried out to establish the make-up and organisation of a new liaison group and how this can best serve the needs of the community."

WISHFUL THINKING CEMEX!
This "Option" has been "called in" by some environmentally aware Councillors. The Tory Cabinet have had their knuckles wrapped over their hasty and non-constitutional decision to disband the RCCF. A scrutiny exercise is being conducted into this apparent abuse of process, and into the aims and objectives of those who started this action.

BUNKUM!
As for Sean Lawson's Report to RBC Cabinet Rugby in Plume say how will handing over control to Cemex improve things? And if the RCCF has been ineffectual it is because:
* The so-called exchange of information is incomplete, stilted, censored, often misleading, and has to be dragged out, like pulling teeth.
* Neither the EA nor Cemex (nor hapless RBC) are capable of answering a basic straight question with a straight answer.
* Their objective appears to get away with telling us as little as possible.
* They do not tell us about incidents at the works, malfunctions,emission limit exceedences, and vital Public Register information is never presented.
Forum members have to dig it out.
* They hide data for months and even years.
* The Agency takes months and years to investigate pollution incidents and in the meantime tells the RCCF they may not discuss them.
* The consultations appear targeted at holiday periods, presumably in the hope the public eye is "off the ball!" and the RCCF numbers are down.
* The "consultations" fit neatly in between the four annual RCCF meetings, the dates of which are planned over year in advance, so that in effect the Forum as a body never ever discusses the variations and applications.
* The RCCF was never said to be only a "short-term measure".
* The RCCF declined the offer of reverting to the previous model where RMC would not permit the public, controlled the agenda, the venue, and minutes.
* The RCCF suggested Cemex should fund the RCCF as it is now - in line with the Polluter Should Pay principal - in an open and publicly accessible venue.
* The RCCF asked RBC how much the Community, (only trying to protect itself), has had to pay to subsidise Cemex, and its ever ongoing new applications for variations, planning permissions, changes to equipment, storage, waste raw materials, waste "fuels", increased emission limits. extra HGVs etc? How do these compare with the industry hand-outs?

SET UP NEW COMMITTEE TO FOOL PUBLIC
The track record of the Rugby Cement, the Environment Agency and RBC shows that they resort to setting up a new committee when they are discretely trying to slip in something unpalatable.

LIAISON GROUP 1999 QUITE UNAWARE and UNINFORMED
They had a Rugby Cement Liaison Group controlled by the works, and in June 1999 they tried to get away without following the LAWFUL PROCESS, and to evade the IPC Consultation for the new plant. So they formed a new committee involving many uninformed Councillors. Karen Stone, (Sean Lawson's predecessor), was then Director of Environmental Health, along with a Mr Cudlip who was in declining health. Dianne Colley was the Chief Executive and is now living comfortably on a pension after taking early retirement on ill-health grounds when it had all become too much for her! And for us!! Karen Stone was involved in secret meetings with the Agency about why this IPC application is "different", and "special", and why it is not following the "standard procedure."
FAILINGS AT IPC IN JUNE 1999
* IPC was "mentioned" once in passing at an early 1999 Liaison meeting, but the RBC and EA officers did not bring the consultation to the attention of the members, and Councillors. * They all now refuse to answer questions about why this deceit took place... and who decided they should do it.
* The Agency refused to provide copies of the IPC application being "duly made", and refused to give any copies of the "fees" that should have been paid for the IPC application.
* Neither RMC nor the Agency have any copy of the essential IPC advertisement, and the Agency admits to having no responses from the public because, as we now know, the public and the "gullible" Liaison Group had been bypassed completely, and kept in ignorance.
* RBC finally admitted that some officer/s at the Council had decided to completely ignore the IPC application they had received in June 1999 for the one month consultation. They have no records, no minutes, and no memory of who made that decision nor by what procedure this decision to "do nothing" had been arrived at.
* Whoever decided to act in this way wilfully committed the Rugby residents to many more years of unnecessary excess pollution, and deliberately damaged the environment, and air quality for Rugby people. What motivated them to get a lesser protection and a much lower standard than should have been enforced at that time?
* RBC and the Agency bypassed the lawful process. The Agency claims that Rugby Cement was responsible for the failure to advertise the mandatory consultation, for the IPC application which was completed on 16 June 1999. But surely this demonstrates the Agency's failure to regulate?

RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM OCTOBER 2002
The Liaison Group bumbled along, controlled, ineffective, secretive, minutes unavailable, until the time the public were in revolt as they had been told there was a "tyre burning application". Straight after its construction the cement plant was suddenly to become a co-incinerator. The growing public awareness was that they had been duped by: Warwickshire County Council planning office; by Rugby Borough Council planning and environmental health; by the Environment Agency's failings; and by Rugby Cement.

Even the Liaison group was not told there was an IPPC application - and were given copies of a tyre burning summary, and colour sheets about the joys of alternative fuels. The full IPPC application was deemed duly made on 31 August 2001, but the public were not informed. The "Tyre Burning meetings" were being held and for a year the Agency, unbeknown to the Liaison Group and the public, was collecting extra information from RMC, in correspondence dated 21 December 2001; 1 March 2002; 5 March 2002; 28 March; 3 May; 31 May and finally 5 June when the Agency advised RMC to revise the whole site plan for the application. So you see the level of ignorance even included not knowing exactly what the site included, and what the public and Council were actually supposed to be being consulted on.

The June 2002 Liaison Group meeting was cancelled without warning, and a new committee was set up seven months later in October 2002. Initially this was run by a Public Relations Company, Green Issues, hired by RMC. These carried out the first two meetings "in order to get the Critical Success Factors through" before new members understood the significance of them. Only the few hand-selected councilors were permitted to vote, and the voluntary sector community group members were treated as second class citizens. The January and April 2003 RCCF meetings saw the Agency evade all questions until after the IPPC Decision had been made - August 2003.

OTHER NEWS - FILTER BOOST
"Rugby Cement plant's new £6.5 million bag filter is performing well beyond expectations by achieving 80% reduction in dust emissions, despite having operated well inside the dust emission level allowed by its Environment Agency Permit." "The bag filter is replacing the kiln ESP, which collects dust, mainly chalk, to recycle back into the process". One wonders to which permit they are referring? Meanwhile the gases from the clinker cooler ESP and bypass ESP emit from the main stack, without passing through the bag filter.

A LITTLE SYMPATHY IS CALLED FOR
Cemex confirm that "at present adequate supplies of material of a consistent quality are limited in the UK, due to the slow progress in the development of mechanical biological treatment plants to process waste and meet the industry's rigorous specifications for a quality fuel, and Cemex is already HAVING to import waste (Climafuel) from Holland for burning at South Ferriby and possibly Barrington." Spare a thought for them "having" to import household waste!

SURVEY OF RESIDENTS IN THE VICINITY OF CEMEX PLANTS
The newsletter contained a Liaison Group Questionnaire for residents to complete. "It is important to us to be aware of your views"....fill in and post, or download from http://www.cemex.co.uk/su/su_co.html

LOST - ONE CEMENT PLANT.

£50 REWARD.

(I see no cement plant?)????

LAND REGISTRY DENY VERY EXISTENCE OF RUGBY CEMENT!
WCC, RBC, & AGENCY CARRY ON IN SECRET, AS EVER!
PUBLIC NOW BLAMED FOR TYRE TRIAL DISASTER!
COMPANIES HOUSE CONFUSED AS TO OWNERSHIP OF THIS NON-CEMENT PLANT.

The Land Registry are in denial. They say they have no details of any cement plant at Rugby, despite the new plant changing hands twice since compulsory registration. The Environment Agency omitted it from the Pollution Inventory. Warwickshire County Council admit it never had any consultation in the planning stage, or over the addition of the equipment to make it a CO-INCINERATOR. It never had any kind of environmental impact assessment at any stage. The EA and Rugby Council admit they hid the June 1999 IPC consultation, and made no attempt to limit the damage to Rugby's environment and air quality. The Agency conveniently omits to put public notices on the Public Register. 62 County Councillors and 48 at Rugby have bags over their heads; and gags!


So here is the latest news from "no cement plant" at
Rugby Works OS Grid ref: SP 4487 2757
Cemex UK Cement Ltd (company reg: 475212)
Cemex UK Operations Ltd (658390)
Chinnor Transport (475212)
Rugby Limited (475212)


NEW TYRE TRIALS
One month consultation has now started by the EA as Cemex wish to double tyre burning, to 25% substitution. The baseline will be with 3 tonnes an hour tyres, and there will be two weeks testing after that at 6 tonnes. This trial will be different - so they say using a novel approach - it is to be "well-conducted!" Ha! 600 tonnes of tyres will now be stored in the open, and the restrictions on run-off into the sewer will be removed, presumably to allow all drainage from the tyres into the water course.


HOW TO JUDGE TYRE TRIAL SUCCESS
Cemex comedy sketch writer: "This trial will build on the success of the previous trial." The seven previous CSFs (Critical Success Factors) will be removed and replaced by such little gems as: CSF 1 "The current specified emission limit values will not be exceeded for any reason DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE to tyres." So there is a challenge to the public. How is anyone to know, when even the Agency does not know.

AGENCY say:
"Emission limits apply to the Works at ALL times, with the ONE (teeny weeny little??) exception:
"The limits do not apply during shutdown or startup. Startup is complete at 200 tonnes an hour of dry raw material." That is at about 80% of full rate.
No mention is made of fuel/s! Nor for how many hours these shutdowns/startups occur.
Also when asked repeatedly for how many hours a day/week/month/year no emission limits count the Agency said to go to the Public Register and try to work it out. Finally, after seven years of badgering the Agency admit to having no idea at all about how many "unlimited" hours there have been since February 2000. They have, at last, asked Cemex to provide it. We would only note that in the tyre trials data the 1,000 hours was interrupted by 53 stops - with no data made available - so watch this space.

CSF 5: "There will be no increase in reportable incidents or JUSTFIED complaints relating to the use of tyres."
So that nicely puts the onus back on the public to collect samples and evidence.


£50 REWARD FOR SIMPLE SUMS:
The Environment Agency needs help. They cannot work out how many tonnes of clinker were made in the two "supposedly comparable" 1,000 hour periods of the trial
Can you help them work out how many tonnes of clinker in each of the 1,000 hours?
* 1,000 hours baseline produced 3291 tonnes bypass dust = 1.37% clinker produced.
* 1,000 hours tyre trials produced 3006 tonnes bypass dust = 1.59% clinker produced.
The Agency have asked Cemex to help them. One wonders why the Agency has permitted the permanent burning of tyres when the Trials and the with holding of all the crucial data were condemned widely by all the consultees. (Even Rugby Borough Council agreed with us for once! And the Primary Care Trust,Tyre Burning Review Group, Rugby Cement Community Forum etc etc)


POLLUTION EVENT 10 MARCH 2007 UPDATE.
Six months on and the Agency admit that they still have no idea of the chemical breakdown and particle size distribution from the Cemex pollution episode. Cemex confessed that an estimated eight tonnes of milled coal "escaped" from a silo and rained down on sleeping residents up to three miles away. The Agency do not know the answers to questions about the health and environmental impact, nor when, or even if, they are going to prosecute.Rumour has it that frustrated Rugby residents are taking a private action through the Magistrates Court. Against Cemex and against the Agency for permitting this type of incident to keep on happening to "innocent victims".

NO SURPRISE!

AIR QUALITY GETS WORSE IN RUGBY.
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA BOROUGH WIDE FOR NITROGEN DIOXIDE, AND NOW ALSO PM10 INCREASES CAUSE CONCERN:
RBC say previous tyre trials increased particulate emissions. Main stack, bypass area, and cement mills increase burden and health impact of particulate of which THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL!

PM 10 Readings in MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METRE
AQMS 1 Webb Ellis Road :
25 March 72 Micrograms cubic metre
27 March 59
28 March 67

Has Maximum PM10 hour at 120 and PM2.5 at 72.

AQMS2 NEWBOLD ROAD : 11 EXCEEDENCES
25 January 54
3 February 66
4 February 62
6 February 80
7 February 68
25 March 82
26 March 57
27 March 70
28 March 77
30 March 59
31 March 53

PM10 maximum hour 206!
Why is this the ONLY TEOM with NO PM2.5 monitor?

AQMS 2 has massive NOX at 1138 for one hour!
NO at 683 and NO2 at 141 for the hour.

AQMS 3 LAWFORD SCHOOL
3 February 53
4 February 58
6 February 53
25 March 83
27 March 63
28 March 68
31 March 52

PM10 maximum 142 for the hour, and 62 for PM2.5 with a daily average of 42 for PM2.5!!

AQMS 4 Avenue Road
25 March 77
27 March 57
28 March 64

Avenue Road maximum hourly was 130.
Highest PM2.5 was 57.1 hourly and daily average 39.3!!!

CEMEX EXCEEDS EMISSION LIMIT VALUES

DIOXIN and FURAN EXCEEDENCE (admitted 4 July)
The ELV for the most toxic substance known to man was exceeded on 22 March at the CEMEX RUGBY works in the twice yearly tests from 0915 to 1540. After they removed the what they call "measurement uncertainty" they still had readings of 0.43 ng/Nm3 ITEQ (1&2) and 0.5ng/Nm2 WHOTEQ (1&2)

CARBON MONOXIDE EXCEEDENCE
Also on 13 June 2007 main stack test hourly average AFTER they removed confidence interval (-10%)was carbon monoxide 629 mg/m3 as an hourly average.

CEMENT MILLS EXCEEDENCE
Also they now admit (4th July) that the mills are also exceeding their permitted levels as well. On 28/03/07 from 16.15 to 18.20. Cement mill 4 running at 52.6mg/m3 particulate, after removal of confidence level.
23/03/07 Mill 5 separator at 34.2mg/m3 after removal of confidence level.

If you add back that 30% that means they have taken away as a "confidence level" they would have initially had a reading of 75 mg/m3 at mill 4. If you add the "uncertainty" instead of taking it away it gives a reading of 98 milligrams per cubic metre on mill 4. That is 98 THOUSAND MICROGRAMS in each cubic metre - to drift across Rugby, and to be resuspended in our air! Cemex say: "INVESTIGATIONS CONTINUING WITH CONTRACTOR INTO REASONS FOR HIGH RESULTS"

CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORS FAILED during tyre burning at 21:01 on 15th June. They did NOT stop the tyre feed until 21:50 which contravenes the Permit.

NO CONFIDENCE IN THE AGENCY TO REGULATE!
NOR IN CEMEX' OVER READING, OR UNDER READING?
There is no reason why the instruments might not be under-reading. Why should they assume they are over reading - merely to facilitate the company, and make the results look better - or rather to "look less bad"?

THE IPPC PERMIT OF AUGUST 2001
Included a permanent permission to burn 40% tyres so why are they again bothering us with yet another SHAM CONSULTATION?

Cat out of the bag.

IS THIS FRAUD?
Cemex case for tyre burning NOT PROVEN! Of course while the Jury was out both Cemex and the Agency refused to give the public any emissions data.

Now why could that possibly be?

Because the Agency Emissions Report of 4th April 2006 now at last finally revealed, to a very suspicious public, actually shows what we said all along - there is no proof that tyre burning improves emissions. In fact there is more proof to the contrary! It makes some emissions worse!

ALcontrol Laboratories were contracted, number 11812, to take the periodic samples of coal and tyre burning emissions for the Agency.
These were supposed to be the proof of the tyre trials much heralded "environmental improvement"!

In fact coal burning seems cleaner.

COAL BURNING (BASELINE)
Nitrogen dioxide 841and 472Mg/m3

TYRE BURNING TRIAL
Nitrogen dioxide 459 and 540mg/m3

COAL - particulate 12.6; 18.8; 18.1; 16.5 mg/m3
TYRES - particulate 30.0; 43.4; 26.0; 30.0 mg/m3.

COAL - TOC as carbon 5.0; and 2.7;
TYRES - TOC as carbon 13.5 and 13.1;

COAL - TOC as toluene 5.48 and 2.9;
TYRES - TOC as toluene 14.8 and 14.4;

COAL - benzene 32.1; 0.1; 157; 43;
TYRES - benzene 88.2; 220; 110 ; 56;

In particular they claimed that the nitrogen dioxide was reduced by 25%. A funny calculator they used? Now they use the "claimed success" of the 2005 tyre trials to increase by 100% the burn rate, to 6 tonnes an hour, with the possibility of two further increments. And also to burn household and commercial waste - possibly to be
sourced from Holland as their waste is of a higher quality - suitable for getting good "trial" results.

Cemex' letter to the Agency 28 June 2007 says that they still cannot meet the Improvement Condition to reduce NOX from 800 to 500 mg/m3 which was required in the original Permit - by August 2005.
They ask for another extension to August 2008. They grumble about the low allocation of CO2 in Phase 2 of the EUETS, and cite that as a reason to burn increasing amounts of biomass. They claim the monthly NOX without tyres averaged 779mg/m3, with tyres April-June 2007 averaged 611mg/m3 - a 21.6% reduction.
But their own monthly emissions reports appear not to concur with this claim. "We anticipate a further reduction in oxides of nitrogen, although it cannot be guaranteed to be on a scale as seen previously."

PUBLIC GET BLAME FOR SHOWING INTEREST IN ENVIRONMENT
"Due to insufficient supply of tyres 10 tonnes an hour could not be reached. It was envisaged at that time that perhaps 6 tonnes an hour would be achieved, and authorisation would be requested at that level. As it turns out, due to high levels of public interest, delays in permitting, and delays in undertaking the trial, only 3 tonnes an hour was achieved within the time constraints facing Cemex due to the Waste Incinerator Directive compliance date of December 2005. This issue was never foreseen in the original application due to the early date of that application."

RUBBISH!
It was only too well foreseen, and widely discussed at meetings, and the Primary Care Trust, RBC and consultees requested that Bag Filters be fitted as soon as possible to meet the criteria - ahead of their being "forced to fit them". And to reduce particulate emissions by hundreds of tonnes.
But Rugby Cement and the Agency argued strongly that bag filters would not work on this plant, would make emissions even worse, and that the ESPs were BAT (Best Available Technique) - that is until they were forced to meet the WID legislation, and to fit Bag Filters!

INTENTION TO BURN WASTE 100% OF TIME "subject to restrictions imposed by the WID which dictates periods when waste derived alternative fuels may not be used. Standby continuous emissions monitors will now be fitted to allow immediate switch over in the event of failure of any of the primary units.

This will minimise potential periods when waste derived fuels cannot be used and the feed has to be shut down, to periods covering start-up, shut-down, periods of feed less than 200 tonnes an hour, periods of malfunction and if emission limits are exceeded."

In short all the time when no emission limits apply! And what will happen to the nitrogen dioxide limits then? Nothing as they will not apply!

DIRECT LINE TO GOD PAYS OFF.

ENFORCEMENT NOTICE: has been issued, as the Agency considers another prosecution, regarding the latest large scale incident of 10th March, when 8 tonnes of pulverised fuel were dumped on sleeping Rugby residents up to 3 miles away - apparently out of an over filled silo - at the time the kiln was being shut down.
Cemex are required to review their maintenance and management systems (yet again!),and to stop repeatedly cancelling critical maintenance items, in contravention of condition 2.1.2.
Also the storage capacity of each of the fuel storage silos as specified in section 2.3 (C) of your IPPC application, is different to the actual capacity. This is in contravention to condition 2.3.1.

In the meantime they now ask to burn imported wastes, as well as doubling the tyres to 6 tonnes an hour, despite all these ongoing problems and the unconvincing tyre trials, when they could hardly burn 3 tonnes an hour.

JUDGES TAKE PITY AS CEMEX SPEND BILLIONS ON RINKER TAKE OVER.
"In our judgement, a fine of £400,000 was disproportionate. The sentence imposed by the Recorder will be quashed and a fine of £50,000 substituted." Court 4 July 18.
Cemex claimed that much of the tonnes of dust LAWFULLY came out of the stack, and not out of the open door - unlawful. Therefore, as no emission limits apply during any start up to a fed rate of 200 tonnes an hour raw meal, any amount of dust emitted out of the stack at the time of the instability was not a criminal offence, and is in fact "permitted pollution".
Why and how the "start up" was set at 200 tonnes an hour raw meal has of course never been discussed!

TRUTH CONCEALED BY CEMEX AND AGENCY.
£20,000 worth of Intercessions at St Andrews seem to have reaped a rich reward.
Cemex were today delighted to have the £400,000 fine, for dumping tonnes of toxic dust over sleeping Lawford residents on October 14th 2005, slashed to a paltry £50,000.


How did this case get through four hearings without the truth ever being told? The Judges kept on asking why the kiln went into melt down and became unstable, and out of control, and neither the prosecuting Agency, nor the defending industrialists, could bring themselves to admit (tell the TRUTH even) that changes in the chemical reactions caused by such as TYRE BURNING causes upset conditions and kiln instability. One Judge even described the cement plant as an "accident of history" and seemed to believe that the same kiln had been there since 1860. Presumably he would have great difficulty in understanding why the original single horse and cart should now have been replaced by 1,000 heavy lorries?

OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS FOR CEMEX?
Maybe with this £350,000 windfall they can fund the RCCF for a few more years?
And pay back some of what they have taken from Rugby residents?
The RCCF is "due for the chop" tonight at Rugby Town Hall 5.30 pm, as the Council can no longer fund the antics of Cemex and the Agency out of our Council taxes.
But it seems more likely they will swell their coffers?

IMPORT WASTE:
EUROPEAN CLIMAFUEL HAS LESS POTENTIAL TO CONTAIN ANY TOXIC ELEMENTS THAN THE UK WASTE SUPPLY FROM SHANKS AND BIFFA WHICH ARE INADEQUATE FOR CEMEX.

BARRINGTON: and SOUTH FERRIBY CLIMAFUEL TRIALS:
Quote:

"Unfortunately the trials have not progressed as smoothly as Cemex had anticipated due to various reasons, such as supply, and logistical constraints, and elevated emissions of HCl due to higher chlorine in the clay material, burner difficulties and kiln cooling. And also due to high moisture in the climafuel, and significant chunks of over-size material. most notably of a metallic nature, causing equipment to break down and frequent stops"

- during which of course no EMISSION LIMITS APPLY - so that's all right then?

Although emission limits appear to have been broken Cemex carefully worded its CSF (Critical Success Factor):
CSF 1: "The current specified emission limit values will not be exceeded for any reason DIRECTLY attributable to the use of CLIMAFUEL"
"The initial review of the South Ferriby CEM data from the trial period showed no breaches in emission limits that can be attributed DIRECTLY to the use of Climafuel."
So what causes all this upset and increased emissions then?

CEMEX MAKE GENEROUS PROMISE TO RUGBY RESIDENTS:
CEMEX SAY THINK YOURSELVES LUCKY!
CEMEX WARN IT COULD BE WORSE!
"As a participant of the Cement Sustainability Initiative Cemex is committed to the "guidelines" which specifically state that in relation to exclusions in use of wastes:

"CSI member companies will not use any of the following in our kilns as fuel or raw material, as a constituent of cement, or in waste recovery and disposal operations:

# NUCLEAR WASTE
# INFECTIOUS MEDICAL WASTE
# CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS DESTINED FOR DESTRUCTION
# UNKNOWN OR UNSPECIFIED WASTE.

CEMEX UK Cement also feels that this commitment to the CSI provides a level of understanding which should provide a level of reassurance to external stakeholders that operations are undertaken in an ethical and responsible manner!"

By the by - who are we dealing with?
CEMEX UK CEMENT LTD?
RUGBY LIMITED?
RUGBY CEMENT?

CEMEX in new takeover bid

Cement giant Cemex has now branched out into Religion! 20,000 pounds have been invested in GOD. Having failed to convince Rugby residents of the success of its tyre trials - after the emissions data was hidden for more than a year - the latest strategy involves getting God on their side as they invest in St Andrews Church Rugby - unless they are paying for forgiveness of their sins?

This piffling donation co-incides with their insistence on burning more tyres and wastes to "address the number of environmental pressures" placed on them by the Environment Agency, which is "pushing them to use a larger quantity of substitute fuels" - presumably regardless of the impact on Rugby residents and the extra emissions of pollutants such as ammonia and cadmium and thallium.

Meanwhile the hapless Agency struggles to define the "plant stability" on which it bases its Permits, and the officers still refuse to supply the RCCF with the AMESA dioxin tests that show emissions of dioxin of up to eight times higher than admitted by the Cauldon Cement plant where it was trialled - after a previous typical Agency "promise" to trial the equipment at Rugby Cement was broken.

Don't believe one word they say!

SMOKING BAN?.. NOT US!

According to the Rugby Advertiser :
PEOPLE IN NEW BILTON, LIVING NEXT TO THE CEMENT WORKS, in the first of NEW LABOUR'S MUCH HERALDED, and PRESCOTT'S PERSONALLY PROMOTED AFFORDABLE SOCIAL HOUSING ARE :

"FED UP OF BEING SWAMPED - as residents kick up a stink!"

"Investigating the smelly problem are non other than (the usually invisible) RBC LABOUR councillors: Ish Mistry and Don Williams. Long-suffering New Bilton residents are kicking up a stink over claims that inadequate piping in the area of the cement works has caused them to be regularly swamped with sewage" - amongst many other unsavoury and unhealthy pollutants.

Home owners in AVENUE ROAD say "toilet paper and other waste, and a slurry-like stench", and frequent dust clouds, and odours, "have blighted the area after REDROW homes started building their nearby housing development".

Some residents also blame ongoing pollution from Rugby Cement and its increasing emissions and waste-burning trials. "You don't always notice it - but at times there is an awful smell. It is frustrating - we feel like we are banging our heads against a brick wall."

RBC officers and the CABINET were refusing to answer questions as we went to press. They said that they do not have to talk to anyone, or to answer any emails;
do not have to answer any questions; and steadfastly refuse point-blank to answer anything!

Some Councillors noted that the people who "did this" to Rugby residents are either dead; or living on a fat pension paid for by the council tax payers.

Interesting Link

The dust is yet to settle..

(Yesterday at the Royal Courts of Justice)

Cemex claim the £400,000 fine for having a door in the reject silo hanging on its hinges, and then jammed in with a scaffolding pole was manifestly unfair, and that the courts should think again.

Not enough people complained about being covered in "dust" on the night of 14th to 15th October 2005- only a limited number in fact - so that's all right then!
No one mentioned that once it was on radio people did not bother to complain - knowing it was known.

That no one's health was damaged - as far as anyone knows - or bothered to try to find out.

That they cleaned up the area, and are a good company and this is not going to happen again, until next time.

The experts for both the defense (Dr Amanda Gair) and prosecution (Professor Roy Harrison), who had agreed the material facts about the dust in the case, (and that had not been protested about in the previous cases), are now said to have: "overplayed it"; and what was agreed was a "worst case scenario" ; that was irrelevant!

Bottom line is that (NOW) the dust came out of the stack; not the door!
So this is permitted and NO CRIMINAL OFFENCE occurred because they have NO EMISSION LIMIT VALUES on start up : or when the kiln is running, but with no kiln feed going in. There is, they said , much confusion among people who fail to understand that when they say "kiln stop" they actually mean "kiln feed stop", but the kiln goes on running to avoid buckling, cracking and catastrophic failure. So during this time (no one though to mention up to 200 tonnes an hour feed rate) no emissions count, so the Agency agree to this, that any amount of dust comes out. And it is "permitted" and "acknowledged as inevitable", that there will be dust and many spikes well off the scale.


There was a period, and in fact a night of instability, and a fire in the cooler, and kiln flush and 600 tonnes reject clinker, and tonnes of dust and smaller particles.. and and and....all this and during the afternoon of 14th tyres were being tried in the kiln - but no one thought to mention it.

Tyres and wastes are not to be burnt during instability and under 200 tonnes an hour feed rate.

But as pointed out previously no one seems to know when the kiln is stable or unstable.

The Rugby Cement Community Forum has now been abolished (yesterday by RBC) for daring to ask the Agency for a definition of stability, and for costing too much as they try to protect Rugby Residents - from the POLLUTER who does NOT PAY ANYTHING!!

LAST WORD
All this comes back to the fact that you cannot take what in essence is THREE MILLION TONNES of dust and mix it and cook it in a town's smokeless zone and turn it into TWO MILLION TONNES of other dust - called CEMENT without dust FREQUENTLY visibly going all over people, and invisibly going over them EVERY DAY. I do have a certain sympathy with Cemex as they bought this plant in good faith - not knowing is has no lawful planning permission or operating Permit.

The appeal courts heard that the cement plant makes 1.3 million tonnes cement (creative accounting) and that the plant has been here since 1865, first with Portland Cement, then RMC, and now finally by Cemex.

Apparently its location is "an accident of history"!

Presumably they are judging it by 1865 environmental standards; and 1865 environmental law as well; and the 1865 planning permission?

WASTED - Whole town going to pot?

RUGBY RESIDENTS SOON TO BE HAPPIER AS IMPORTED WEED MAKES AIR SWEETER

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL ADVERT.. RUGBY ADVERTISER
"Each year in Rugby we throw away enough Rubbish to fill the Ken Marriot swimming pool 129 times, or to put it another way, fill enough lorries to stretch nose to tail from the Clock Tower Rugby to the NEC Birmingham. It's a fact that more than 32,000 tonnes of rubbish gets thrown away each year."

CEMEX HAZARDOUS WASTE
Hazardous waste production increases when burning wastes, as we saw in the recent inadequate tyre trials at Cemex Rugby, where both bypass dust and reject clinker increased. Funnily enough the hazardous waste bypass dust produced in Rugby Cement is about the same daily tonnage of household waste produced by Rugby residents. Now we are to have one bin every two weeks, to SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT! Household waste is only a fraction of the industrial waste!

APPLICATION TO ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
Cemex Rugby now wish to burn CLIMAFUEL : London's household and Commercial Waste at 15 tonnes an hour, 360 tonnes a day, = 132,000 tonnes a year, to be trucked up the M1 by lorry. Enough waste to fill 530 swimming pools, and to fill enough lorries to stretch nose to tail from Rugby Clock Tower to the NEC over FOUR times.

WHICH VERSION DO YOU BELIEVE?

CLIMAFUEL TRIAL GOING WELL:
Cemex South Ferriby Liaison Committee: "The Climafuel trial is ongoing and going well."

CLIMAFUEL TRIAL NOT GOING WELL
South Ferriby Parish Council Minutes: "The Climafuel trial has been suspended due to excess levels of some metals being detected."

HOUSEHOLD WASTE TO BE SHIPPED IN - TO RUGBY?
AS APPARENTLY NOT ENOUGH HOUSEHOLD WASTE IS GENERATED IN THE UK!

CEMEX South Ferriby Liaison Committee: " The only disappointment has been with the supply chain for Climafuel. Shanks have not been able to provide sufficient Climafuel. At the moment we are in discussions to find alternative UK supplies. We are also talking to a DUTCH supplier of Climafuel, which will be shipped in by boat into a local port".

Councillor England pointed out that there is a new incinerator being installed at HULL; (i.e. adjoining South Ferriby) and he felt it was a shame that more people were not aware of Cemex on the south bank of the Humber being able to dispose of waste materials. Councillor Berry added that it was regrettable that we have to import waste materials."

What DOPE thought this up?!

The Outlaws

RUGBY RESIDENTS ON WARPATH
As polluter refuses to pay.
Rugby Cement rips off Rugby residents, yet again, as sorry saga goes on, and on, and on......

RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM to be disbanded because the polluter does not pay, and Rugby people can no longer provide the approximate £10,000 each quarterly meeting costs in order to try to protect themselves.

HOW IT ALL BEGAN
Imagine this - Rugby people sitting quietly at home minding their own business, and along comes Rugby Cement who claim they wish ONLY to "improve" the environment and air quality in Rugby by "upgrading" their old stinking, polluting, 300,000 tonne a year cement plant, which cannot meet the new IPC regulations. So they hatch a plan to tell people it will only be three times bigger; submit an application to Warwickshire County Council, without any environmental impact assessment, and gain a planning permission, without appropriate and honest public consultation in February 1996. Then they go on and on increasing the planned size of the plant to 2 million tonnes - in secret.

SECRET IPC PERMIT
Meanwhile the arch enemy of the environment is secretly involved in a "staged" IPC application which was never DULY MADE and for which not one penny for the "application" changed hands - so we are told - as being "staged" Rugby Cement put on each "stage", of which there are many from 1995 to 1999, that "no money need to be paid for this application until the application is finished, because it is staged". So on June 16th 1999 Rugby Cement finally finished the last of all stages, and then a decision was made by the Agency to keep the application secret and to tell only a few trusted statutory consultees, and to tell them NOT to put any of this on the Public Register. Warwickshire County Council, having been involved all along in this trickery, were suddenly denoted as "NOT" consultees.

Rugby Cement decided NOT to advertise the IPC application in the London Gazette and local press - as required by Law. Rugby Borough Council officer/s/councillor/s (?) decided in secret, and in grave dereliction of duty, with no records, minutes, or consultation with anyone, simply "not to reply" to the IPC application. That was the sum total of this Council's considered opinion and care for the community - NO WE HAVE NO OPINION! They decided to make no effort whatsoever to try to limit the damage that was about to be inflicted on Rugby people and environment in February 2000 when the new plant was to start up.

The secret IPC permit was issued in September 1999, by which time the IPPC regime had been brought into Law and the plant SHOULD have made an IPPC application straight away BEFORE operating at all. Then by stealth the IPPC application was made in September 2001, but the public were told by all the conspirators that this was ONLY a tyre burning application. Only data and reports about tyre burning were given out, and the IPPC application was never revealed - except to RBC EHO who yet again chose to ignore a PPC application, and to make no response!

SECRET IPPC APPLICATION
This then collapsed into farce as the Agency wasted thousands of pounds of public money in the sham and false consultation, and ably aided by RBC, they then allowed Rugby Cement to put its hand into Rugby tax council tax payers pockets for the long-term suppression of Rugby people. They set up a Rugby Cement Community Forum to be funded by Rugby residents, and later on a tyre Burning Review group was suggested by the Agency as a means of assessing the impending tyre trial. So Rugby volunteers, and councillors, worked night and day for the community studying cement plant issues, while the Rugby tax payer funded the officers and administration to the apparent tune of about £10,000 each meeting. Plus many hundreds of thousands of pounds on consultants and reports, legal opinions. large public meetings, etc.

RBC SAYS TYRE TRIALS NOT SUCCESS
Rugby Borough Council, COUNCILLORS, wrote to the Agency saying that the Tyre Trials had NOT been a success, that there were major concerns about plant instability, efficiency, abnormal operations, lack of data and that the SEVEN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS had most definitely NOT been met. The Agency took not a blind bit of notice as usual, and it was left up to the public to issue JUDICIAL REVIEW proceedings against the Agency as RBC wasted yet more of our money and FAILED to follow through. RBC looked ever weaker and more pathetic as the cement company and Agency continued to refuse to respond to the Council's concerns. RBC should be LIVID!

RBC GIVE IN TO DEMANDS
But instead they have meekly given in to the Agency and Cemex. Now as a final straw you can read about how RBC has suddenly decided to back-track, after all this time that Rugby people have been ripped off, SEVEN YEARS of banditry, that the POLLUTER must now PAY for the meetings, and for the liaison committee. The people can no longer afford to PAY to PROTECT OURSELVES. After years of Rugby Cement's filching off us, and demanding that we have meetings at their every beck and call, when they wish to increase pollution, increase wastes, increase emissions, increase capacity, increase hazardous waste to landfills, etc, now they are going to be in charge of the liaison committee. As they were previously when it was a closed shop, held at the works, with the cement plant controlling the members, agenda, minutes, and prohibiting the public and press.

RCCF TO BE DISBANDED BECAUSE WE:
# ask too many questions
# understand only too well what is going on
# refuse to be fobbed off by the non-answers
# follow through
# punch above our weight
# write reports Cemex and the Agency do not like
# tell the truth about the forum and how it "operates"
# realised that RBC officers have also been with holding crucial information


OFFICERS REPORT makes interesting reading:
# "RBC took over the responsibility for the forum from Rugby Cement as a short-term measure when the initial tyre burning application was made". Oh really? And now they have got it all "through", and brought in full scale co-incineration we are of no further use and are to be discarded - is that it?

# "A community/industry liaison group has a valuable role to play in education and informing the local community about the activities and developments at the Rugby cement Plant. It is also a mechanism for community issues and concerns to be raised and discussed, and addressed in a constructive and positive manner. The Current RCCF does not realistically achieve this as it can be adversarial in nature which is probably due to the history of hostility, abuse , and ongoing litigation between participants." Oh really? The problems have arisen because the authorities and Rugby Cement refuse to answer questions, reveal information, discuss openly and honestly, to engage with the community, because fundamentally what has happened is unlawful, and the RCCF was set up in order to blind and confuse the community, and to "out wit us".

LEOPARDS ABOUT TO CHANGE THEIR SPOTS?
# "The Environment Agency has advised they do not facilitate any such group anywhere else in the country and would consider it inappropriate as the Regulator to do so. Therefore this only leaves CEMEX as a credible future facilitator. This is entirely appropriate for a variety or reasons:

1. This is the normal industry model across the country.
2. It reinforces the principal of the "polluter pays" and,
3. It is in the company's interests to ensure that they have an open and honest relationship with local communities." Oh really? In their interests? Well we have just been through years of consultation with them and it appears that even the Councillors were able to understand that it was NOT in the company's interests to have ANY open and honest dialogue at all, and that is why they have REFUSED point blank to have any "open honest relationship with local communities" - backed up by the Agency who also refuse to have any open and honest dialogue.

# "Initial discussions with CEMEX have confirmed that they would be prepared to take over the role of facilitator of a "refreshed" RCCF at their own expense." Oh really?
How very big, and generous, and thoughtful, and kind, and caring, and compassionate of them. They are even going to contribute towards a £15,000 "stakeholder analysis" report, to be commissioned by a "specialist company" that would go out and carefully choose the new members, so that the whole thing runs smoothly!

CLICK THIS LINK TO DOWNLOAD

ADVERT
Anyone know anyone who is wet behind the ears, and green, and enjoys being ripped off, having their time wasted, being dictated to, fooled, and bullied?

Please forward their names on a postcard for the new liaison committee.

ON THE WARPATH

As widely reported in the RUGBY TIMES, (Rugby's excellent new weekly) a Judicial Review has been commenced in a bid to the courts to put an end to costly, time wasting, sham consultations, as carried out by the Agency and cement company, as Rugby Borough Council endorses Rugby in Plume's view that the whole TYRE TRIAL was a scam. The Agency have acted perversely and unreasonably, and still after seven years of asking cannot define what they mean by the words "unstable" and "stable", and "significant" and "insignificant" - the words they use in their own IPPC permits for the control of the cement plant's emissions. If the Agency does not know what they mean - then who does? And why do they put them in? We were charged with deciding if the plant had become more "unstable", and if the increased emissions were "significant" etc etc.

These second Judicial Review proceedings have been issued against the Environment Agency, as the tyre trials are branded:

# inconclusive,
# case not proven,
# 7 Critical Success Factors not met,
# essential data with held,
# Tyres Protocol not adhered to,
# plant more inefficient during trials,
# net environmental detriment increased,
# 1,000 hours baseline produced 240,000 tonnes clinker,
# 1,000 hours tyre trial produced 190,000 tonnes clinker,
# hazardous waste bypass dust increased with tyres,
# reject clinker increased with tyres,
# public not informed as the trials went along,
# data given too late, in wrong format, and too little.
# no data provided at all until 10 months after trial started,
# no data provided at all until 5 months after trial finished,
# Tyres Protocol requires public to be informed as the trial proceeds!

The list is endless, and all this was UNANIMOUSLY agreed in a report by the Tyre Burning Review Group, set up by the Environment Agency specifically as a COMMUNITY GROUP to evaluate and review the tyre trials and the data, and to decide if the trials had met the seven critical success factors that the cement industry had proposed itself as the criteria for success - or failure - as in this case! It consisted of 12 people, facilitated by consultant Dr Mike Holland, who expertly guided the group as we studied the CEMEX DRAFT TYRE TRIAL REPORT. The representatives included the Rugby Primary Care Trust, the Health Protection Agency, Rugby Borough Councillors, Local Parish Councillors, Agenda 21, Rugby in Plume, the Rugby Cement Community Forum, New Bilton Community Association.

Now the Agency considers allowing Cemex to carry out a "pseudo trial " of tyres in combination with London's household and commercial waste - the RDF being disguised under the friendly name of "CLIMAFUEL".

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL:
Rugby Council fully backs the findings of the Tyre Burning Review Group, and endorses their findings.

See link to www.rugby.gov.uk Committee Papers of CABINET 8th January 2007.


SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF MUSHROOM SYNDROME : CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR NUMBER ONE : to be applied for new household waste "trial" as Rugby residents are to be kept in the dark, as usual, with bucket loads of manure tipped on their heads - along with tonnes of gaseous pollutants and toxic chemicals.

TOLD YOU SO!!!

And what have Rugby in Plume been saying all along?

"That the Rugby Cement plant was not, (and still is not), BAT!"

And now even the Agency and DEFRA have to admit it. But of course they would rather not "admit it", and they favour the removal of sector ELVs, arguing they are "unnecessary" because the UK applies BAT "properly" - so they say! Is this yet another "Rugby Cement - flying pigs story?

Here below they deal ONLY with a "portion" of the "main stack" particulate emissions, so the Cemex claim that particulate emissions (as a whole) are reduced by 80% are simply "misleading", to say the least. It would be interesting to know exactly how they have calculated this "miracle improvement"?

And why did they not do it before, if, as they claim, they could so easily have decimated the particulate emissions, but instead RMC/Cemex were allowed by the Agency to unnecessarily increase the pollution during the tyre trials in 2004 and 2005. Indeed the Agency even gave them permission to carry out the trials in three stages in 2005/2006 splitting the agreed (as in the permit) 1,000 hours of baseline into two parts to allow them to conduct the tyre trials BEFORE they fitted the bag filters - allowing tonnes of extra unnecessary particle pollution.

And the other 18 or so low level sources, that pump out particulate, have not been affected by the new bag filters, and indeed the bag filters only work on the kiln, where they have replaced the kiln ESP, and there are still two other ESPs emitting from the main stack in parallel with the bag filters - the clinker cooler ESP and the bypass ESP. These are not filtered through the new bag filter.

CEMEX, BAT AND DUST ABATEMENT ENDS REPORT May 2007.

Quote: The case of CEMEX underlines how emission limit values (ELVs) can drive tighter standards than the more flexible IPPC regime. In April the Mexican building materials giant announced it had cut particulate emissions at its Rugby works by 80% after investing £6.5 million in a bag filter abatement system.

The company CLAIMED the improvement was evidence of its commitment to sustainability. IN FACT it was necessary to comply with the Waste Incineration Directive because the sites existing electrostatic precipiatators were unable to meet the new PM10 limit of 30 milligrams per cubic metre which came into force in January. The site is caught by the Directive becaue it uses scrap tyres as a substitute fuel. Cemex acquired the works in 2005 when it bought UK firm RMC. It is one of the largest kilns in the country producing 1.8 millions tonnes of cement a year.

(RIP comment: UNLAWFULLY! it has only a planning permission for 1.2 million tonnes, and an (unlawful) 1999 IPC Permit for x? tonnes!)

Controversy has surrounded the site, partly because of the presence near the town centre and close to residential areas, but also because of fears over the health impact of burning waste fuels. The proposal to use tyres as a partial substitute for coal was made in 2001 as part of the company's IPPC Permit application (ENDS Report 345 pp9-10)


(RIP comment: not only this, but also, the realisation that there were tonnes of particulate being emitted from many different sources which we had not been informed about - and which were nothing to do with the main stack and the "new element of tyre burning" - but all of which has a health impact. That is why they hid the information.

# The public only found out at IPPC that the plant had no planning permission, and that what was built had not even been applied for, let alone consulted on.

# The public were only told at the IPPC stage that the old plant that had been 300,000 tonnes a year, and maximum 40 HGVs a day, had now been replaced by stealth and unlawfully by a new plant that year on year rachetted up production, and is now near TWO MILLION tonnes a year.

# The controversy also included the way the public and PCT were mislead and misinformed by the Agency and Rugby Cement, and crucial environmental information was withheld, for many months and years, while misleading information was distributed only too freely!

# At the IPC application stage the Agency, pre-empting the huge problems that were to arise at IPPC, at first "cleverly" avoided the problem altogether by hiding the whole June 1999 IPC application.

# The Rugby Borough Council, ever complicit, and in collusion, (officers? and/or councillors?) compounded the harm by being complicit in hiding the IPC application, and "they" (whoever they are as they refuse to name the people concerned) decided IN SECRET, with no proper procedure, and no records, to UNLAWFULLY by-pass the consultation process, and to hide the IPC application;

# and to make no reply to it;

# and to make no attempt to limit the pollution and damage to Rugby residents' environment, air quality and health, They gave them a carte-blanche to do to us as they wished.

# The Agency, very strangely, even claim they have "no record" of Rugby Cement ever having paid ANY of the usual charges for the IPC application, so it seems that Rugby Cement have done very well out of this - getting a "FREEBIE" to the great detriment of Rugby's 90,000 residents.

# Of course we have to bear in mind who was chair/board member of the Agency in the 1990's and who was chair of RMC group. Seems someone got more than "just his expenses" from being on the Board of HMIP and the Agency?)

EU guidance on the Best Available Techniques (BAT) that cement manufacturers should use to control pollution recommends bag filters to control particulates. But the company argued against the need to fit new abatament, despite the risk of increased dust emissions from tyre burning. It insisted that bag filters could not be used because of the wetness of the raw materials fed into the kiln and that ESPs provided adequate protection. The Agency agreed with the company, despite the local Primary Care Trust's concerns over the public's exposure to dust emissions, and issued a permit on that basis in 2003.

# The recent investment Cemex was forced to make raises doubts over the previous management's technical argument against bag filters.

# Questions may also be asked about the Agency's BAT decision. It appears that either the Waste Incineration Directive has forced Cemex to spend millions on unneeded abatement, or the Agency's view that ESPs constituted BAT for the works was wrong.

Agency sources say privately that the bottom line is to ensure its decsions are "court proof" - defensible against a legal challenge by a company. The cost-benefit case for one technique over another can be difficult to prove, whereas the ELV in the Waste Incinerator Directive is mandatory.

(RIP comment: but even in the IPPC application there was NO BAT assessment carried out by the company. The Agency "tried" to do a BAT assessment in the H1 but they did not do it properly - and there was no cost-benefit analysis - even though it is straightforward logical exercise.

Not only that but also the Agency REFUSED pointblank to give anyone at Rugby PCT or RBC or the MP Andy King or the Rugby Cement Community Forum, or the RBC paid consultant, or the public, any copy of the H1 BAT assessment.

RIP, the PCT and many others, pointed all this out to the Agency during the IPPC "sham" consultation, but the Agency was so busy hiding things and misleading that there was never any serious attempt to provide information about this plant, which goes along with the accusations the public have made all along about the wilfull and devious withholding of environmental information, accompanied by the unacceptable provision of totally misleading information.

Some might even call it the deliberate provision of LIES, and they would not be far off with that. Indeed AEAT did a report into the 2003 IPPC Decision Document and made many derogatory comments about the company and the Agency, the application, and the Decision, and how they had failed to comply with the IPPC procedure. Clearly the Agency is so afraid of the cement industry that they prefer to take their chances with the "gullible and bulliable public" and to deceive and pollute the Rugby residents, rather than to risk the threat of the industry taking court action against the Agency. The Agency and Defra the Secretary of State for the Treasury prefer to battle in the courts with the long-suffering but righteous Rugby residents, who they seem to assume will be easier to PULP into submission , rather than to face the unlimited funding, and access to top lawyers, and the massive weight of the lobbies and bullies at the BCA and Cemnet.)

Although EU guidance documents on BAT, known as BREFs, provide a wealth of information on the performance and cost of pollution control techniques, it falls to the Agency to prove they are BAT in the UK. The status of BREFs is also weak. Their recommendations are non-statutory, and the IPPC Directive does not even refer directly to them. The only mandatory requirement on operators is to use BAT.

One case involving QUINN GLASS underlines the perils of making BAT decisions. An IPPC Permit issued by Chester City Council was quashed by the High Court becuase it failed to require the company to use BAT (ENDS Reports 370 pp11-12 and 371 pp 49-50|). End.

RIP would also point out that according to the ENVIROWISE site, and to the UK legislation on the government's own web, the Rugby Cement plant should have applied for an IPPC permit straight away, in 1999, and not secretly applied for an outdated IPC permit. On 31st October 1999 IPPC was brought into Law from Europe and all NEW plants, that did not start operating until after that date - such as the Rugby kiln which was started in February 2000, - or even substantially altered old plants, had to apply for an IPPC permit right from the beginning. Instead there was the secret IPC application and secret IPC Permit in September 1999, granted before the plant was built. Then the Agency tried to say at IPPC that this was "only about tyre burning" as that is the "only difference" with IPC and it has already got that.

Watch this space.

WARWICKSHIRE WASTE STRATEGY

..appears contravened by imports of London's waste?WCC and RBC have to:
..consider these things before they can cart London's commercial and household waste up the M1 in masses of extra HGVs, in order to to burn the Refuse Derived Fuel, branded as "CLIMAFUEL", in Rugby's smokeless zone.

This is from the WCC Waste Strategy:
" The principles of proximity and regional self-sufficiency have been important considerations in developing the scenarios described below. The PROXIMITY PRINCIPLE requires that waste be managed as near as possible to its origin. This principle recognises the desire to avoid passing financial and ENVIRONMENTAL costs onto communities not responsible for waste generated, whilst reducing the impact of transportation.

In order to adhere to the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity the scenarios for the BPEO (Best Practicable Environmental Option) assessment have been developed to consider ONLY the municipal waste arising for which Warwickshire is responsible. Any consideration of synergies with plans policies in NEIGHBOURING authorities may be undertaken ONLY after determining the BPEO for Warwickshire alone."

Assessment Methodology:
"The assessment methodology incorporates environmental, economic and planning criteria and follows the step-wise approach suggested in the UK Waste Strategy 2000 (WS2000) which states: 'Decisions on waste management including decisions on suitable sites and installations for treatment and disposal should be based on a LOCAL assessment of the Best Practicable Environmental Option.'

The BPEO concept was defined in the 12th Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution as: 'the outcome of a systematic and consultative decision making procedure which emphasises the protection and conservation of the environment across land, air and water. The BPEO procedure establishes, for a given set of objectives, the option that provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term and the short term'

The BPEO concept incorporates two further principles that need to be taken into account when making waste management decisions:

# the waste hierarchy.
# the proximity principle.

Other issues:

Traffic flow is an important factor.

Can anyone please explain how the import of London's household and commercial waste fits in with the Warwickshire Waste Strategy?

How does the BPEO apply to it?

How does the Proximity Principle apply?

Not to mention all those extra thousands of lorry miles?