Rugby Councillors spurn world health expert help

Rugby Councillors spurn world health expert help......

Professor Vyvyen Howard came three times to Rugby and twice Councillors were invited to meet him and discuss the serious health implications of the waste-burning and coal/petcoke burning in the cement/co-incinerator in Rugby. Of the 48 Councillors only a handful bothered to turn up.

Yet more evidence against the burning of wastes, in incinerators and in cement kilns!

Cork incinerator site. www.chaseireland.org Burning chemical waste creates finer particles, which are not caught.

Norwich Evening News - 16-02-06
Invisible but deadly incinerator danger by HUGH BOWRING

The fight against plans for a waste incinerator near Norwich was strengthened today after a scientist rebuffed Government claims that the plants were safe.

Professor Vyvyen Howard, who is a leading toxico-pathologist and opponent of incineration, said burning waste as proposed in the £90 million incinerator on the Longwater Industrial Estate in Costessey was dangerous and totally unsustainable.

His comments come after the Health Protection Agency announced findings of a recent investigation, which concluded there was little evidence to suggest serious health problems linked to the large-scale burning of waste.

Prof Howard, who is a lecturer at the University of Ulster, said mass-burn incineration only served to compound the problem of the Earth's increasingly toxic atmosphere.

He said although modern incinerators were cutting out 99 per cent of particles emitted, this figure was based on weight.

What the plants were failing to do was to filter out the smallest, most harmful particles, which weighed virtually nothing, yet made up most emissions.

"We are learning all the time about the damaging effects of ultra-fine particles and have already discovered that the smaller the particles the more inflammatory and toxic they are" he said.

"Breathing in these particles can cause chronic inflammation, which can lead to cancer, as well blood clots and other chronic health effects. If you are living in the vicinity of an incinerator you are going to be exposed to these particles."

Prof Howard said that, even though the US National Academy of Sciences stated back in 1976 that weight-based emission filtration levels were effectively useless, the method had prevailed because no one was yet able to count the number of particles emitted.

The scientist acknowledged many of the particles emitted from cars, power stations and other modern inventions added significantly to the toxic content in the atmosphere.

"We have to start asking is it safe and sensible to press ahead with incineration when there are better alternatives?" he said. "I think the answer to both these questions is no!"

Prof Howard added that greater recycling, material reuse and sustainable
forms of waste treatment were vital for a sustainable future: "Incineration
is just a quick fix solution." he said. "The best solutions lie in organisational energy, effort and imagination."

Yesterday pollution expert Dr Dick Van Steenis told the Evening News how harmful emissions from the proposed plant in Costessey could reach a 17-mile radius.

The Evening News last month held a public meeting, packed with worried families concerned at the proposals for the incinerator.

Norfolk County Council has named the Waste Recycling Group (WRG) as its preferred operator for the controversial scheme.

Damning Evidence

Cement kilns co-incinerating waste are even worse than Incinerators: Damning Evidence Against Incinerators As Debate Shifts to Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions :

In a Prime Time Incineration special on Thursday last (23 February 2006) Minister Roche reinforced his position as a NIMBY, and exposed Government ignorance regarding the latest health reports on the safety of incinerators.

Minister Roche was unable to refute the latest evidence in the form of a report by The British Society for Ecological Medicine (BSEM), quoted by CHASE's Mr Frank Kelleher to support his argument that Incinerators are too high risk for human health.

The report, written in December 2005, entitled "The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators", and stating that 'facilities emitting substantial quantities of fine particulates [incinerators]...should not be approved and urgent measures should be taken to reduce the emissions from waste burning installations in current use and to apply vigorous biological monitoring until they can be taken out of service and safer methods of waste disposal brought into operation", left the Minister without reply, and made a complete mockery of the Government line that a safely run incinerator is acceptable.

Mr Kelleher also referred to the WHO Document produced in April 2005 - Particulate Matter, Air Pollution; How it harms health.

The growing body of evidence on the damage caused by PM was backed up during the programme by a number of national and international experts from both sides of the debate who expressed serious reservations about the safety of incineration.

When challenged by Mr Kelleher on the Governments failure to address the cornerstone of its waste policy i.e. Waste Prevention - having spent only Euro 5 million (Race Against Waste Campaign) out of a promised prevention budget of Euro 55 million - Minister Roche seemed under the impression the policy document was history and that building incinerators would solve the problem of illegal landfill in his own Wicklow constituency. Minister Roche has previously been quoted as saying that he would not want an incinerator in his own constituency.

If Minister Roche is serious about his position as Minister for the Environment he will now familiarise himself with current incinerator health reports, including PM damage, and consider placing a moratorium on the building of incinerators until he has spent his committed budget on waste prevention.

Council suffering selective memory loss.

Council thinks only ONE person in Rugby concerned with co-incinerator.... air quality, pollution and health.....

Yesterday leading Councillors, defending the professional reputations of Councillors and staff, said it was a "step too far" to suggest that Officers who refuse to answer letters, and Councillors who delete emails from the Rugby residents by "auto-rule", were a waste of money. Presumably each Officer and Councillor is free to grapple with the issues of the day that he/she chooses? There appears to be a problem with that as one would have thought that, as we all live in Rugby, that we all breathe the same air, and we all suffer the environmental detriment? Not so apparently. Is it just me, or is there a distinct lack of joined-up thinking?

A further scathing remark from the Conservative Cabinet member , holder of the Environment Portfolio, warns Lilian that "if YOU expect to receive ANY sympathy for YOUR cause" you must not go too far. Apparently "the Cause" is all mine! Can it possibly be that ONLY Lilian is concerned for the health of Rugby people, and the 48 Councillors are all very happy to have the biggest waste burner in the UK sited here? They delete emails, and refuse to read the environmental and health information provided to them. This follows on from missives from other Councillors instructing me to "be nice to Councillors to get them on my side", and "not to upset them".

FACTS:
1. This Council asked FOUR times for Defra's Secretary of State to hold a PUBLIC INQUIRY in Rugby.
2. This Council unanimously agreed that the cement plant was not to become a co-incinerator.
3. Officers and Councillors are singing from different hymn sheets: Officers welcome incineration in Rugby!
4. This Council has with held Environmental information in contravention of the Act.
5. This Council has written intimidating letters to residents who have asked for information.
6. Only a handful of Councillors bothered to attend meetings with Dr Vivian Howard, (the UK's leading expert on health effects from incineration), when he came to Rugby twice to talk to them, and to advise them.
7. Environmental Health Officers admit to having no idea as to how the cement plant came to be built here, and how it got an "unlawful" IPC operating permit.
8. This Council claims to have "mislaid" crucial Minutes of meetings, and refuses access.
9. This Council refuses to answer what it regards as "awkward" (incriminating?) questions.
10 The Government's policy is to burn waste as cheaply as possibly in the most conveniently huge cement kiln, regardless of the Health Impact, and the suitability, or otherwise, , of the location.
11 Lilian has got fed up with being "fobbed off; obstructed; misinformed; and mislead" by officers and Councillors at both RBC and WCC. Unfortunately they only answer anything when they are irritated - and then only very occasionally.
12 The Environment Agency is currently conducting a Public Relations exercise in a Survey to ask hapless, specially selected, residents in Rugby (and Westbury) how much the pollution from the cement plant "bothers them".

It does not appear that the Questionnaire provides any details about the pollutants, and the dangers and health impacts from the toxic chemicals being emitted, but on the more positive side it does stop short of telling
the interviewees that the plume is "only harmless carbon dioxide and water vapour!" At the end will there be this entirely predictable result:

"500 people interviewed in Rugby welcomed incineration and pollution after they were told that tyre burning is good for them and improves air quality. They understand it lowers the cancer risk from coal burning!" The findings of this survey concur with those of Cook and Kemm who were unable to prove one way of the other, in the Health Impact Assessment, "if it is better for the Rugby residents to breathe coal dust or tyre fumes". The Jury is still out.

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET AT THE TRUTH?

Awarded!

Cement plant WINNER of Process Award Rugby Ltd : Pollution Control - Inbuilt in cement manufacture:

LINK

One might indeed wonder what planet these guys inhabit? Have they ever been to Rugby? This must be a sick joke, or proof if ever any was needed that the EU is totally out of step with the UK. RMC have this to say:

"The UK's Green Apple Environment Award has now been followed by a nomination for a European Award for the Environment," says a thrilled Dr David Evans Environment Manager for RMC, "and the National and European recognition justify the confidence we had in the design and the risks we took in developing the plant."

"Faced with the challenge of how best to meet increasingly demanding environmental requirements at a number of ageing cement plants Rugby - part of RMC group - opted for a bold approach. Instead of modifying seven existing installations it decided it would be more COST effective to replace them all with one new cement plant specifically designed to high environmental standards".

WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAID: Then we looked round for a target site, the softest option, and the most likely place to find the locals asleep. A green field site would seem to have been easier with only a few sleepy sheep to protest about the development, but we soon realised that sheep were not as stupid or as sleepy as some people believe. We quickly decided that we needed a more gullible populace than a field of sheep. By coincidence we also realised that the Real Estate at Chinnor, Rochester and Southam was worth much more than that at Rugby. And also, most conveniently, Rugby Borough Council and Warwickshire County Council seemed the "best bet", accustomed as they are to pulling the wool over the eyes of the 90,000 Rugby residents. With only 62 County Councillors at Warwick and only 48 Rugby Borough Councillors it was a pushover. They put up no defence, advised as they were by the compliant officers. Cunningly and by stealth local people were told a whole Grimms worth of Fairy Stories about what was planned, and then from the small bean of an idea the mighty stalk of a plant grew and grew. Month by month we fiddled with the plans enlarging and changing for three years, under the not-very-watchful eyes of the officers, who were having great trouble with their Ladybird Book of Planning for Beginners.

Some more wide-awake people like reporters at ENDS (Environmental Specialist) magazine mentioned that it was more than a little odd to build a semi-wet process plant when all over the world the wet and semi-wet plants were being shut down. And not only that but to build it in a town with NO raw materials - they ran out in 1965. And not only that but to put to the west, in a large town, with no roads and no rail connection, so that the plume, being wet would fall continuously on the residents. They said it did not represent BATNEEC and could not comply with IPC, let alone with the higher standards of BAT and IPPC. But the Environment Agency declared themselves to be "happy about it". (And please do not remember who was chair of RMC and the EA at that time).

THE DILEMMA: Now the Councillors and Officers are faced with a "Grimm"
decision: Do they put on a brave face, and try to brazen it out - and tell
the people of Rugby "we did this intentionally as we decided to purposely
and wilfully destroy the whole town". Do they say "we sold you out for
£500,000 that is still in WCC bank, but with all the interest of ten years
in RMC's bank"?

Or do they bite the bullet and admit : " We were totally fooled, mislead, misinformed, and not vigilant. We could not be bothered to read the papers. The words were too long. The files were too fat. We did not understand the terminology, so we let the officers advise us. We were just plain dumb. We did not know what we were doing, and we were ill-advised. We never knew the truth."

Or do they do as we have asked them to do: start an investigation into exactly who said what, and who did what. How did supposedly experienced officers manage to make so many blindingly obvious mistakes? Who could be that stupid for that long? No one! How did RMC manage to fool the officers at WCC and RBC and also to fool 110 councillors? The public are not to blame as the information was never given out to them. And they were not even asked. It was all discretely hidden, at the cement plant, and at the offices of WCC. The true plans were never revealed to Rugby people.

An old 230,000 tonne cement plant has now become a 2 million tonne a year production co-incinerator with:

* no valid Planning Permission, (no public consultation, officers amending
plans and acting under delegated powers)
* no valid IPC permit (No application, no fee was paid, no advertisement, and no consultation) and so is unlawful.
* no valid IPPC permit as proper procedure not followed. The EA and RBC mislead all the consultations, pretending it was only about tyre burning.

The PCT also carried out the same flawed procedure. It cannot have now got an IPPC Permit without ever having had an IPC Permit. It never went through the process of the IPC permitting.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

WCC expenses

WCC Regulatory committee costs about £130,000 a year plus.....

Click HERE

Pay for councillors

Are Rugby Councillors best value for money.
What does your ward councillor get?
What is he/she worth?

Click HERE to find out what they are on....

http://www.rugby.gov.uk/downloads/5-Members_Allowance_Scheme.pdf

Rugby residents are tough.

You too can find out the associated costs to human health caused by the incineration of waste and co-incineration, in the UK, and by the Rugby Cement plant. How does it affect Rugby residents, or are we "superhuman" and toxic pollutants have no impact on us, as the WCC and RBC would have us believe?

* Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management May 2004
* Valuation of the External Costs and "Benefits" to Health of Waste Management Options December 2004

There is also more information on the Defra website - see HERE for details.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/research/health/index.htm

Answer these questions!!

To those that know:

Can ANYONE out there please tell us the answers to these SIMPLE questions ?

1. When did WCC give the permission to SHUT the railway that accessed the cement works?
2. When did WCC give the cement works a planning permission to BUILD on the railway line?
3. When did RBC give the permission to unload 1,000 tonnes of coal each day in Rugby and truck it through the town centre to the cement works?
4. When did EWS get this permission to start this operation?

These are simple questions. Why have I had to ask this for MONTHS and everyone is declining to answer?
Please can you tell us the truth about this situation?
Thank you.
Lilian

Freedom of Information?

This Council is not having ANY of that here in Rugby....

Even Councillors cannot get access to Information.... about air quality and pollution
Told to make pointless responses in the absence of the necessary information.....
We will only tell you what we want you to know.....

Dear Cllr

Unfortunately it is not possible to meet all the needs of elected members quickly. Officers have a number of duties and, therefore, priorities must be set. The Director of Housing and Environmental Health has introduced the ‘Policy document to improve understanding and working relationships between Elected Members and Officers’ in an attempt to clarify how elected members requests should be dealt with. Elected members have been sent copies of the policy document and were invited to presentations regarding it.

Should you want to make further responses to the air quality report, you may still do so, even if the information you have requested is not available to you at that time.

I am not and have not been the pollution officer as such. I was the Pollution Control Team Leader until January 2004 when I became the Commercial Manager. As Commercial Manager I am a deputy to Sean Lawson, Head of Environmental Health, and I have responsibility for the supervisory management of the Pollution Control Team, the Food Team and the Health and Safety Team.

I apologise for the delay but as explained above, operational needs and service requests by the public mean that expectations cannot always be met.

Yours sincerely

David Burrows
Commercial Manager
Rugby Borough Council
18 February 2005

Burning waste made easy by WCC

Warwickshire County Council agree to Incinerate more waste in Rugby town centre.

County Councillors once again spurned Rugby residents, and lawyer's requests, to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment before permitting this change of use, and intensification of use, at the Rugby Cement site. They continue along the same lines as they always have, putting industry's profits before OUR health, in yet ANOTHER case of the blind leading the blind at Warwick. They ignored pleas from local residents, including one from Mrs Judge of Lawford who apparently has cement dust inbedded in her lungs from years of living close to the plant.

On 22nd December 2005 (specially stuck in just before Christmas so that the opposition would be either busy or on holiday) the Regulatory Committee met at Warwick and refused to Defer the planning application for a FULL and FAIR consideration of all the impacts, into the proposal to fit "bag filters", to allow waste disposal at Rugby plant. They do not, (apparently) realise, that the "WID" referred to throughout means the Waste Incinerator Directive. Why should that European Directive for the incineration of waste apply to the Rugby Cement plant? Because WCC have permitted it to become a waste co-incinerator - with the "expert" help of the Environment Agency and RBC.

The Councillors acted "according to officers' recommendations", presumably impressed by the presence of no less than five "experts" from Cemex, to jolly them along, and to ensure that this got through! They claim to have taken into consideration the Environmental Statement and other environmental information that accompanied the bag-filter application, and not one councillor questioned the "validity", or "completeness", of the information provided by the applicant.

This Statement of "justification" for their action/inaction has now appeared on the WCC web site:

Description of the Main Measures to Avoid, Reduce and Offset Major Adverse Effects:

* There are no major adverse effects

Main Reasons and Considerations on Which the Decision is Based:

The main considerations on which the decision was based were the Policies of the Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996-2011 and the Rugby Borough Local Plan and all other material consideration set out in the Report.

The Committee agreed with the reasons for granting permission given in the Report and relied in particular on the following main reasons:

(i) The bag filter would significantly reduce particulate emissions in up to 60% of the gases discharged from the main stack.

(ii) The scale of the proposed building and its colouring would result in the bag filter having no greater visual impact than existing buildings.

(iii) Noise mitigation measures enforced through conditions will contain noise from construction and make it unlikely that noise during operation will have any greater impact on neighbours than existing operations.

(iv) The bag filter would increase the use of electricity over current levels but there are no other likely significant adverse physical effects.

(v) The proposed development is in general accordance with the development plan there are no other planning considerations of sufficient weight to require that permission be refused.

The names of the Councillors on this Committee:

Richard Chattaway; Dave Shilton; Peter Barnes: Les Caborn: Michael Doody; Pat Henry: Joan Lea; Brian Moss; Mike Perry; Ian Smith; Ray Sweet: and Rugby's very own home-grown JOHN WELLS - who was one of the original councillors involved in the granting of the planning permission for the New Rugby Works!

Hiding environmental information made not-so-easy

In our series "How to...... In Rugby"

We present : Town Hall in Shock as Freedom of Environmental Information Act bites!

"Hiding environmental information made not-so-easy" at Rugby Borough Council.

It might appear to casual observers that RBC spend more time, and more of our money, going to great lengths to hide information, than they would in just making the information "freely available" as they are required to do, by Law.

* Is this Best Value for Council Tax Payers?

* Do you feel a bit sorry for them, as after all it must be an enormous shock to "the system" after all these years of saying to the Public "we are not going to tell you because we do not have to!" - and now being obliged to.

Click here to read more

But the crux of the matter is below:

Case Ref: FS50072105
Date: 13/02/06
Public Authority: Rugby Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information about a planning application, and the Commissioner has found this request was not dealt with within 20 working days. Additionally, information was withheld from the response to the request without a valid reason, and without the issuing of a valid refusal notice. Therefore the Decision Notice requires the public authority to supply all information that was withheld without valid reason. In addition the complainant also alleged that the Council had not provided the information in the form requested, the Commissioner found no evidence of this and so this aspect of the complaint has not been upheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR r.5(1) Upheld, EIR r.5(2) Upheld, EIR r.6(1) Not Upheld, EIR r.14 Upheld.
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50072105

Town hall succumbs to mushroom syndrome...

Cement Plant Colour scheme main concern....

Shades of grey with just a dash of orange?

In June 1997 yet even MORE "Further Changes to Approved Scheme of Rugby Works Upgrade" we learn that the senior planners main concerns were not: air quality; pollution; toxic plume; 1,000 heavy lorries each day; loss of amenity; intensification of use of the site; environmental impact; health impact; impact on roads and property: it was.... Wait for it......

The COLOUR scheme!

Reading through the "Schedule of Changes compared to the approved Drawings" we find:

* I suggest a stainless steel finish for the chimney top.
* What about oyster grey for clinker silo?
* What in lieu of mushroom? Ooohh!
* Yes, I think so, and for the cement mills shall we go for svelte grey?
* I like the slate grey myself., as opposed to plain grey.
* What do you say to using light, dark and orange cladding colours more positively?
* Yes I like that - as long as you remove the svelte grey enclosure to the stairs.
* Note: Some variation of colour may have occurred between sets of reproductions due to inconsistency of this process. Original samples should be consulted for TRUE COLOUR of proposed cladding.

Choruses of: Mmm! That's nice. Ooohh I like that. Lovely! Good riddance to the mushroom... Tee heee... The mention of mushroom makes me giggle... Are Rugby people really that daft that we can get away with this "mushroom technique", and build a 2 million tonne cement plant without them even noticing? Oh yes, with a colour scheme like this we will have it built before they see it, and in any case with a few nice plume-filled foggy days, say about three years worth, we should be finished and it will be too late. I tell you what, nip and get a few mushroom-coloured buckets of manure will you, and let's get started.

Perhaps we can have a "Hide the cement plant competition"...

What shade would you choose for the least impact... First prize to those who make it become "invisible".

It beggers belief.

Improving air quality" in our neck of the woods

In our series of "How to... in Rugby" we proudly present:

"Improving air quality" in our neck of the woods."

As long ago as 1999, after years of refusing to take any notice of repeated reports of dust, smells of sulphur, low lying plumes, toxic clouds, the local pollution officers finally caved in, and put one air quality monitor in the place least likely to record any highs, a mile south of the apparent polluting industry. After two intentionally fruitless years and heaving a collective sigh of relief, they - being RBC, Rugby Cement and the Environment Agency - abandoned the low-reading monitors, delightedly declaring all is well. "Didn't catch a thing!"

But the Public of Rugby are not going to take being polluted lying down, as it were, and they rose up again, with one voice, singing songs of dust storms, snow-like coverings, black smoke, fumes and plumes, until as many monitors were acquired as blackbirds baked in a pie. With shock and horror the stunned officials observed as one after another the monitors started to ring alarm bells, or would have if they had have been fitted! "We can't have this!" cried shocked officials. "2003 is a bad year for pollution. The weather is against us. Quick! Recalibrate the instruments".

And so it came to pass that the monitors were recalibrated, and recalibrated, and recalibrated, until that long-awaited glorious moment one miraculous morn in 2005 it was revealed that not only is Rugby the cleanest place in the world, but that the lowest reading monitors were sited due east of the cement works. People came from far and wide to admire this amazing phenomenon - a dust-free, pollution-free cement works, where prevailing winds have no influence. It reads just like a fairy story.

Next week in our "How to ...in Rugby" series we have "Hiding environmental information."

Who did this to Rugby people?

Ever wondered who exactly backed the building of the monster plant in Rugby.....?

Well at WCC there was John Deegan, Karen Downe and Andy Cowan doing their best to "get it through". Rugby had Haywood Underhill and Greg Vigars. Jerry Birbeck and John Rush also had a hand in it.

What were the Rugby Councillors doing? You might well ask. On 31st August 1995 they had this "unanimous" thought-provoking statement to make for the Environment Committee Report on the Application to "UPGRADE" the Rugby Cement Works:

"NO VIEWS RECEIVED".. Yes folks - that is it the considered opinion of the paid representatives. I know it falls disappointingly far short of what one would have expected. Surely they could have made a bit more effort? They did not even bother to send a "view"....

The Councillors with no opinions: B Levy; D Cavanagh: J Wells; J Vereker: T White; J Hilditch.

Rugby residents urged to stop breathing...

Rugby residents urged to stop breathing : responsible for 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide each..... Equivalent to about 6 tonnes Carbon each!

To do our bit to help Climate Change Rugby residents must behave responsibly. Apparently we produce more carbon dioxide per head than any other people in the UK. a lot more! According to Ceefax Tuesday 21st February, quoting the Carbon Trust:

London annually produces 9.46 million tonnes of carbon, making each Londoner responsible for a "horrifying" 1.09 tonnes each year. At the other end of the scale we have the environmentally friendly residents of Aberystwyth and Ipswich producing 0.42 tonnes each.

But in Rugby the 90,000 residents are apparently responsible for over 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide each! OK, OK, it is not all attributable to the heavy breathing and hot air produced in the Council Chamber, and it may just have everything to do with the Cemex co-incinerator plant. Yes, the one where the burning of waste "only gives out harmless carbon dioxide and water" according to propaganda put out by RMC in the 30,000 copies of the local free paper.

According to the cement industry figures : for each tonne of cement manufactured 0.86 tonnes of carbon dioxide are emitted, so the 2 million tonne a year plant would give us 1.8 million tonnes of CO2, and that divided up as a "share" between the 90,000 Rugby residents means we can all claim to have contributed 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Can we join Cemex and the cement industry, and enter into a Climate Change Agreement with the Government and get paid for "stopping breathing"?

Cement production before.. And after..

WCC report:

"The old wet process cement works at Rugby manufactured the following tonnes of cement (not clinker) each year:

1990 278,320 tonnes
1991 194,346
1992 229,702
1993 264,488
1994 390,889
1995 315,739
1996 328,821
1997 375,532
1998 382,898

And that is consistent with a maximum capacity around 400,000 tonnes before the rebuilding of the plant. Therefore 1.25 million tonnes would accurately be described as a trebling of capacity."

They seem to think that this somehow justifies why the Planning Application in 1996, and planning permission granted, was for 1,250,000 tonnes. So how come now it is "suddenly as if by magic" able to manufacture 2,000,000 tonnes!!?

Actually when the planning application was submitted in 1995, the most up to date figures they could have had for the actual production was from 1990-1994. This made an annual average of 231,000 tonnes. So the production
at Rugby has not merely "trebled" as claimed by WCC it has actually increased nearer ten fold!

And during these years the railway was also being used. No wonder Rugby residents are smothered in dust, plumes, and lorries! This could be the biggest SCAM of all time... The Agency said to us "we got away with it in Rugby because there was no intelligent opposition!". It is time Rugby residents turned on their officers and Councillors at both Rugby and Warwick and asked "What the hell have you lot been playing at?".

Message from RBC : Shut up and put up!

Has RBC set the KGB onto Lilian?

Lilian had the audacity to complain to RBC about the coal dust at the Hunter's Road tip, which was emanating from the coal train unloading in Rugby railway station for transfer to lorries to convoy across the town to the Rugby Cement works. This has come about due to Warwickshire County Council giving RMC/Rugby Cement permission to SHUT down the railway, and to build a bagging plant on it. Yet another example of WCC 's extraordinary planning capabilities. Few counties can boast of such incredible ability!

RBC EHO office then reported Lilian to the Transport Police for investigation, for possibly causing criminal damage on the railway and for trespass and possibly endangering life - according to RBC EHO office letter.

Lilian got a more intelligent response from EWS, but still they do not seem to have grasped the main point. While I agree with them that the coal train into Rugby is less of an impact than bringing the coal by lorry all the way to Rugby, what relevance does that comment have? Who was suggesting that coal be brought by road from Wales?

The question is why did WCC give Rugby Cement/RMC permission to shut down the railway that operated into the plant and to build a bagging plant on it at the VERY SAME TIME as WCC were granting the plant permission to increase production from the old 300,000 tonnes a year to the new 2 million tonnes a year.

Let us hear it for WCC! BOO!
From: Wells, Gary
Subject: Rugby dust complaint 2 sept.doc

DRAFT RESPONSE

Dear Mrs Pallikaropoulos

Copy to
COLIN PHILIP
Customer Correspondence Team
Office of Rail Regulation

Mark Goodall,
Route Freight Manager
Network Rail

Thank you for your emails to EWS managers regarding our operations at Rugby. I can assure you that the Board of EWS does take its environmental responsibilities very seriously and is actively trying to minimise the impact of its operations on all its neighbours.

Some years ago when the operation first started, EWS obtained a permit from Rugby Borough Council for the transfer of coal from rail wagons to road vehicles. Current traffic levels amount to approx. 1000 tonnes coal per day delivered to the local Rugby cement works in sheeted lorries. No coal is stored at Rugby Yard. I can advise you that this permit is still valid, which Rugby BC will also confirm. Following problems earlier this year, the EHO visited Rugby Yard in March 2005 and discussed the operation with my local management team. We agreed ways to reduce dust leaving the site, including regular water spraying of the area and sweeping the roadway. Coating the coal with a dust suppressant at source would not reduce dust created during the offloading process.

EWS causes significantly less environmental impact than the alternative of using road transport throughout from S Wales / East Coast ports to Rugby.

In the mean time, my local managers have discussed with our contractors what can be done to further reduce the likelihood of dust leaving the site. They are actively monitoring the situation on a daily basis.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Wells

District Manager

Cement industry unsustainable.

The Cement Industry has vowed to have a year on year increase in sales of 5%, but how does this "aim" sit in terms of the Environment, global warming and the production of Greenhouse gases? And how does it fit with the Government's declared policy?

In order to please the Shareholders they have to make more money: i.e. more cement and more greenhouse gas.

Does anyone know how much Carbon Dioxide the Cemex Rugby plant gives out each year? Apparently approximately 1,660,000 tonnes!

According to RMC:
"During the manufacture of cement, CO2, is generated from three sources:
- combustion of fuel in the kiln, to maintain the required kiln temperature
- decarbonising of limestone within the kiln
- indirectly from the use of electricity in installations such as grinding mills

A total of 0.83 tonnes of CO2 is emitted per tonne of finished product (80% clinker) and is made up as follows:
- CO2 from decarbonising is 0.45 tonne per tonne of cement;
- CO2 from the combustion of coal is 0.40 tonne per tonne of cement
- electricity produced in coal-fired power plants to operate on-site installations contributes a further 0.1 tonne of CO2 per tonne of cement.

According to these figures the Cemex Rugby plant, making approximately 2 million tonnes of cement a year would give out 1,660,000 tonnes of CO2. It would appear that this does not take into account the associated transport costs of moving all this material.

The Environment Agency in its Decision Document for the Cemex plant in which they try to justify why they have allowed a Variation to the IPPC Permit increasing the VOC/TOCs from 10 mg/m3 to 50/75mg/m3 say that this is because Cemex now want to use/mill more than the usual 8 hours a day of Welsh coal. Welsh Coal is, so they say, high in methane, which is released during the milling process, and so there has to be a 5 to 7.5 fold increase in VOC/TOC. This is not however limited to when Welsh coal is being milled, and further alternative reports seem to indicate the increase is in fact to allow for the burning of waste fuels, and may not be "only methane" as the Agency is suggesting - and may in fact be VOCs! This is a great concern to Rugby residents on whom the plume grounds. Anyway, this needs father investigation, but in the meantime the Agency have this little gem:

Page 31 Permit BL7248 Variation no: UP3435SV Decision Document:

"The impact on Climate Change of the emission of additional methane was raised by Rugby Borough Council. A rough calculation suggests that the maximum additional amount of methane that will be emitted as a result of these proposals is in the order of 200 tonnes per annum. This is not significant, and to put it into perspective is roughly equivalent to the emissions of 4,000 tonnes per annum of CO2. This equates approximately to every motorised vehicle in the UK travelling one mile per annum. None of this takes into account the additional impact of transporting coal from South Africa instead of Wales."

So here is your starter question: how many miles can all the "motorised vehicles in the UK travel" to give out the same emissions of Carbon dioxide as the Cemex Rugby plant?

Shortcut to more info

People in glass houses.....should not throw stones!

What is a conflict of interest? What constitutes a private interest? What constitutes a pecuniary interest?

In the High Court on Wednesday 8th February 2006 Mr Elvin, QC defending the Environment Agency against allegations of "unfair process" in the case about the Rugby Cement PPC permitting process, improper public consultation and participation, brought by David Edwards on behalf of the people of Rugby, said that Mrs P of Rugby should pay for one third of the cost of whole the High Court hearing in the Court of Appeal because she had what he described to the Court as a "private interest". Unsurprisingly exactly what this "alleged private interest" is supposed to be remains unspecified. Chewing over this most outrageous, untrue and defamatory allegation Mrs P makes the following comment:

"What constitutes a Private Interest and who is likely to have one?"

Can anyone tell me if this is this the very same Christopher Hampson CBE who was non executive Chair of RMC Group PLC from January 1996, to May 2002, and a non executive director RMC before that, from February 1995?

Is it the same person who was appointed deputy chair of the Environment Agency on 1st May 2000 by Michael Meacher? He has been a member of the EA board since 1995, and before that served as a member of the EA advisory committee. And for good measure it appears from these Press releases that before all this he was formerly Chair of HMIP Advisory Committee and CBI Environment Committee.

Click Here

The Rugby Cement planning application was first mooted in 1994. The first of a three Stage Application was submitted to HMIP in 1995, which soon became the Environment Agency, but the paperwork was concealed from the Public Register. No evidence of any full application for an IPC permit has ever been placed on any Public Register. No fee appears to have been paid to the Environment Agency. The final part of the application was sent to the Health and Safety Executive and Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food in the June/July of 1999. MAFF objected to the lack of any standards and monitoring for VOCs and dioxins. No answer was sent to them. The Agency told them that the application was by then complete - after the four years of randomly "adding bits", on a spasmodic basis, but the Agency apparently ignored the very serious comments that MAFF had made. Not only that but RMC were the owners of the Rugby Cement plant.

RBC Head of Environmental Health Office has "no memory" of any public or statutory consultation for the IPC permit, and she has no Minutes of any meetings about this application. She does not know HOW it came to get an IPC Permit, as she thinks it had no IPC application - which appears to be the correct situation. On September 13th 1999 the Rugby Cement plant was given an IPC permit without following the correct and proper procedure, as laid down and as followed at Padeswood etc.. Why is the Rugby plant of RMC so very different, and immune from proper procedures?

It could not possibly be that a "certain private interest" was at play here? The EA lawyers should start investigating their own officers and masters to find out why the due process has NEVER been followed at Rugby. They should stop attacking altruistic members of the public, and start investigating why members of the public have been bullied, intimidated, and obstructed by Agency officers.

Council "helpless" as Rugby air polluted

Rugby air is to continue to be polluted as Rugby Borough Council admit to lack of control, and "helplessness" over air quality issues:

Many people have asked us to explain what RBC are doing regarding the air quality issues in Rugby, so I give a brief account.

Firstly they had no monitors at all until 2003, with the one exception of a sole "TEOM" monitor which was located in a rather restricted place next to a building and tall tree at the Webb Ellis Road sports club for 2 years, in 1999 to 2000.

This monitor was paid for by Rugby Cement, RBC and the Environment Agency. The purpose was to "catch the plume" from the cement works, that is IF it ever came that way, and IF it actually fell at that point. They wanted to compare the "impact of the old plant" with the "impact from the new plant". In terms, of the "most unlikely and infrequent place" to catch the plume they deliberately chose that most "inappropriate" place! The wind blows from the north about 5% of the time, or less. Then you have to have the weather conditions that cause the plume to ground, which almost always NEVER are found with a north wind. This according to them showed that there was more plume grounding with the old plant than with the new, but the new plant only made about 400,000 tonnes that year, so the comparison was hadly worthwhile was it? What about the planned 2 million tonnes production? Also how much plume grounding is good for us?

Bowing to public pressure, and realising that RBC had not carried out its statutory duties to protect air quality and by implications also to protect human health, more monitoring was then carried out with the infamous "19 white elephant Turnkey particulate monitors" that you see on the lampposts, and the 4 TEOM monitors. They could not "unfortunately" and "ridiculously" compare the data from the new, and incorrectly named Web Ellis Road TEOM (New Street TEOM) with the 1999-2000 data as "some bright spark" at RBC had decided to re-locate the TEOM from where it had been, and to move it into a completely different place about 400 yards away out in the open on the side of a hill, at the top of New Street! "DOH my brain hurts!" Talk about mindless acts of vandalism!

Long running rows ensued about the validity of the monitoring data, the locations and the way the instruments were repeatedly "re-calibrated" apparently in order to get them to "read lower". This has lead to much confusion and suspicion about the validity of the data. The fact that the FULL data is not available to the public, who have paid about half a million quid for this monitoring exercise, and the fact that that data which is given out is portrayed in such a way that the public cannot understand it or use it, or compare it, speaks volumes! We were refused timely and immediate access to the data, and they have only provided it many months after it has been pored over and "validated" by the contractors. We were not given access to the data until months later until it had been "ratified", and requests for access have been turned down. The web site containing live data that we were promised, such as that which other Councils have provided, never materialised and instead a very costly and not-much-publicised "help line" was set up, and this was charged by the hour, to give information to any one who rang up, (some days later?) when it could and should have been available to all IMMEDIATELY at the flick of a switch - for virtually the same money.

When people rang up they were interrogated and data was kept about them, so it was a way of spying on who was asking what questions, and what "pollution incidents" that were looking into.

Not only that but also RBC have "put up their hands and surrendered" and have now admitted that they are NOT responsible for air quality and health in Rugby: they can apparently do NOTHING about the air quality in Rugby. WCC, as the Highways Authority, have apparently (all by themselves) caused the pollution - the AQMA (Air Quality Management Area) for nitrogen dioxide to be declared because of the their failure to address the Highways and Traffic issues. Mind you RBC are not "blameless" as they have given more and more planning permissions for industrial sites in the town which see huge amounts of heavy polluting lorries travelling into the residential areas.
And RBC say that, round the cement plant, Rugby Cement and the Environment Agency are the responsible bodies. So after all this expense, and effort to monitor the air, and so much expectation of improvement, the short answer from RBC is "Pollution is not our problem! Nothing can be done!" It is ash me they did not tell us this BEFORE we spent our money on the pointless monitors!

On May 9th 2005 Sustainable Rugby (Agenda 21) asked RBC this question: "Please explain what powers under statutory nuisance exist to control dust emissions from Rugby Cement?"

"The Council has virtually no powers of enforcement under any environmental legislation at the cement works: this includes the laws relating to statutory nuisance. Under Section 79 (10) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended) the Council CANNOT take any action in respect of smoke, dust, steam, smell or other effluvia, accumulations or deposits, and noise from any part of the installation which is permitted under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999. This is controlled by the Environment Agency and it is that Agency that is charged with the regulation, via the permit, to control activities at Rugby Cement.

Councillors Mrs Wyatt raised this issue in question pursuant to Council on 15th December 2004. The response to this questions was: (5) The Council has limited responsibility regarding statutory nuisance on the cement works site, the quarry or than landfill site, as statutory nuisance is superseded by other legislation enforced by other authorities. The Council is fully aware of its responsibility for statutory nuisance enforcement which it has been enforcing in the Borough for many decades under the current and previous legislation. Statutory nuisance is not relevant to the report to Defra.

This question has now been put to officers of the Council over the last few months in a variety of guises ranging from the above, direct correspondence from two individuals and most recently at the Rugby Cement Community Forum at which your group is represented formally and informally by members acting in other capacities. I produced a report to that forum which detailed the legislation that removed ALL permitted processes in England and Wales (not just Rugby Cement) from other environmental regimes. In case your representatives are unable to feedback on this issue I have attached that report for your information.

I wish to state that I consider this question potentially repetitious and possibly vexatious. RBC Environmental Health Office."

So you see that the EA, RBC and WCC are all in this pot together, along with the newly created Defra (2001), and that they are all playing "pass the parcel" with the Rugby Cement problem, air quality and health issues. They continue to pass the buck, each one making out they are "not responsible" and by this totally unprofessional approach and this complete lack of joined-up thinking we have arrived at this intolerable situation.

What was and IS still required is a FULL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT! It is this that RIP, and Councillor Mrs Wyatt, (apparently the ONLY Rugby Borough Councillor out of the total of 48 who cares to help Rugby people, and who understands the Environmental Legislation), have been repeatedly asking for. It was recently her further question to the full Council about this that caused "misinformation" to be given out by the leader of the Council, as he read out some "rubbish/misinformation" that had been produced by the Director of RBC EHO. They will do anything not to reveal the truth, including insulting any Councillor who persists in the quest for access to information. When Mrs Wyatt queried the truthfulness/provision of this
information she was told in no uncertain terms to sit down and shut up. The public of Rugby deserve better treatment and to hear the truth, and not to be fed a diet of untruths and misinformation! What is our Council doing? Who can hold them to account?

The problem is that WCC planners, who advise Councillors, and their legal team who advise them, and RBC officers who advise the RBC councillors, are not trained enough and up to date on the Legislation to understand what an EIA is. They appear to think it is some sort of half-hearted Environmental Statement put in by the applicant when applying for a planning permission. They do not appear to know what elements comprise a full EIA, nor to recognise insufficiencies and inaccuracies in these Environmental Statements when submitted. They are determined, almost wilfully, to turn a blind eye
to the inaccuracies and misinformation even when these are pointed out to them by the public, planning consultants and lawyers. You can see prime example on the WCC web site at the moment in the form of the Cemex application for the bag filters. They have called it Environmental Impact Assessment, and Statement and various other names, but in any terms it is INSUFFICIENT and INACCURATE. But, even though RIP and lawyers informed WCC that what they were doing was wrong, and was based on incomplete and inaccurate information in the application, the officers still "persuaded/advised" the WCC Councillors on the planning committee to vote through this application on 22nd December 2005. There were lots of obvious gaps in the application - the basic form had not even been filled in correctly. There can be no excuse for the officers to have accepted a partially completed application form. What pressure was being applied to them that they couldn't even carry out the basic function of seeing that the application was complete or correct? Even this simple function was beyond them, and how much more so then the even more taxing and difficult question of the inadequacies, inaccuracies and implications of the Environmental Statement? Who was applying what pressure to them? Is the course now set for a Judicial review against Warwickshire County Council, or how else can Rugby people obtain Justice?