ON YER BIKE!

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

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

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

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

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


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

TOXIC FUMES CLAIM

...OVER BID TO MAKE RUGBY TRAFFIC FREE


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

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

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

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


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

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

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY RECRUITS:
quote 14042 on its job pages:

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

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

EASTER GIFT

4,000 TONNES OF POLLUTED GAS DAILY

RUGBY CEMEX MASSIVE EMISSIONS INCREASE 2006 to 2007

(see table below)

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

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

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

WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH?

AND WHO IS TELLING THE PORKY PIES?

(click table below to view larger)

COMIC RELIEF?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRESS RELEASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreements arising from the workshop included:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Scope

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

Purpose

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

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

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

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

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

A summary of the scope and purpose of the engagement:

Scope

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

Purpose

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

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE!

CAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY LEOPARD CHANGE ITS SPOTS?

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


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

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

PINNOCCHIOS STAR IN PANTOMIME

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

RE-WRITING HISTORY  quote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

HOW MANY PINNOCCHIOS STAR IN THIS PANTOMIME?

Dead Permit

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

SOUTHAM HAZARDOUS LANDFILL

DIRTY BUSINESS!

PLANNING INSPECTORATE
FREEDOM INFORMATION
ACCESS APPEALS REGISTER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denied access  to information.

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

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

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

BYPASS DUST RAINS!

SOUTHAM QUARRY - CONFUSION REIGNS!

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

A Little Bird Told Me

CHAOS AT COUNCIL AS CHANGE OF USE DEFERRED.
DOES SITE HAVE ANY PERMISSION AT ALL?
CLEVER IDEA: LET'S CALL IT: "CEMENT KILN BYPASS DUST!"

REGULATORY COMMITTEE : QUESTIONS
Ability of Environment Agency and planners queried on 20 January, as there is much confusion about:
* Which actual site they are permitting - co-ordinates?
* What is hazardous waste bypass dust?
* Why it has no PPC operating permit?
* What, if any, Waste Management License exists?
* Why Stratford on Avon has inadequate Agency copy files?
* Why the planning inspectorate says the " PPC appeal is in abeyance from 2004 refusal, and 2006 appeal?"

TEMPORARY EXTENSION (NOT CHANGE OF USE!!) 4 March 2008 - "No waste other than Cement Kiln Dust, spillage materials, road sweepings, laboratory test samples. and kiln bricks arising from the Rugby Cement works Lawford Road shall be imported to the site" TO 31/12/08.
Various grids 420.633 and 418.631.

QUESTIONS QUESTIONS?
HAZARDOUS WASTE to be labelled on the HGVs, and also an emergency telephone number, or not? Officers report 4.6 claims "an interchangeability of the terms CKD and BPD." ERR NO! Another question "this is not a one-off UK's only cement plant so how do others transport and dump the BPD?" Answer: Cement HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS are usually on site "in house" in RURAL areas where the raw material is NORMALLY dug out, not in town centres as in Rugby! Rugby Parkfield Road landfill was refused IPPC Permit, and application withdrawn in 2006.
It is a closed landfill as too dangerous near residents - cumulative impact! Does hazardous dust escape from lorries in the town and along the route?

Cemex say "NO!" RBC EHO express concern, and request monitoring to protect residents.

AGENCY PERMITS OBSCURED - BY DUST?
BUO244IE: BVI666IX: NIM641 granted 14/07/08 for one year only; AJO106 granted 21/07/08 for one year only?? No EU Waste Codes; description of the BPD; analysis of the dust; and also no explanation of the difference between CKD and BPD. Is it an "irritant and corrosive" see H4 and H8 substances which through immediate, prolonged, or repeated contact with the skin or mucous membranes can cause inflammation, burns and worse.



CEMEX:
As you are aware we have been dumping bypass dust for 8 years - you gave a permission in March 2008 for a new cell 4. This cell 3 is a fully engineered landfill (for CKD??) and subject to monitoring by the EA. We thought it was OK just to carry on. There is a degree of confusion and lack of info between the difference between the CKD and BPD - there is uncertainty - they are similar, only different because taken out of different parts of the plant. BBD is only classified as hazardous because it is high in calcium oxide and is an irritant. We re-cycle it back into the process. (in cement mills) We re-use as much of it as we can and only dump what we have to. It is nodulised so as not to be spread by the wind, and sheeted clay lorries bring it here. You have given a planning permission for hazardous BPD in cell 4 and that is not built yet. We want to fill this cell with 30,000t more and landscape it. We have given comprehensive ES on this with so much detail.

COUNCILLOR:
I am under the impression that since 2000 that it had a previous permission for CKD so what has been happening here - over a lengthy period of years - an unauthorised operation has been taking place.

WCC OFFICER:
We had given a planning permission for CKD but there were no planning conditions attached to it to say only CKD - if I remember - and then BPD got re-classified as hazardous waste. We overlooked the EIA and gave a series of temporary permissions for CKD. It seem they are valid unless the High Court strikes them down. It is a very grey area. Planning permission may well have been granted (for non-hazardous waste) but we failed to realise an EIA was necessary - as a result of BPD being dumped instead of CKD, and the BPD being given a "new classification" as hazardous waste.

CEMEX:
A Hazardous Waste Management License is monitoring it regularly and it is subject to regulations. It is an irritant - I am not a medical expert but it is classed as an irritant. We use returning clay lorries. To prevent it from becoming airborne we nodulise it and sheet it. No records of it ever coming out of lorries. Bypass Dust did escape from the cement plant on November 16/17 and it fell on people but the EA are taking no further action (Obviously CAN NOT as emitted on a "shut down" with no Emission Limits in place!! Rugby residents are furious - but they can get their cars cleaned free - with receipt!)

COUNCILLOR/S:
I am sure she said dust sometimes came from the lorries?
Hazardous waste is transported on many lorries and tankers on the motorways you see them with signs - but you say it is categorised recently as hazardous waste - what level of hazard is it? Dust and powder are bad for asthmatics - so are garden products - dust causes asthma.. there must be a hierarchy's of hazards about it? Where does it come in table of hazards - mid way? We need technical knowledge about it and we should defer for more information. But we have permission for cell 4 last year and we have been badly let down by the EA or WCC or both! A deliberate cloud has been placed over it to get these grants of PP. For 8 years stuff has been put in the ground and we did not know it - transported at risk to people - exposed for 8 years with no planning permission. We have a Duty of Care to stop it going on any more.

WCC
But the EA have been monitoring it and they are in a transition stage between Waste Management License and PPC permit. BUT said a councillor the EA NEVER came back and told us what we asked - NEVER - and we have asked. WCC officer: I cannot remember what we approved CKD or BPD.

THE JURY'S OUT!!
They DEFERRED voting six for, and five against. For more information: history of site; EA response; what is nature of dust, and health impact; can they just make it a Change of Use from non-hazardous to hazardous, and overlook the 8 years 140,000 tonnes and allow another 30,000 tonnes until the new cell 4 is ready? Next exciting instalment WCC Regulatory Committee 17 February. (see WCC web for committee papers and long history of the site.)


Photograph entitled 'Whisper' by Brian Scott

FLY-TIPPING?

HAZARDOUS BYPASS DUST. EVERYWHERE!

HAZARDOUS WASTE
NO PROBLEM!
IT'S ONLY 140,000 TONNES!

POOR WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Their beleaguered Regulatory Committee have now got to face up tomorrow to the challenge of nodding through yet another in the long line of Rugby Cement/ Cemex applications for a yet another RETROSPECTIVE permission. This time for a "mere" CHANGE of USE for the unlawful use of the SOUTHAM landfill non-hazardous waste, which has been used for eight years for the dumping of 140,000 tonnes of hazardous waste BYPASS DUST from the Cemex Rugby Co-incinerating Cement plant. You will recall Hazardous Bypass dust was dumped on Lawford on 16/17 November - but the EA say they can do nothing about it - no emission limits count when things go wrong!


BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL.
"In recent years the description and classification of the waste disposed of (without the mandatory EU waste code!!) has not accorded with the planning permission in place, and with the authorised use of the site. The permission allowed the deposit of non-hazardous Cement Kiln Dust and not the hazardous waste BYPASS DUST." "It must be recognised that this planning application seeks retrospective planning permission to regularise what is in affect a LARGE LONG STANDING and ON GOING breach of planning control - the deposit of 140,000 tonnes bypass dust!" "In theory it would be possible to refuse the application and seek the removal of the BPD which has already been deposited. But the PPG 18 on planning enforcement advises : 'while it is clearly unsatisfactory for anyone to carry out development without first obtaining the required planning permission an enforcement notice should not be issued solely to 'regularise' developments which is acceptable on its planning merits but for which permission has not been sought.'

SOME KIND OF OVERSIGHT?
140,000 tonnes hazardous waste - errr sorry! WCC omit to say that they have readily and repeatedly given "unlawful extensions to the planning permission for non-hazardous waste" all the time knowing this to be unlawful. I have personally informed them on several occasions! As for the Environment Agency - they seem unsure if it has any permission at all, or even needs any permission, and simply say they have "no objection." The EA are probably still trying to find out what, if any, operating permit supposedly ontrols the Cemex Rugby co-incinerator - so what matter is 140,000 tonnes hazardous waste in Southam to them?

COMPLIANCE WITH EU LAWS?
The disposal of waste in a landfill requires an environmental permit and will be subject to the provisions of the Landfill Directive and the Integrated Pollution prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive as well. Landfills are categorised into three types - hazardous, non-hazardous and inert for the purposes of determining the applicability of the requirements of the Landfill Directive.

The recovery of waste in or on land (not landfill) is also subject either to the requirement for an environmental permit, or an exemption from the need for a permit. The exemptions are prescribed in the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007. There are currently exemptions for some land reclamation operations and the use of waste for construction. Defra has recently consulted on a review of the current exemptions from environmental permitting with a view to tightening up on large-scale exemptions involving the deposit of waste on land.


CLEARLY NO PERMIT TO DUMP?
Whether for disposal or recovery an environmental permit may be granted by the Environment Agency, in cases were planning permission is required, only where relevant planning is in place.


Top picture used courtacy of Skampy

PERMIT - WHAT PERMIT?

THE PLOT THICKENS.......

AFTER WEEKS OF INVESTIGATION the AGENCY finally reveal that : THERE IS NO PERMIT!!

"IPPC OPERATING PERMIT BL7248 granted August 2003 to Rugby Cement, now CEMEX Rugby, has been subject to many additions, variations and derogations over the last SIX years. Would we be correct in assuming that the EA have a simple aide-memoire detailing the current permitted operations which cross refer to formal decision documents that have authorised the changes? It would be helpful for the RUGBY CEMEX COMMUNITY CEMENT FORUM if we could have a copy - particularly as we are now being consulted on yet another APPLICATION (closes 31/01/09) to VARY the "said/invisible" Permit? We have a meeting scheduled for 4th February and perhaps you could let us have that schedule with your updated report?"

NO WE CANNOT!
"We don't have such a document I'm afraid. However, I agree it needs to be "clearer" , so we will either produce such an informal document, or review the legal document to consolidate it all. I was proposing to do that as part of our "information sharing" proposals that the Environment Council is working with us on. However, it's not a trivial task so I won't be able to give you anything final by 4th Feb I'm afraid. I hope to be able to update you later this week on what we are doing." Clear as mud!

LATER ON NEXT WEEK:
"We have checked on the national review programme and now understand that all cement works permits will be reviewed from April to September. That will produce a NEW consolidated Permit, but in a different format and likely to review some permit conditions in line with current good practice." Great public consultation procedure that - is that really GOOD PRACTICE or INSULTATION and SHAM yet again?

UP THE CREEK WITHOUT A PADDLE : is how the RUGBY RESIDENTS and the RCCF now find themselves. How can we consulted on an application to VARY a PERMIT IF and AS we have NO copy of a PERMIT to VARY?

QUESTION: WHY IS DATA from the (dubious/much debated) continuous particulate cement mill monitors NOT made available to the public or even to the EA - since Cemex say they were fitted in 2004, and the EA say they were fitted in 2006?
ANSWER: THERE IS NO RECORDING OF ANY CEMENT MILL DATA.

QUESTION : WHY STOP BURNING WASTE and why revert to COAL ONLY during instability, start-ups and shut-downs to 80% capacity - 200 tph hour raw meal feed, and what PICs (products of incomplete combustion) come from the emissions during waste burning and cause concern, but not from coal?
ANSWER: "It is not for us to explain why the European WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE requires what it does. I suggest she goes and bothers Brussels. And actually the products of incomplete combustion from coal are likely to be AT LEAST AS BAD AS THOSE FROM NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE, IF NOT WORSE! Ask anyone who's had to clean up the site of an old gas or tar works."

STALEMATE

AS PLANT SHUT DOWN
USHERS IN POLLUTION-FREE HAPPY NEW YEAR?

THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, CEMEX, and RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL still licking their wounds from the pasting they got in the local press over their failure to come clean and admit the truth about the November 16/17 hazardous bypass dust pollution incident, are having a temporary respite during the annual maintenance shut-down. Unfortunately the cleaning of the plant has previously shown high levels of pollution on the local particulate monitors, but no such obvious problem will be revealed this time - as RBC removed most of the ambient air monitors in June 2007, and CEMEX/EA have none to monitor such particulate pollution.

THE ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL is finally organising, in January, the much-delayed meeting of the Working Group (the three funders EA; CEMEX; RBC could not/WOULD not agree any budget from September 2008), to make recommendations to the EA, CEMEX, RBC, and the larger full group in an attempt to determine "agreed ways forward for engagement around the Rugby Cement Plant." The working group will meet first and consider the purpose and scope of future engagement, and clarify what is actually "UP FOR GRABS", who will be regularly engaged, how, where, and when, and how these outcomes will be communicated to the public - in fact exactly what the Rugby Cement Community Forum does/attempts to do. Meanwhile there are independent activities, that cost nothing, and which could all be undertaken to ensure continual progression and to re-establish momentum - IF ONLY the "big three" were willing and able?

CEMEX; EA; RBC to (re?)state and publish publicly their respective legal roles and responsibilities in relation to the MONITORING, REPORTING, and OPERATION of the Rugby Cement Plant, and to state their respective objectives and purpose for engaging with the public.

A CENTRAL REPOSITORY to be created by CEMEX mapping out, in a TRANSPARENT and PROACTIVE manner all their current, and forthcoming consultations, and applications, and planning applications, where all essential information can be accessed free of charge, and containing all the relevant background information. The EA and RBC are to do the same. cross-referencing where there is duplication in engagement and information in order to provide TRANSPARENCY and CLARITY of COMMUNICATION.

SHARED RESPONSIBILITY between all stakeholders for establishing and building respectful, clearer, more transparent communications. This needs to begin with EXPLICIT and HONEST discussion of COMMON OBJECTIVES as an agreed starting point. It should also be supported by an agreed communications protocol.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY REFUSE ACCESS TO PERMIT and is as always the complete opposite of OPEN and TRANSPARENT. The Permit is not available on the Public Register, although CEMEX have now applied for yet another "simple" VARIATION to this INVISIBLE permit! It is a mystery how the public are to be consulted on this new application when they are refused access to the Permit? CEMEX apply to burn more contaminated RDF, along with 10 tph tyres, and during instability, and without any Emission Limit Values for longer periods etc etc. In response to the request for a copy of the permit for the RCCF the EA placed a note on the Public Register at RBC 25 November 2008:
WA/PPC/SP3735GK "Please find enclosed a NOTICE varying conditions of a Permit of 8 October 2003." This "note" consists of a list of 4 odd pages containing the conditions to be amended on page 2, and then some odd pages iii and iv with a list of variations FROM 2001 TO 2008, but seemingly they have forgotten the new EP Regulations, and there is no mention of that new permit issued by the EA in April 2008. WHO IS CONFUSED? WHAT permit is supposed to be in use at Cemex Rugby - any ideas anyone?

NOVEMBER INCIDENT TYPICAL OF THIS KILN: facts finally emerge: "a lump fell into the kiln restrictors which did not clear initially using blasters, and passed through the bypass ducting causing a safely interlock on the bypass ESP to activate and to "trip" emitting unabated course particulates for ONLY 4 minutes from the main stack." CEMEX do NOT fill in the mandatory section on how many kilos/tonnes of particulate were emitted, and the chemical analysis is NOT on the Public Register - but CEMEX claims analysis shows that "this dust is a material similar to partially weathered bypass dust," and was not dispersed. but was dumped on Lawford "due to the relatively calm weather conditions - a wind in a north westerly direction, at a speed of less than 10 mph." (no accurate record then? ) "Build-ups such as this are characteristic of a pre-heater system, and are effectively managed by routine checking and clearing. CEMEX has fitted new blaster systems, and in the combustion chamber, all of which go beyond the normal design requirements - as a result kiln flushes are very rare." (oh??) "This process is fully automated and occurs within minutes to minimise release of particulates. It would unfortunately appear that on this occasion unabated particulates resulted in a LIMITED DUST NUISANCE for a small area of local residents. It is not possible to guarantee that a fall of this nature will not happen in the future. No environmental damage occurred (?) - Cemex offer reimbursement for car cleaning."

EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES NOT IMPLEMENTED IN UK:
* AARHUS CONVENTION,
* PUBLIC PARTICIPATION,
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.

* On 4 December 2008 in Case C-247/07 the Commission found that the UK has FAILED to FULFILL its obligations under the 26 May 2003 Directive "providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and ACCESS to JUSTICE Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC." The Directive was not transposed into national law within the prescribed period and so the Commission brought infringement proceedings and issued a REASONED OPINION on 18 October 2006, giving the UK two months, but the situation still remained unsatisfactory and the Commission took action. The UK admitted it had not adopted the Directive and that the action brought by the Commission was well-founded.
THE UK TO PAY THE COSTS.

UK ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION 25 March 2008 advised the UK government that the Aarhus Convention had not been transposed into UK Law, and that there are significant barriers to public funding for environmental cases. There are no "rights" of redress over planning matters, and planning conditions are rarely enforced by the authorities, and there is no scope for access to environmental justice. The court cases are not FAIR, and EQUITABLE and are PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE! They are not equally matched as the claimant has to fund all the case himself out of his own funds, which is PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE, while the government uses unlimited public money, and also claims that there is "INSUFFICIENT PUBLIC INTEREST" even when it is obvious to all that there is a very wide public interest, in order to claim COSTS against the appellants. The only path open to the public who are being wronged is to complain to the Regulator (EA at Rugby), and they then usually fail to prosecute or to take any action - as at Rugby! Unlike court fees, which run into a few hundred pounds only, the overall costs of a civil action runs to hundreds of thousands of pounds: LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH 1999, in the context of environmental litigation, and with enduring relevance said: "Litigation through the Courts is prohibitively expensive for most people unless they are either poor enough to qualify for legal aid or rich enough to be able to undertake an open-ended commitment to expenditure running into tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds!" Also the pursuit of justice remains hampered by a systemic lack of specialist understanding within the judiciary. They frequently fail to produce results that adequately protect the environment, or serve the public interest, because of insufficient understanding of the technical context, and perceive the failings to be "little more than administrative breaches"
That perfectly describes the RUGBY CASE!

CEMEX CHRISTMAS GIFT TO RUGBY

..Is HAZARDOUS BYPASS DUST!

"I PUT BLAME AT FEET OF THE EA!"
Advertiser Editor's Viewpoint:
QUOTE: "I really don't understand what is going on between Rugby Borough Council, the Environment Agency, and Cemex. The Environment Agency is, I believe, a GUTLESS WASTE OF TIME; the borough council is CONFUSED and UNSURE; and Cemex just want to get on with their business."

POISONING?
"I do feel quite certain that if anyone at Cemex truly believed that the company was poisoning the people of Rugby then they wouldn't be doing it. On the other hand to say that the release of material which is known to be toxic into the atmosphere is harmless is not taking community responsibility seriously. The fact is that any dust circulating in the air would be undesirable and may, over prolonged periods, be adverse to one's health."

WHO IS AT FAULT?
"With questions over original permissions and historic problems, plus a responsibility to support local businesses, I don't think Rugby Councillors know which way to turn. I put the blame at the feet of the Environment Agency. They are the ones who are SUPPOSED to be POLICING these types of situations. They are supposed to be the GUARDIANS of PUBLIC SAFETY, but seem not to know their arses from their elbows. They say the latest blow out, by all accounts the worst for years, was NOT a breach of production or safety guidelines, but that they will act over one in March last year...URGH! Someone has to take charge of the situation and to get a grip. They need to make some few hard decisions once and for all, and then we can all get on with our lives without this continuous conflict. And one thing people have to realise is that Cemex is not just going to go away, and in many respects it would not be good if they did." UNQUOTE

TOXIC DUST WILL NOT HARM YOU!
RUGBY COUNCILLORS CONFUSED AND UNSURE? Three million tonnes a year of dust, cooked, and made into two million tonnes of other dust, makes DUST! All these TOXIC EMISSIONS are INEVITABLE, and permitted (Agency Permit BL7249IH August 2003 particulate , gases, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, thallium, lead, chromium, dioxins , PAH, etc) and are being emitted 24/7 and there is NOTHING anyone can do about it - except to move the plant into a RURAL AREA where it should be! Following on from the preceding unlawful IPC Permit September 1999 emissions come from the main 115 metre stack, (one million cubic metres each hour) and from the 18 Low Level Point Sources , (600,000m3/hour) as well as fugitives from various sources. In order to make 6,000 tonnes a day of cement Cemex needs to burn about 1,000 tonnes a day of various fossil and waste fuels to heat up the kiln to "cook" the approximately 6,000 tonnes of chalk ( solids in 40% sewage slurry) and clay , and various unspecified (no EU waste codes!) polluted industrial wastes as substitute raw materials , such as foundry sand, mill scale and slag etc. Inevitably the volatiles are driven off from this process, creating particulate/dust, with absorbed heavy metals, mercury, arsenic, volatile organic carbons etc in hundreds of tonnes a day of waste gas. The raw materials all contain these toxic pollutants (some more than others which is why the row is going on over the uses of so many tonnes of wastes instead the usual raw material) and they are driven off during the process, and some are what they call "safely bound up in the clinker" .


There is debate over this "safe binding" as then the clinker is ground into cement dust in the mills which vent nearer to the plant and residents due to the low stack heights. It is permitted to run the plant for many hours with no EMISSION LIMITS - such as on startups and shutdowns to 200 tph raw meal. The EA is powerless because this is what the permit IT HAS GRANTED says! So why do they not write a better permit? Which is what we suggested to the House of Lords. The old plant only ever burnt 50 tph so from that you can see the scale of the problem - the new plant is not even considered as "started and ready to be regulated" until four times more - at 200tph! They were also allowed dispensation under the WID permit for SEVENFOLD INCREASED emission limits on TOCs , and on sulphur, over and above the WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE limits, as they said the extra emissions were caused by the raw materials, and not from the waste burning. What difference does it make to the people on whom it falls as to whether the pollution comes from tyres, coal, or raw materials - it is still the same - POLLUTION!

* NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT !
* NO PUBLIC CONSULTATION ever for this plant !
* DISPERSION MODEL hidden by EA (AQMAU);
* HOW MUCH TOXIC POLLUTION is there?
* WHERE does it fall?
* WHO does it fall on?
* VULNERABLE receptors receive "UNINVITED DOSE."
* WHAT HEALTH IMPACT, long term - short term ?

CEMENT PLANT IN SMOKELESS ZONE!
In part the COURT CASES were all about whether the AGENCY should have told the TRUTH to the people, or just told them as little as possible about the emissions. The Lords decided overall, (although two were not happy about it) that the EA could hide the environmental information about the pollution, and how it will impact on people. The EA were "only in the breach of common law duty of fairness", and it would not have made a scrap of difference if they had have told the truth. (This is so obviously wrong as we could have asked for so many different better permit conditions, but instead we have years of experiments and slow so-called improvements, while emissions of some pollutants are actually increased.) The EA concealed the facts during the so-called "Tyres Consultation" - which should have included ALL ASPECTS of the emissions, and of the IPPC PERMIT - but the EA told everyone we could only discuss the "difference between main stack emissions with coal, and with tyres when the plant was under control " and "nothing else at all about emissions!" RMC, the EA and RBC Environmental Health office, who all misled, had the actual IPPC application, but instead of revealing it they all spent TWO YEARS trying to confuse everyone, and convince everyone, giving out misleading "tyre burning" documents and non-technical summaries, and holding SHAM public meetings in an attempt to "appear" open and honest, but in reality hiding the most important information. This follows on from the Agency's SECRETLY GIVEN permit of September 1999, but because the three colluded now Rugby Borough Council can do nothing, unless it comes clean and admits its part in the deception? RBC Councillors considered taking the JUDICIAL REVIEW against the Agency, but they could not because of what the officers (and some councillors?) had done. The reality is that the EA, RBC and Rugby Cement (and Warwickshire County Council also implicated) all knew there would be a permission for unquantifiable pollution, unmonitored, uncontrolled and uncontrollable, sometimes more, sometimes less, the same as at all cement plants , and that the local authority can do nothing about it as it is EXEMPT from the legislation. Slowly the truth will out, BUT WHAT, IF ANYTHING, CAN LEGALLY NOW BE DONE?

CEMEX DUST CLOUD DID HAVE HAZARDOUS WASTE
( QUOTE Rugby Advertiser 18 December)
A dust cloud that was ejected from Rugby Cement and covered homes and cars in Long Lawford on 17 November DID contain hazardous waste. But plant owners Cemex say it will not cause ANY health risks to people. (NB: Rugby residents are very tough?)

THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY has also come under fire for NOT RELEASING INFORMATION sooner, and then ONLY when it was asked by the Rugby Advertiser - and for saying that it will NOT take any action against Cemex for the dust fall-out which happened last month. (NB: not so much "will not" as "CANNOT" because during any startup and shut down however protracted no ELVs (emission limit values) apply, so the plant is basically unregulated and the EA are powerless for many hours a year, the number of which is another of the cement industry big secrets!) However the EA has said this week it will be taking legal action against the cement manufacturers for releasing dust onto homes 21 months ago. (NB: as featured this blog 18 July 2007 - 7 tonnes pulverised coal dust rained down, thickly coating property up to 3 miles away.)

COUNCILLOR NEIL SANDISON:
"The EA and Cemex seem to be living on a DIFFERENT PLANET from the residents of Rugby! We are concerned about what was in the dust and we have asked them both to give us answers, but we have heard nothing. And now the EA say they will charge Cemex over an incident in March 2007 - talk about closing the stable door once the horse has bolted!" The RUGBY COMMUNITY CEMENT FORUM has this week made an official complaint about the EA, claiming it has shown NO INTEREST in Rugby matters by not answering its questions, and not attending meetings.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - Talking about the latest dust fall-out on 17 November - which many residents said was one of the worst in decades - the EA said the bypass dust released was MOSTLY the same as "normal clinker dust" but with a higher content of free lime, (caustic) calcium hydroxide and calcium sulphate, as well as some potassium and sodium sulphates. It went on to add that 'bypass dust is classed as hazardous because it is very alkaline' but 'not at levels likely to cause harm to the environment or human health.'

CEMEX UK's Community Affairs Manager Ian Southcott said the bypass dust was released as part of a safety measure when there is a build up of carbon monoxide. As this did not breach its permit with the EA NO LEGAL ACTION could be taken."This came as a result of the bypass electrostatic precipitator 'tripping' out due to the presence of carbon monoxide. This 'Best Available Technique for removing dust' is widely used across the cement industry and is a safety feature designed to remove any chance of an explosion." (so they save the plant and dump on us!)

CAR WASH FREE : after receiving complaints from residents the company did clean some of the affected cars - for free. Mr Southcott added the company were sorry that people were affected, but added "A small quantity of bypass dust over a large area would not cause any health hazards. We are operating under regulations in our permit and all the time we are improving emissions, but that IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE GET TO SEE! Bypass dust is classified under European regulations as HAZARDOUS due to the free lime content which can be an irritant to the skin during prolonged exposure. Essentially it is mainly partially heated raw material and consists largely of chalk. The analysis of the bypass dust collected at the time of the incident reveals tiny quantities of some metals and dioxins which are extremely low and are similar to the values that can be seen in naturally occurring raw materials such as clay and chalk."

"DIOXIN levels were below those naturally occurring in soils for example, and were less than 0.1% of a millionth of a gramme per kilogramme (0.0000000001 of a gramme).
An AIR QUALITY report prepared by Faber Maunsell for RBC concluded that during the 'time of the release' (not revealed) PM10 particulate concentrations were below the UK 24 hour mean PM10 standard throughout this period - i.e. the measurements were LESS than would be expected under NORMAL circumstances.!" (what does this mean, and where was the monitor??)

PETER CORNISH was one of the Long Lawford residents whose house and car was covered in the dust. He said "Cemex seem to do this on a regular basis, and get away with it, because the EA DO NOT SEEM TO BE BOTHERED! I know there will soon be another dust fall out - it is INFURIATING!"
UNQUOTE.


INFORMATION SHARING CANCELLED?
So much for the EA' s (empty) promise of 5 December to share information with the forum and Rugby residents! At the RCCF meeting on 8 December Cemex vehemently denied bypass dust to be hazardous, and said they grind it in with the clinker in the cement mills. They also dump it at Cell 3 Southam, 140,000 tonnes in eight years - in a non-hazardous landfil - although they have applied to WCC to have this unauthorised dumping regularised - and a hazardous waste planning permission granted. Surely this bypass dust cannot be mixed into the "cement dust", the 5 mills and seperators emit onto Rugby at 30,000 micrograms in each cubic metre - can it? Yes it can! Meanwhile how are Cemex and the EA complying with the Environment Council's genuine and far reaching proposals to "move forward together" and to "begin by sharing information"? They are not!

BYPASS DUST COMPETITION:
SPOT THE TOXIC:
EA: Cemex January - June 2008
" Free lime 24.9%; antimony; tin; cadmium; thallium; mercury; lead; chromium; copper; manganese; nickel; arsenic; cobalt; vanadium; zinc; dioxin. "

CHRISTMAS QUIZ:
BYPASS DUST is provided FREE in Rugby, and apparently " poses no health risk."
* How much of the above is essential to the human body on a daily basis as a dietary requirement?
* How much does each resident of Rugby need to breath in every day to GUARANTEE a long and healthy life?
ANSWERS NEXT YEAR!

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY AND "HEALTHY"? NEW YEAR.

AGENCY CHRISTMAS GIFT TO RUGBY

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE EPISODE WITH LILIAN IN

FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM NOW OVERCOME
"Community engagement to START - with information sharing!"
Incredible!


THE RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM
MONDAY 8 DEC 6.00PM ST OSWALDS CHURCH, Lawford Road, Rugby, invites the public to attend. The RCCF has been asking for information for many years, but the Agency has even  to answer Freedom of Information and EIR requests. Are they about to do a U-turn, and to start to be be open , honest, transparent, and to engage in meaningful dialogue, with access to information?

RCCF LETTER 8th October :
"expresses concern about lack of information forthcoming from the Environment Agency, and asks formally for the outcomes of the Agency's investigations into the numerous pollution incidents to be made public, and brought to the Forum. It is becoming increasingly difficult to scrutinise the production at this plant impartially if members do not receive full evidence. It is vital if we are to be seen to be fulfilling the needs of the community by this scrutiny that we receive information regularly and as soon as it is available."

AGENCY REPLY:
CEMEX, RBC and the AGENCY have been funding the Environment Council as facilitator in trying to "start community engagement" in Rugby (yes in that same Rugby where the Agency lawyers told the House of Lords that NO ONE but NO ONE is interested or concerned about the cement plant and its operations) and to try to "move forward together". Limited progress has been made so far, after one year of struggle and endeavour, (on top of the previous seven years!!) but now the Agency has a "new bright idea" and has just informed the Forum as follows:

"You can see those records of pollution incidents on our Public Register at Rugby Borough Council, or ask the company to show them to you at your meetings. I think this ties in to our work on public engagement and I'm proposing to Cemex and RBC that we START by trying to establish protocols for the sharing of information. This seems to have been a fundamental problem in our relationship to date, and I hope that we can agree what, how and when information can be provided to the public, AND what they will use this information for. The Environment Council should be writing to stakeholders shortly to set this us."

"From the Workshop outcomes on 17th September we believe the focus at the work group should be on the exchange of information with the public. This was a common thread running through the feedback in the workshop and it is a tangible area of work that could be developed and would help further improve any future development of public engagement."

MUSHROOM SYNDROME?
The Agency finally admit what is wrong in Rugby, and the mushrooms,
aka residents, are now going to get access to information? Can it be true that the authorities finally admit that there has been no honest, transparent, open, meaningful community engagement, and no proper consultation and information sharing? So its back to the drawing board - with us all being fully informed - after ONLY eight years of asking! But SADLY it is just too late to "do anything" about the unlawfully built and operated cement co-incinerator. But they will now at least tell us about it. Nice one!

RE CHROMIUM VI EMISSIONS:
CEMEX DAVENPORT SHUT DOWN
AGENCY SAYS: We allow a work place exposure of 50 micrograms/m3 per eight hour day. We have no information on chromium VI emissions from the Cemex plant, and it has no specific limit at the plant in any case. Total heavy metals including chromium (and antimony, arsenic, lead, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel and vanadium) are limited to 0.5mg/m3 and is required to be "sampled" only four times a year. The UK's Environment Action Level is 0.1 micrograms per metre cubed as an annual average and we think it unlikely to get to that level as the Dispersion Model for metals shows a ground level concentration of 0.000119 micrograms/m3.

CEMENT MILL EMISSIONS TREBLE CHROMIUM VI:
"Cement mill emissions are "controlled" by a limit on particulate matter of 30 mg/m3." This actually means to say the EA "put a limit on", but there is no way it is controlled at all, and often exceeds. In any case it is only sampled TWICE a year. BUT using a worst case
emission of CHROMIUM from the cement mills in the "clinker dust" the chromium in the ambient air is INCREASED THREE FOLD to 0.0003 micrograms.
"The Chromium VI is from the processing of raw materials, and we would expect the operator to keep chromium content to a minimum. There would be no commercial attraction for Cemex to use raw materials with a significant chromium content in Rugby."

NO AMBIENT AIR MONITORS!
"The problems at Davenport are a problem for the USA EPA, but suggest a breakdown in raw materials quality control. The EA have not 'found' anything similar
at Rugby." Question: Have you looked? "ERR, well, no, not actually."

UPDATE ON LATEST DUST:
EA not able to prosecute for 17 November thick coating of dust as it was QUITE LEGAL and IN ORDER - from a four-minute ESP trip. The EA has no LEG TO STAND ON, and no legal basis on which to proceed further because, as frequently happens, Cemex say they were either starting up, or shutting down, and thus NO EMISSION LIMITS were in place at the time. So its TOO BAD and TOUGH LUCK RUGBY! Free feather dusters to be distributed to all?

NEW APPLICATIONS
include requests to extend the start up and shut down periods, when no ELVs are in place, which allow all these dust and pollution incidents to go on with no punishment, prosecution or reprimand. They want longer hours without limits, and also waste burning to occur during periods of instability.
The WASTE CLIMAFUEL/RDF is also to have a much larger range of calorific values and also to have much higher contents of pollutants and such as chlorine - which assists in the formation of the deadly dioxins.
NEW INFORMATION SHARING
And were the Rugby residents ever consulted, or even informed about any of this? You guessed it!

RugbyTown.org has a YouTube channel!

I have had a blog for a little while now and am noticing it's usefulness in archiving the vast amounts of data collected around the Cemex cement plant and it's operations.

Publishing the information online also allows anyone interested or affected to hop on and have a read.  Together we can rally around these issues, pool ideas and information to ensure no environmental laws are broken.

Never underestimate the power of social media when fighting the good fight. I get emails of support from all over the world from others also wanting to bring awareness and point out that sometimes big industry does not play by the rules and it is the local population who suffer for this.

It can mean an increase of unnecessary traffic, road noise, pollution from various sources, all on your doorstep.

All people should be entitled to a safe and secure home for their family. You did not choose for the goalposts to be moved on ever increasing emission limits and unmeasured invisible pollutants. You deserve the right to breath air that does not slowly poison you.

I feel it is time to take this protest up a gear. This is why I have started a YouTube video channel.

Please feel free to join the discussion both here and over on YouTube.

Be informed, be active. Do something to protect your family's health.

You can view the YouTube channel here.. 

http://uk.youtube.com/user/rugbytowninplume