Rugby In Blume

It's bluming propaganda to hear the Environment Agency and Rugby Cement/Cemex repeatedly saying that the SERIOUS and WIDESPREAD issues concerning the Rugby co-incinerator are:

# "within a narrow and local compass, and have limited social and environmental implications"

# and are merely the concerns of a "limited number of individuals" who are vehemently opposed to the ongoing lawful operations of a regulated industry in the town in which they live.


PETITION: The Agency should wake up and listen. Even their own recent Survey of just 530 hand-picked residents showed them how concerned many Rugby people are, but the Agency are only going to "communicate better how we regulate the cement plant". How comforting! 7,500 RUGBY RESIDENTS signed the PETITION (in just a few weeks) against the burning of WASTES (not just tyres) in the Rugby Cement works and this was presented to Tony Blair at Downing Street. Since then there has been a far greater INTENSIFICATION of USE, and we are now the target for London's household and commercial waste.


The manufacture of cement in which about one tonne of carbon dioxide is given off for each tonne made has far reaching consequences for the Climate Change, and global pollution.

Considerations involve: reducing the need for, and use of cement; pollution; health effects; waste disposal; sustainable development; BPEO - Best Practicable Environmental Option; Proximity Principal, etc. These are global, not little local issues as the EA would have us believe. There is a lot of concern here in Rugby in particular because of the nature (semi-wet) of the plant, the huge gaseous pollutant laden emissions (300 cubic metres second?) and the proximity to people.

All over the world cement plants and power stations are being studied as major sources of pollution. The Pulverised Fuel Ash from these power stations is used in cement plants - about 100,000 tonnes a year at Rugby. MERCURY EMISSIONS, hydrogen chloride, and total hydrocarbons among pollutants of great concern at cement plants worldwide. Hot off the press in the USA :

"If cement kilns use such fly ash, the contained mercury is likely to be volatilized in the cement production process and then emitted as air emissions from the kiln. Thus, the kiln's mercury emissions would increase and any benefit (or most of the benefit) of controlling mercury at the boiler would be lost."

Inside EPA July 21, 2006

DESPITE DELAY, EPA UNLIKELY TO ADDRESS MERCURY IN CEMENT MACT

Although EPA is allowing environmentalists more time to comment on a proposed rule revamping its court-rejected air toxics standard for Portland cement facilities, EPA and industry sources suggest the agency is unlikely to require the mercury controls activists are seeking, likely prompting new litigation to challenge the rule.

The agency announced in the July 18 Federal Register that it was reopening the comment period until Aug. 1 on its maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard for Portland cement facilities to address mercury, hydrogen chloride (HCI) and total hydrocarbons. An EPA spokeswoman says the agency simply agreed to give environmentalists more time to submit comments, and says it is not "reconsidering" anything.

An industry source says the cement production industry will also take the opportunity to again raise its concerns that the rule's HCI controls are too stringent.

Under a court order, EPA was to have finalized the rule later this month, but sources say the environmental litigants and the agency have since petitioned the court for an extension until Dec. 8.

The Portland cement MACT was originally finalized in 1999 but was challenged by both environmentalists and industry in a consolidated case, National Lime Association v. EPA. In 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with environmentalists that the rule was too lax and remanded it back to EPA. But the agency never acted on the remand, so environmentalists went back to court and in 2005 reached a settlement that required EPA to revamp the rule.

EPA's revised MACT, reproposed last December, requires existing facilities to control for total hydrocarbons and new facilities to control HCI, but does not impose mercury controls, finding that the cost-per-ton was unjustifiable. That proposal was met with opposition from environmentalists, who argued that it should have included mercury controls, and from industry, who said it may have gone too far in other requirements.

EPA also took comment on whether it should ban the facilities' ability to use fly ash -- a coal byproduct used as a raw material to make cement -- as a way to control mercury in lieu of facility-specific controls. Limestone, another raw material, also contains mercury.

Environmentalists are now pushing hard for the fly ash ban, as well as for mercury-specific control technology. In supplemental comments submitted in April, the Clean Air Task Force wrote, "If cement kilns use such fly ash, the contained mercury is likely to be volatilized in the cement production process and then emitted as air emissions from the kiln. Thus, the kiln's mercury emissions would increase and any benefit (or most of the benefit) of controlling mercury at the boiler would be lost." Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com.

Industry, meanwhile, supports continued use of fly ash in cement-making. In Feb. 23 comments, the power company Dominion wrote that it "opposes this ban on the use of fly ash as a cement plant raw material because it appears in the draft rule to be unjustified and not supported by existing scientific data. EPA acknowledges this uncertainty in the draft rule and at a minimum it should gather more data prior to making this decision."

A source with the Portland Cement Association says that despite the delayed deadline for a final rule, EPA is unlikely to require any mercury controls because the technical barriers and raw materials limitations have not changed since the revised rule was initially proposed. The source says environmentalists therefore will likely return to court when EPA finalizes the rule. An environmentalist says activists' understanding of the additional comment time is that EPA had agreed to give "further consideration to mercury control and to the use of mercury laden fly ash."

In a related matter, environmentalists filed suit July 7 over EPA's MACT for large municipal waste combustors, which does not require any additional pollution cuts. Environmentalists say the combustors are responsible for 13 tons of mercury emissions per year plus other air toxic releases. EPA finalized the rule in May despite internal concern that it might allow "backsliding," the environmentalist says.

The source adds that the rule marks the first time that EPA has taken action under Clean Air Act requirements to review and revise incinerator standards every five years, although the rule was officially due in 2000. Sierra Club took EPA to court to win a deadline for the revision, and is now challenging the revised rule as unlawful.

Question time in Rugby

How are we to be polluted next?

Not quite Dimbleby, but MP Jeremy Wright chairs, and the infamous Mrs P. tries to get the truth out of Cemex; the Agency; and RBC. You must not miss it!

APPLY NOW for ring side seats at last legal blood sport.

PQT Monday, July 10th 2006 for immediate release

Public Question Time Event on the Use of Alternative Fuels by Cemex
Following the recent consultations by Cemex regarding its alternative fuel strategy, Rugby Borough Council is holding a public meeting to help interested members of the public to understand some of the issues. The event will be held on 27th July between 7pm and 9pm at the Benn Hall, Newbold Road, and Rugby.
The purpose of the event is provide a balanced discussion on the specific issues involved in the use of alternative fuels, in order for those present to come to an informed personal opinion on the issues. Panellists will include Cemex, Rugby in Plume, Friends of the Earth, Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council. Jeremy Wright M.P will moderate the event

As space is limited the Council is recommending that people apply for tickets before the event. For tickets contact Rugby Borough Council with your name and address, and specify the number of tickets required.
Please quote “Question Time Tickets” on all correspondence.
Rugby Borough Council can be contacted in variety of ways;
By post to: Rugby Borough Council, The Retreat, Newbold Road, Rugby, CV21 2LG.
By Phone to: 01788 533869 or e-mail: HEH.Reception@Rugby.gov.uk
In person to any Council reception point.

As there is likely to be a great deal of interest and as such some question will not be able to made on the night, so there is an opportunity for the public to register a question in advance. If doing this, please submit it with your name and address, this is not a requirement but may assist the panellists to provide more specific responses.

As many questions as possible will be taken on the night, but it is unlikely that every person will be able to speak, however, all questions submitted will be passed to Cemex as part of the consultation.
Ends

NOTE TO THE NEW EDITORS: For more information please contact, Sean Lawson, Head of Environmental Health on (01788) 533850.
NOTE: The Benn Hall capacity is limited to a maximum of 450 people so you are advised to apply in advance for tickets. Tickets will be limited, initially to 2 per household. A limited number of spaces together with unallocated/used tickets will be available for those who attend on the night on a first come basis.
Doors open from 6.30pm. Last admission by ticket 6.50pm.
Additional material attached for information

Rugby's TEOM monitors NO GOOD!

RUGBY IN PLUME PROVEN TO BE "RIGHT ALL ALONG!"

The four air quality monitors known as TEOMs, on which Rugby Borough Council, the EA, and Rugby Cement have earnestly sought to rely in their desperate attempts to downplay and report low pollution levels in Rugby in general and in the area around the Rugby Cement works in particular, are now proven, (as Rugby in Plume and other experts have always maintained), to be substandard, not to be comparable, and not to be equivalent to the EU standard.

In a nutshell the TEOMS seriously UNDER-READ the pollution, and under-read the SHORT TERM PEAKS of PM 10 PARTICULATE, and thus they provide a false sense of security about air quality, misleading the public on the ACTUAL pollution levels. Short term peaks have severe health impacts, particularly on the vulnerable receptors, and the frequent "fugitive" incidents at the cement works, along with the permanent 24/7 emissions from the main stack, from the other 24/7 low stacks/sources, and the heavy traffic/HGV pollution, are not being monitored correctly in Rugby. The Turnkey monitors (19 in Rugby) which show much higher readings and far more DAILY EXCEEDENCES of the Objective, would seem to be more accurate, but the data from these peaks has NOT been provided, and these monitors are frequently "re-calibrated" in an effort to make them read lower - to make them READ LOW like the TEOMs!!

PUBLIC CONSULTATION REQUIRED
There MUST, as the Audit Commission has told, in a very damning Annual Report on RBC, be consultation between the PUBLIC and the Council, and we need to be consulted on the air quality and the proposed monitoring.

With the anticipated increase in TOTAL pollution to be caused by the Cemex co-incinerator, which is due to increase production and therefore to increase the emissions, and also to increase the types and mixes of wastes that it is burning, plus the impact of the PETCOKE, which is recognised world-wide to increase the emissions of the smaller more-contaminated and health-damaging particles, I ask that the public are consulted on this monitoring programme.

The TOTAL BURDEN of the cement works has been increasing year on year since the new plant began, and while Rugby Cement can rightly claim a good reduction in the emissions of sulphur dioxide, unfortunately many of the other pollutants are all increasing. There has never been any impact assessment of how much worse the emissions are today than in 1999, the last year of the old plant. Some of the pollutants are more dangerous and carcinogenic than others, and then there is the difficulty of working out the synergistic effects and health effects of these mixed-up chemicals.

We do not have enough data about the speciation of particles, and about the chemicals adsorbed onto them to work out the health impact and costs to the community. The data provided is very "primitive" - even if its accuracy were to be guaranteed? The Agency has been found by the courts to be in breach of common law, unfair, and to have withheld data about the emissions at Rugby Cement that would impact on the environment, and thus on air quality and health. The Company and the Agency do not know themselves what is coming out, and there is NO CONTROL of EMISSION LIMITS on any pollutant during start-up, until 200 tonnes an hour is reached, and during shutdown.

Many emissions are uncontrollable and immeasurable.

HEATH IMPACT ASSESSMENT RIP have asked some of the UK's top health experts to help us, at our own expense, to make a report on the health impact of the plant, but while consultants are willing to do so they have asked us for more data than even the EA or Rugby Cement possess, as without this they cannot begin to count the costs, nor to produce a meaningful report.

Maybe we should start a campaign to knock down the new plant and bring back the old!

http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/reports/cat05/0606130952_UKPMEquivalence.pdf

AGENCY UNFAIR SAY COURT OF APPEAL.

AND IN BREACH OF COMMON LAW FAIRNESS;
AGENCY HID INFORMATION, AND PREJUDICED CONSULTATION.
RUGBY PEOPLE DISMAYED!

THINGS CAN ONLY GET WORSE!

The people of Rugby, have been PREJUDICED by this Agency, and the IPPC Consultation, (falsely called Tyre Burning Application), designed to turn the Cement plant into a CO-INCINERATOR.

The consultation has been proven to be a SHAM! What else will they hide? What lengths will they go to to disadvantage Rugby people and cover up what they have done? The Judges upheld the findings of unfairness, and breach of Common Law, against the Agency, and this is what they have done to Rugby people.

While we are disappointed in losing the Appeal we are pleased to see that the Judges also refused the Appeal of the Environment Agency, and upheld the Decision against them, and confirmed it :
"The Agency was found to be in breach of its common law duty of fairness to provide fully informed consultation, and the Judge was concerned about the apparent lack of frankness on the part of the Agency in not alerting the public much earlier to the implications of the AQMAU reports for possible contribution to environmental damage from low level emissions of dust."

The AQMAU Air Quality reports were hidden by the Agency, from RCCF, RBC, MP Andy King, and from the Council's air quality consultant Faber Maunsell, who all repeatedly asked for it, in order to help Rugby Residents with the decision making , and with the locating of the air quality monitors. The misleading, and hiding of crucial environmental information lead to an increased health risk for local Rugby residents, and meant the whole Consultation process was completely flawed, and in effect the whole Consultation was a complete waste of time and money, because of the Agency 's hiding of the essential information. What this FARCE cost Rugby people should be worked out by the AUDIT COMMISSION!

In this SHAM CONSULTATION the Agency have been aided and abetted by Rugby Borough Council who, although not part of this court case, deliberately misleadingly called the Consultation a "Tyre Burning Consultation", instead of an IPPC Consultation. This was after having previously already connived with the Agency to hide the prior IPC Consultation in July 1999, and to keep it off the Public register and to make no response to it, which led to the plant gaining an original UNLAWFUL IPC operating Permit. This plant then operated unlawfully from 1999 as a "cement plant", and then gained an unlawful IPPC Permit, after an expensive, time-consuming FARCE of public consultation, to become the Rugby C0-INCINERATOR , in which, from that point on ALL manner and quantities of WASTES could/can be burnt - regardless of any impact. The Agency NEVER refuses any permissions as it cannot, for fear of being sued by the cement industry.
ONE SIZE FITS ALL - as far as cement plants are concerned, and anything goes.

SHAM CONSULTATIONS NOW ABOUT TO START:
into tyre burning ; and tyres and petcoke ;
and the burning of London's household /commercial refuse .
After that - the sky is the limit - so here come Cemex and the Agency,
filling up Rugby air with toxic emissions.

Operating in a smoke-filled room?

What, Rugby Borough Council?
Surely you do not mean us?
Well actually YES you!

Last night's Cabinet meeting saw the presentation of the Annual Audit and Inspection Letter 2004/05 by KPMG on behalf of the Audit Commission. The Report is extremely critical of the Council in areas concerning Finances, Failure to have a meaningful plan, or to prioritise, and failure to engage the Community and Partners, and RBC was told to STOP "operating in a smoke-filled room!" Needless to say the Report has only gone out (in secret) to the few responsible for this mess - the Tory Cabinet itself. What have they learnt from this? Apparently only how to be even more secretive and devious?

Councillors: Humphrey (Chair and leader of the Council), Campbell, Lane, Pawsey, Poole, Robbins, (Chair RCCF and Environment portfolio holder!!),Timms and Wright.

SECOND SECRET CEMENT PLANT MEETING?
And so then on 27th July they will host yet another quasi-secret, quasi-public, meeting to "ASSIST" Cemex with its plans to burn London's waste in down town Rugby. Better get your name on the list, so RBC/Cemex can get a list of "trouble makers", and they can know "who you are!"

QUOTE:

"It is important that the general public are engaged and informed as far as possible. To this end it is proposed to hold a public consultation event along the lines of a "Question Time" debate on these issues towards the end of July. Jeremy Wright MP has provisionally agreed to moderate the debate involving a balanced panel of interested/experts. In order to manage the event it would be necessary, initially at least, to require interested parties to apply for tickets in advance with a limited number available for people to attend on the night. Key stakeholders would automatically receive a number of invitations, such as those groups on the RCCF, although the intention is to engage the general public.

This type of event will generate a range of issues, which could be collated and put to Cemex for them to address as part of the formal application on use of this fuel."

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL

CABINET – 26TH JUNE 2006

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Question A

Question from Mrs L Pallikaropoulos

“At the "secret" Cemex Briefing, chaired by RBC officer Karen Stone in Rugby
Council Chamber on June 2nd, which only 15 of the 48 Rugby Borough Councillors attended, from which the public were barred, and no Agenda, Minutes, or attendance/invitee list were disclosed, Councillor Gordon Collett, failing to declare a pecuniary interest for his recent receipt of the keys to a £22,5000 Cemex minibus, the photo of which appeared both in the local press and also which graces the Cemex Newsletter, spoke out strongly in support of the Cemex plan to burn London's household refuse and commercial waste in the Rugby Co-incinerator plant, urging the people attending "not to get hysterical about this; we can be successful, we can get it through!" What IS the Rugby Borough Council Cabinet's OFFICIAL position towards this further environmental degradation of Rugby Town - is it the same as Councillor Gordon Collett's, or was he merely expressing his own "Cemex-influenced personal position", and possibly also the position of Warwickshire County Council?”


The Leader of the Council, Councillor Humphrey, to reply as follows:

“The precise question actually being asked is difficult to identify.

The meeting was not a secret meeting, it was, and has been communicated to the questioner on a number of occasions, a briefing to the those representatives of the key stakeholder groups that make up the Rugby Cement Community Forum and all members of the Borough Council. The purpose of the meeting was to give early additional information to key stakeholders and Councillors, including the questioner, on the company’s alternative fuel programme which it had made public a few days earlier.

A list of questions and answers was taken at the meeting; this list has been circulated to all those invited and published on the Councils Internet site.

As the Meeting was neither a formal meeting of the Council or the Rugby Cement Community Forum, there was no requirement for any councillor to make any declarations of interest, should this have actually been necessary. In the same way any comments by any individual or councillor were personal statements. Any interest which Councillor Collett had in the Village Link minibus was not a personal interest as defined by the Council’s Code of Conduct. He was acting on behalf of the Council in the ceremony referred to in the question.
With regard to the actual question of “what is this Cabinets official position on the proposal by Cemex to consult on the use of Climafuels?”. The answer is that we welcome the way that the company has and continues to try to engage the public on this issue and as a Council we are also seeking to do the same with the Public Question Time Debate on the 27th July, which will be chaired by Jeremy Wright MP.

This Cabinet will make its position known on this subject, when it has had the opportunity to carefully consider the details of the application and listen to the arguments that will come out during the consultation process. To do otherwise would be to prejudge the issues and to act prematurely.”

WHO IS THE GANGMASTER AT RBC?

Find out at RBC Cabinet Meeting.
Monday June 26th at 5:30 pm.
Public Question time:

At the "secret" Cemex Briefing, chaired by RBC officer Karen Stone in Rugby Council Chamber on June 2nd, which only 15 of the 48 Rugby Borough Councillors attended, from which the public were barred, and no Agenda, Minutes, or attendance/invitee list were disclosed, Councillor Gordon Collett, failing to declare a pecuniary interest for his recent receipt of the keys to a £22,5000 Cemex minibus, the photo of which appeared both in the local press and also which graces the Cemex Newsletter, spoke out strongly in support of the Cemex plan to burn London's household refuse and commercial waste in the Rugby Co-incinerator plant, urging the people attending "not to get hysterical about this; we can be successful, we can get it through!"

What IS the Rugby Borough Council Cabinet's OFFICIAL position towards this further environmental degradation of Rugby Town - is it the same as Councillor Gordon Collett's, or was he merely expressing his own "Cemex-influenced personal position", and possibly also the position of Warwickshire County Council?

Rugby In Plume Announce A New Plan

RUGBY COUNCIL CHAMBER BELONGS TO US SAY CITIZENS CLAIMING THE SAME RIGHTS AND ACCESS AS RUGBY CEMENT:

RUGBY COUNCILLORS DISPLAY COMPLETE LACK OF INTEREST!

RUGBY IN PLUME TO HOST PRIVATE BRIEFING, IN COUNCIL CHAMBER AND REQUEST EXACTLY SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS CEMEX.

IF NOT - WHY NOT?

RUGBY IN PLUME REPLY TO RBC.
16th June to: Carol Bradford (legal), and ALL 48 Rugby Councillors

"Dear Mrs Bradford

Rugby in Plume permission to hold Secret Briefing in Council Chamber

Thank you very much for your very explicit email.

1. Then perhaps, as you rule out all and any type and auspices of "normal Council meetings" under which there is any applicable Code of Conduct, and Regulatory control, then you can inform Rugby people under exactly what "category of meeting" this June 2nd Cemex "informal" meeting was held?

2. How much did Cemex pay to make use of the Town Hall Council Chamber?

3. Rugby in Plume would like to hold a "Briefing" for the Councillors and other invitees, using the Town Hall Council Chamber. We are sorry for the short notice, but it is URGENT. Can you advise what process we need to go through to "obtain use of this facility" for our very important, secret, "Briefing", for which we will give no Agenda, nor list of invitees, nor background papers, nor attendance list, nor Minutes?

4. How many officers can we have to work at the meeting?

5. Can we take it that Karen Stone will chair it for us please?

6. Please advise, with the utmost urgency, of the earliest date you can make this suitably located, excellent, Publicly Funded Facility, available to us, on behalf of Rugby people.

I am sure we can rely on Rugby Borough Council officers, (whose wages we pay), to facilitate and help the people of Rugby with this important "plan we have for Rugby town", and if, in the words of Gordon Collett, you " do not get hysterical about this, we can be successful and we can get this through!"

Yours sincerely.
Rugby in Plume

From: Carol Bradford [mailto:carol.bradford@rugby.gov.uk]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:14 PM
Cc: Sean Lawson; Andrew Gabbitas
Subject: RE: complaint against RBC and various Councillors neglecting duty

Dear Mrs Pallikaropoulos,

Your email of 15th June addressed to Andrew Gabbitas has been passed through to me as he is away from the office today.

I would answer the points you make as follows, using your numbering throughout:

The meeting that you refer to (on 2nd June) was not a formal meeting of either the Council, Cabinet, a committee or a panel of the Council. There was no obligation on any member to attend and if some did not attend I do not consider that they have breached any Code of Conduct or other legal obligation that they might have. If you wish to complain to the Standards Board about a councillors’ failure to attend this meeting then you need to contact them direct. Their contact details are:

The Standards Board for England

1st Floor

Cottons Centre

Cottons Lane

LONDON SE1 2 QG

Tel: 0845 078 8181

enquiries @standardsboard.co.uk

www.standardsboard.co.uk

Please bear in mind that the Standards Board only investigates allegations that councillors have breached the Code of Conduct for Councillors.

Complaints about a councillor’s alleged failure to declare an interest should be addressed to the Standards Board. However, I should point out that as this was not a formal meeting of the Council, nor of the RCCF, there was no requirement to declare any interests and I do not think, on the face of it, that there has been any breach of the Code of Conduct.

See my answer to 2 above.

You say that you will be complaining about the misappropriation of funds and misuse of public money in facilitating this meeting. No doubt when you make this complaint, you will provide more information about why you consider that there has been a misappropriation of funds, preferably expanding on what legislation, code of guidance or other regulations the Council has failed to follow. As it stands at present, your allegation is too vague for me to investigate further.
Yours sincerely,


Carol Bradford

Head of Legal and Administration

Rugby Borough Council

tel: 01788 533510

RIP WROTE on 15th JUNE asking WHY ONLY 15 OUT OF 48 COUNCILLORS ATTENDED THE SECRET BRIEFING?

Dear Mr Gabbitas

We have heard from two of the Councillors that they were away on school holidays, and one said he was not invited by RBC.

Any other excuses? It would seem that Rugby Councillors have a duty to the electorate, but failed in this duty, and appear to take the money from the people, without apparently earning it, and without carrying out their obligations.


1. I would like to make a Formal Complaint on behalf of Rugby in Plume and the People of Rugby, and to state that the Councillors are not attending properly to their civic duties, and not fulfilling the Contract they have entered into with Rugby people.


I would like to complain to the Standards Board about these Councillors who neither apologised, nor attended the Briefing on 2nd June.


2. I would also like to make a Formal Complaint about Gordon Collett who failed to declare a pecuniary interest, as he held his Cemex mini-bus keys, and spoke up heavily in favour of being "successful and getting this through". I believe he should not even have been at the meeting, much less spoken up in favour of turning Rugby into a waste incinerating centre for London's household and commercial waste.


3. Carolyn Robbins as (Chair of RCCF and Enironment Portfolio Holder) also failed to declare an interest as she should have.

Can you please help me with these complaints? What section do they come under?


4. I will also be complaining that RBC misappropriated funds, and mis-spent and squandered Public Money, and held a Secret meeting, to promote an incineration company, all at the residents' expense.

Thank you.

Lillian RIP

MERCY!!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Say RUGBY RESIDENTS

There is a growing clamour from Rugby residents to call a HALT to the DEGRADATION of Rugby Town.

Every week the local papers are full of cement plant stories of pollution and "events", and with letters to the local press pleading for a Knight in shining armour to rescue us.

Rugby Observer 15th June:

PEOPLE OF RUGBY DON'T GET A MENTION!

"As an ordinary member of the public I was told I could not attend the meeting at the Town Hall on June 2nd between Rugby cement (Cemex) and Rugby Borough Council but at the last minute a councillor friend asked me to stand in for him.

This meetings was arranged in haste by Cemex to which the council agreed, knowing too well it was half term and many councillors wouldn't be attending.

It was an ill-prepared meeting. I felt a sense of disquiet listening to Ian Southcott from Cemex reading from a prepared script, forgetting to move the diagrams on the monitoring screen along.

The people of Rugby are not mentioned, they don't enter into the equations. He went on to say they were asking permission to burn Climafuel. Of course once again its' perfectly safe although it contains plastics coming into Rugby from other parts of the UK. But this is just the start, the next thing is SLF (secondary Liquid Fuels) and PSP (processed Sewage pellets), together with tyres - a real witches brew.

A question they can't answer is the effects of the long term poisoning because no-one attending the meetings has been trained to know."

Margaret Smith
Newbold-on-Avon.

IT'S TIME TO SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Bob Mead of Long Lawford says this:

"So Cemex or whomever owns the place this month and our beloved Department of the Environment have decided to foster a waste incinerator masquerading as a cement works upon the citizens of Rugby. Do they think by calling this waste by a nice cuddly environmentally sounding name will fool the public?

Of course there will be some public consultations which will be ignored in the usual fashion. It is time WE STOOD UP AND SAID ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

I do not want the health of my child to be under any risk from this plant. They have proven on more than one occasion they do not have the ability to control their emissions. Just take a moment you consider this plant is far too close to the town to be considered even fo the production of cement let alone the burning of hazardous waste.

Let's all have a REFERENDUM so we can decide democratically what should happen to this plant. I for one would like to SEE IT CLOSED!"

And he is not alone in this. Rugby in Plume WILL ask the Rugby people what they really think in a PROPER OPEN TRANSPARENT HONEST FULL CONSULTATION!

Hot Off The Press

Freedom of the press is one thing; Truth is another!



Cemex claims to be "COURTEOUS", but that courtesy strangely does not extend to ANY of our 90,000 Rugby residents.

"These Accusations are Irrelevant Meeting was not a secret!"

That is according to Cemex, quoted at "hitting back" in today's Rugby Advertiser

No, not actually a secret, just they decided not to tell anyone?

And those they did tell had no notice, Agenda, background paperwork, and no Minutes.

All this fully funded by generous council tax payers - well paid up - gullible Rugbeians!

"The meeting was designed to be a briefing for key stakeholders, interested parties, and Councillors."

(These Councillors proved so very DISinterested that only 15 out of 48 bothered to turn up!)

"We invited them out of courtesy so they could advise their constituents and people they represent. The intention was always to be as transparent and helpful as possible."

A lot of use those 33 other Councillors will be then, and meanwhile Cemex proved how "helpful and transparent they are" by sending out a few Community does-not Matter Newsletters to people as far from the plant as possible.

There are plenty of people in Rugby who are fed up!

Cemex branded DISCOURTEOUS and WORSE, Susan Hollins Boughton Vale, in a letter to the Advertiser.

"Time to bite the bullet! Once again Cemex are causing misery to more Rugby residents. Our houses back on to Newton Manor Lane, where it seems all hell has broken out, with the digging up of roadside verges to put in large pipes. This so-called work was due to start in early February (see all the road signs) and we all received a letter from Cemex to apologise in advance for the disruption.

However it was weeks later before they began, and now we are constantly plagued by the most appalling noise and fumes from their equipment and also from the traffic lights installed to regulate the traffic. Consequently on some of the nicest days this year we are forced to sit inside with doors and windows tightly closed. If they had actually started on the date promised at least all this disruption would have been finished before the summer, but they don't care about our health or welfare do they?

This is admirably demonstrated with their filthy, ugly chimney that casts a black shadow over all the town, and threatens the welfare of us all with its dirty emissions.

WHEN, oh WHEN, will anybody on the Council bite the bullet and take some proactive measures to SAVE OUR TOWN from this BLIGHT, and all their broken promises?"

ANSWER: Sorry Susan, but they never will because most of the Councillors and Officers of this town have always worked, and are still working, together with Rugby Cement, WCC, and the misnamed Environment Agency, AGAINST Rugby people, and have DELIBERATELY and IN SECRET done this to us. What kind of a Council would do this to its residents - blight the environment, pollute and poison the air, and rip-off its residents? It is not only the 33 Councillors who did not even bother to turn up, in fact the ringleaders were actually in the front row of the meeting.

Hazel Bell thanking and scraping the ground Cemex walked on. Gordon Collett waving his mini-bus keys, and saying not to get hysterical, we can be successful, we can get this through!"

Worse, far worse is yet to come.

What Horror Lurks...

...Beneath This Veil Of Secrecy?

AGENCY AND BOROUGH COUNCIL BACK CEMEX POLICY OF SECRECY, DISCRIMINATION AND EXCLUSION.

Only a few Councillors "bothered" to turn up on June 2nd to hear plans about Rugby Cement's Proposal to co-incinerate London's household refuse and Commercial waste. Why did your representatives not EVEN BOTHER to turn out? How much do they care about us?

Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 10:08 AM
To: 'marit.meyer-bell@cemex.com'; 'Barbara Young'; 'Andrew.Gabbitas@rugby.gov.uk'; 'Karen.Stone@rugby.gov.uk'; 'Cllr Craig Humphrey'; 'Ian.Southcott@cemex.co.uk'; 'paul.quinn@environment-agency.gov.uk'; 'malcolm.lythgo@environment-agency.gov.uk'
Cc: 'All.Councillors@rugby.gov.uk'; 'Patricia Wyatt'; 'SANDISONR@aol.com'
Subject: Community Matters Newsletters- DISCRIMINATORY

Dear Mrs Meyer-bell

At the "secret" Cemex Public Relations Propaganda briefing, from which ALL the public were excluded by both Cemex and by RBC, despite the public having funded this meeting, held at the Rugby Council Chamber on 2nd June, with only a few days notice, Mr Southcott stated that Cemex wished to be open and inclusive, and had circulated 13,000 Community Matter Leaflets to the town of Rugby.

We have asked many people in different areas, and they have NOT received any leaflets. In particular town centre areas close to the plant have been left out - either by design or by accident. Have 13,000 leaflets REALLY been sent out as claimed? We have asked Mr Southcott to say:

1. How many Community Matters Newsletters have ACTUALLY been sent out?
2. To which areas/streets?
3. How were these chosen:
A) Postcode lottery?
B) Dispersion modelling?
C) By lowest social class/education groupings, as revealed in the Census?
D) By some other means?

It seems that Cemex is trying to be divisive, and socially exclusive, leaving out great tracts of the town that are near to the plant, and down wind of it. This is, so I am told the third newsletter to be sent out. Mr Southcott refuses to answer any questions about it. Mr Handcock, and Carlos, and Eduardo, say they do not know why many areas of the town have been excluded, nor where the newsletters have been sent out, nor how chosen.

Could you please explain your policy on this and why the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council are backing this divisive policy of "secrecy, social exclusion, and discrimination" to the detriment of Rugby residents. Surely if Cemex wishes to claim that it has consulted fully and openly it should be "seen to do so", and should not make this false claim, and must not only to pay lip service to this claim. It would appear that this discriminatory process is designed to leave out all the business community in Rugby Town Centre and Rugby School, and is, as usual, designed to go on through the summer when a lot of people are busy or away.

Many people are uncomfortable with this whole idea of a pre-application process as set up by the Agency as many people are truly afraid to write to Cemex and to give them a "data base" of people who object. The whole set up is designed to run on so long that the original people protesting give up, exhausted by the process itself.

Click link below..
http://www.cemex.co.uk/file/Community_Matters_Jun06.pdf

Rugby To Be London's Dump?

RUGBY TOWN : CO-INCINERATING SERVICE FOR LONDON'S MUNICIPAL AND COMMERCIAL WASTE

Regarding the Cemex proposal to burn CLIMAFUEL: household garbage, commercial waste, Profuel, RDF, Refuse-derived fuel at Rugby:

Cemex held a secret and private meeting under the auspices of Rugby Borough Council (including members of Warwickshire County Council?) for the "selected few", including the MP Jeremy Wright, and Director of Public Health Helen King, at Rugby Town Hall's Council Chamber on Friday 2nd June. Only a few days notice was given of this "urgent, secret, unscheduled meeting" to be held on a Friday night when most people were on half-term holiday, and they refused to give, even to Rugby people's own Councillors or reporters, any Agenda, or to have any Minutes. Both RBC and Cemex REFUSED to say what the meeting was about, or to provide a list of who had been invited. The Public and all journalists were barred and refused entry. Radio broadcasts that came on line on Thursday when the "news" broke, containing very limited detail about the waste burning intention, made it clear that this was a PRIVATE meeting and that the Public MUST STAY AWAY!

RBC failed to answer the criticisms contained in a lawyer's letter, sent on behalf of Rugby people, that requested that the secret meeting be cancelled and a proper PUBLIC MEETING be held at an appropriate time, with proper notice, with a proper agenda, and with proper minutes.

Why are these people so terrified of Public Opinion that they have to hold FURTIVE, SECRET meetings in the Council Chamber, at Public EXPENSE, from which the Public are barred and excluded? They are only prepared to face the Public at very carefully chosen venues where they can present very carefully and expensively PREPARED PRESENTATIONS, and can control and limit the number of members of the Public present.

If they REALLY want to learn the opinion of the Public in Rugby, the intention they claimed at the secret meeting being "to promote positive communication and dialogue" they should hold an OPEN PUBLIC meeting at a central venue, at a reasonable time, with reasonable notice, and be prepared to face questions and provide proper answers.

The current arrangements smack entirely of a DONE DEAL directed towards making RUGBY TOWN the CO-INCINERATING SERVICE for DISPOSAL of much of LONDON'S MUNICIPAL AND COMMERCIAL GARBAGE.

If these people are not prepared to undertake to do this the Public have this one and ONLY OPPORTUNITY, and should and MUST attend the meeting in PUBLIC of the Rugby Cement Community Forum, where they can SPEAK make their views known, and also hear the views of their MP Jeremy Wright, (member of the RCCF) and the views of everyone else who attends.

Meeting: WEDNESDAY JULY 19TH AT 5:30 RUGBY COUNCIL CHAMBER - TOWN HALL

Meanwhile Cemex will man a little-advertised "exhibition" at RUGBY LIBRARY where they can engage the Public in one to one PRIVATE conversations, in attempt to make out you are being listened to, and to pretend they have "engaged with the Public!"

Tuesday 6th June: 0900-1200
Wednesday 7th June: 1300-1600
Thursday 8th June: 1700-2000
Friday 9th June: 1400-1700
Saturday 10th June: 0930-1300

Rugby residents will then have until 31st August to send in written replies to the sham consultation.

Deals On Wheels

FAIR EXCHANGE? : NO!! ROBBERY!
We suggest a FAIR DEAL: Rugby residents to get the minibus, and Dunchurch to get the incinerator?
Tonight's SECRET MEETING heard:

How to get London's waste burnt in Rugby's giant co-incinerator?

Gordon Collett says "WE CAN GET THIS THROUGH!"

IF certain people stop being hysterical! (read : Lilian - ASBO)


Councillor Gordon Collett (hysterically funny, if you have that peculiar warped sense of humour) accepts the keys to a £22,500 minibus from Rugby Group Benevolent Fund in order to "help older and less able people living in rural communities to access shops and other services." I am sure ALL Rugby residents join in wishing the "rural elderly" MANY happy days out in the Rugby Cement bus, and all the very best! It's very tough in the Warwickshire outback!

How much the NHS and Social Services and Rugby townsfolk - older, younger, middle-aged and as yet unborn, in the deprived, polluted, disadvantaged and town centre areas of Rugby will have to PAY for this minibus remains to be seen, and calculated. (Which can be done, and this sort of calculation is being DONE worldwide - everywhere!) I would have thought that Cemex and WCC got away VERY lightly with twenty grand. Very lightly INDEED! Pick up the tab Rugby Council Tax payers, and national tax payers. How much do Cemex get paid an hour to burn this waste?

Exactly WHO are the WINNERS and WHO are the LOSERS?

13,000 Community Matters Cemex June newsletters will be delivered to Rugby Residents pleading with you all NOT to protest about the plans to burn "CLIMAFUEL" - household waste, and packaging, plastics and rubber-backed carpets (and industrial??) waste in order to SAVE RUGBY RESIDENTS from "running the RISK of picking up a HUGE bill."

Oh, and co-incidentally to save ALL Warwickshire from picking up a huge bill.
Oh, and I forgot to say to save all London from picking up a huge bill.
Oh, I forgot to say to save all the BLAIR GOVERNMENT from picking up a huge bill.

Waste planning - what is that? We do not believe in planning - only SPIN for us!

Rugby is to become the INCINERATOR CAPITAL of WARWICKSHIRE. Right?
NO WRONG!

Rugby is to become the WASTE CAPITAL of LONDON - NOW to burn the household
waste from LONDON to save THEM from picking up a big bill.

What do YOU say?
Shall we agree - say IF they give us an EXTRA MINIBUS?

NO! Dunchurch shall have the INCINERATOR, and Rugby's elderly the minibus.

DEAL OR NO DEAL?

RBC Branded Disrespectful To Community

RBC and Cemex persist in holding a "secret meeting" at 5:30 pm Friday June 2nd at the Town Hall. They insist that the PUBLIC are to be EXCLUDED and must not attend in any circumstances.

RBC and Cemex have both persistently and stubbornly refused to disclose to the very concerned Councillors, and members of the Rugby Cement Forum and Tyre Burning Review group, what this is all about, until they had actually advertised it in the local press today Thursday.

Lawyers have written to RBC's brand new Chief Executive asking why all the secrecy, why no proper notice period, and why no agenda, and decrying the conduct of this Council, and questioning the Council's backing for the "publicity exercise by Cemex".

"RBC claims that it is facilitating this meetings at Cemex's request in the interests of "dialogue and discussion." But no agenda or background paper has been provided. In other words there is no basis for MEANINGFUL dialogue or discussion.

It is not even the case that the briefing is aimed at the general public. It is expressly aimed at members of the RCCF (albeit others are invited) yet the rules for the RCCF are not being observed, and members of the public are being told they cannot attend.

This is a disrespectful and unacceptable way for RBC and Cemex to be behaving towards the Community. It is all the more so given the particular circumstances relating to Rugby Cement works, with RBC and the works' history of past failures in relation to public consultation.

While of course we would encourage RBC and Cemex to facilitate dialogue and discussion with the community, we would expect RBC to do all it can to ensure it is meaningful. We suggest RBC reconsiders holding this meeting. Surely it would be better to have it once RCCF had had an opportunity to be properly invited, consider the agenda, etc Presently the meeting strikes us and those we represent in Rugby as RBC allowing itself to be used as a PR agent for Cemex at public expense yet not effectively involving the community. Please advise BY RETURN what is going on."

Now Cemex have admitted they wish to trial a new WASTE, a mixture of packaging materials - but still they have not provided any data from last year's trials of tyres, and petcoke, and until this month have with held ALL the mandatory Monthly Returns and Emissions data from the Public Register.

Lillian

TRUTH - at last.

Rugby Council finally admit responsibility for POLLUTING whole town, and ruining total ENVIRONMENT for residents and visitors alike.

RBC finally admitted, after dragging its feet for years, and trying every which way to hide the facts, and to keep them off the Public Register (which is still the case), that "it was consulted upon the staged IPC authorisation application", of which the first stage began in January 1995 and ended with the last stage in June 1999 - when Rugby Cement finally finished the Application. In a letter of 24th June 1999 the Council and various other bodies were consulted on the finally finished application. It said on the letter from the Environment Agency "DO NOT DIVULGE ANY OF THIS INFORMATION: do not place on any Public Register!" Neither the Environment Agency, nor RBC can find any copies of the MANDATORY public consultation, nor advertisements in any newspapers, and that is hardly surprising since they do not have any! They had expressly told Rugby Council, and MAFF, and others to keep it all SECRET!

RBC have this to say about its behaviour, in relation to the documentation it received (and some of which it hid) over the FOUR PLUS years, which has led to the unlawful construction and operation of this gross industrial behemoth in Rugby:

"It is the holistic consideration of a range of documents and information that would have been used to form opinions and judgements. No formal responses were made in relation to this permit during the period between 1995 and 1999.

The Council was a consultee over the permitting process. There is NO DUTY on the Council or any other consultee (statutory or otherwise) to make responses. The Council had been extensively involved in the planning application for the new plant, which covered many of the pollution issues repeated in the permit Application. This was the context within which no formal responses to the permit Consultation was made."

So you see that the officers were secretly involved, behind the backs of the people, in secret discussions for years, and yet made NO FORMAL RESPONSE, (so there is no paperwork for anyone to see what they were thinking and doing) and yet now RBC claim that none of the pollution and environmental impact can be attributed to them. IF as they claim they have been involved all along why did they:

A) Deliberately aid the "destruction" of Rugby town: environment and air quality, and health?
B) Hide it all, make no response at all to try to limit the damage to Rugby people, and do it all in secret behind the backs of the people, and the Councillors?
C) Behave unlawfully and DELIBERATELY HIDE the official CONSULTATION and Application papers?
D) Refuse to accept any responsibility for this mess, while all the time continuously blaming Rugby Cement and the Environment Agency?

They then try to "Get Out of Jail Free" by saying it is not their fault: "The responsibility for publicising the IPC application lay with the Environment Agency and the Applicant." Even IF that were to be a true statement, then RBC could and SHOULD have not only made a formal response, but also have insisted and ensured that the public were consulted. But instead RBC colluded to hide the whole June 1999 IPC Application from Rugby people.

They then subsequently in 2001 went on to compound further their "irregularities" by spending a massive amount of Public time and money of a PHONEY TYRE BURNING APPLICATION in order to keep the Public away from the actual IPPC APPLICATION that we should have been consulted on. They say: "The Council did arrange a wide-ranging process of public engagement which started after 1999". (YES, in truth they did start a phoney consultation TWO YEARS LATER, and a fat lot of good that was in 2001 - shutting the stable door after the IPC horse has bolted!) "The community engagement process was primarily focussed on the specific issue regarding the use of alternative fuels, but did explore other issues." (Even this is not true as they, and WCC, and the EA and Rugby Cement called all the meetings and associated paperwork Tyre Burning Trials - no mention of alternative fuels.)

RBC and the EA then went even further and indulged in £500,000 worth of flawed air quality monitoring - all paid for by the long-suffering Rugby Council tax payers - to try, in desperation, to PROVE that there "really is no problem with air quality in Rugby, especially round the cement works where people are frequently covered in dust". They threw the Primary Care Trust representative out of the committee, and also all the Community Groups, and Air Quality Report was very much controlled by the Rugby Cement and its needs, and was also ultimately rushed through without any proper public consultation, and with the public not having any timely access to the data. Many questions remain over the refusal to provide the agreed access to real-time monitoring data, the controversial sitting of the monitors, the calibration, and the failure to correctly use the Turnkey Monitors, and the correct gravimetric equivalent method for the particulates PM10.

WHAT NEXT?
No wonder Rugby Cement, knowing all this, sold the plant to RMC in 1999 just before the construction was finished. Then they in turn realising the mess they were in offloaded it onto Cemex in 2004, and now Cemex are making it work better and have increased production by turning off the alarms and burning more waste and dirtier cheaper "fuels", such as petcoke, which RBC and the Agency have inflicted on Rugby people. Click below to find out what they do in Mexico.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cemex21may21,0,3111299,full.story?coll=la-home-business

ASBO on hold TRUTH at last!

Council U-turn as new evidence revealed of abuse of process and maladministration.

Lilian visits Town hall in hoody just as RBC forced to reveal incriminating papers on how they aided and abetted planning and operating permits for UNLAWFUL Rugby Cement plant.

Watch this space for full details of collusion and abuse of power by authorities and councillors.

WHO DUNNIT?

RBC sub group of Rugby Cement

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL SEEMS ONLY A SUB GROUP OF RUGBY CEMENT.

HOW DID Rugby Cement plant get permission?
You might well ask.
Lilian did and this is what she got:

In order for Rugby people
To be kept in ignorance.
Lilian to be silenced by RBC
By all means. Now described as:
Vexatious Repititious ASBO!


Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 10:57 AM
To: 'Andrew Gabbitas'
Cc: 'All Councillors'; 'Patricia Wyatt'; 'WRIGHTJP@parliament.uk';
Subject: Is RBC a sub-group of Rugby Cement and the EA?

Dear Mr Gabbitas

Thank you for your letter dated 11th May 2006 which reads as follows:

Dear Mrs P

Between the 26th April and 1st May 2006, you sent me, and OTHERS, a total of 15 emails. It is beyond my capacity to write an individual separate reply to each of these messages. On looking at them , I have come to the conclusion that I, and my colleagues, have already given you replies or
information on the subjects requested. Your correspondence with me has reached the stage where it is repetitious and vexatious and I can add nothing to what I have said to you in earlier correspondence.

Andrew Gabbitas
Acting Chief Executive.

I would comment as follows:

You will see, if you care to read a little more carefully that my letters and emails have NOT been answered at any stage, by any of the people to whom they have been addressed, and for this simple reason I have been compelled to ask the same questions, and to request the same copies of documents on several occasions. You may remember the old adage : "If at first you don't succeed try and try again?"

If you would take it upon yourself to see to it that we get the answers and the information we request we would be able to stop writing to you, where the buck stops - as head of this council, and to the "unspecified others" to whom you refer, and on whose behalf you are now, most oddly, assuming the responsibility of replying.

Why would any Chief Executive take it upon himself to answer letters and email that are not actually addressed to him, or even to Rugby Borough Council, but to other Agencies, and are only copied to him for his information and for the fullness of records? Are you going to write back to
letters I have addressed to my granny also? In order to HIDE the unlawful practises that this Council has indulged in for so long you have decided, in consultation with other various "people" who do not speak the truth, to slur me, and to defame me, and thus you assert that I am "vexatious and repetitious." This is merely the latest SCAM you are using to get RBC off the hook, and to try to escape from telling Rugby people the truth about how RBC colluded to get this unlawful plant built and operated in Rugby, and how RBC colluded to blight the whole town, to ruin the environment, air quality, and impact the health of Rugby people.

You have sought to threaten me, and have had secret meetings with the four leaders of the groups, and with lawyers based on what "lies", all in order to hide the TRUTH.

RBC is refusing to give me the data that RBC hold on me. I made the request on 24th February and you have still not allowed me any access to it. It should have been provided within 20 days. Now it is already 80 days.

RBC are also refusing access to the Public Register Information regarding the cement works, IPC permit and secret reports.

The Environment Agency have deliberately also hidden the Public Register information regarding the cement works.

The Agency has also hidden the "MONTHLY RETURNS" which show the amount of toxic pollution being emitted by the cement works onto Rugby people. These have been hidden since July 2005 when they started:
# tyre trials# petcoke trials# allowed a five/eight fold INCREASE in the permitted emissions of VOC (toxic volatile organic carbons).

RBC and the Agency have hidden from the general public the results of the Survey carried out in Rugby in February 2006 that shows that 73 % of Rugby people are concerned : about 65,000 people are worried, and that it is not JUST me, or any other " Disgruntled Activists" as RBC cares to portray.

And so you seek to claim that I am "vexatious and repetitious".

I suggest the people write to you and ask the same questions as I have asked. Are you going to have the same description slapped on lawyers, and any of the 90,000 people of Rugby, who "dare" ask the same pertinent questions as I have done? Are you going to refuse ALL requests for information as you have done to me?

You had the secret meetings organised by the Chair of the Environment Panel: Carolyn Robbins (see 9th January RBC Cabinet Committee Minutes) who is also, by some strange co-incidence, Chair of the Rugby Cement Forum.

Who is working for who here? Is Rugby Borough Council working for the benefit and Environment of Rugby residents, or is RBC merely a sub-group of Rugby Cement? And may be a sub-group of the Environment Agency as well?

Lillian

Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:59 AM
To: 'Andrew Gabbitas'
Cc: 'All Councillors'; 'WRIGHTJP@parliament.uk';
Subject: RBC refuses to answer questions and misinforms public

Dear Mr Gabbitas

Thank you for your letter of 26th April.

I think you will find you are in breach of the FOI Regulations, for which RBC has already been taken to task on at least one other occasion. Your reply to my email, that I have typed in below, does not answer the questions and a mere local authority Cabinet cannot ignore the Law of the Land and make a "silly little decision not to answer any questions, and not to tell the truth". In the meantime it appears that Rugby people are to be poisoned by toxic fumes from waste burning, and petcoke burning, because of the RBC cabinet decision to hide the information and to cover up what RBC
has done?

Now we have:
1) The EA unlawfully hiding from the PR the monthly monitoring emissions data for the Rugby plant since July 2005.
2) The EA claiming Cemex can use the poisonous petcoke as they got a (secret)IPC permit in conjunction with RBC.
3) They got an IPPC permit to burn waste in "half truths in conjunction with RBC" - who mislead the public to cover up the IPC failings, so that no one would know that it had no lawful IPC Permit, and thatthis was an IPPC Application.
4) Mr Gabbitas who refuses to answer all FOI requests, and a Cabinet who have decided to hide all the information, and "mislead and misinform" the public and other councillors at full council meetings.
5) Then RBC blame me for the "costs" of providing all this information, while the truth is that RBC is spending a fortune trying to hide and cover up what they have done. If RBC just answered truthfully and provided copies it would cost a minimal amount. The truth is cheap, it is the deceit and cover up that is costing Rugby Council tax payers so much money!

Any advice please?

Lilian

Mr Gabbitas of RBC has finally written back 26th April as follows:

Dear Mrs Pallikaropoulos

I refer to your email of 12th February 2006 regarding Freedom of Information requests.

Cabinet on 9th January 2006 resolved that:-
(1) A scheme of Frequently asked Questions be developed and published that covers air quality and other issues associated with Cemex's local activities.
(2) That any further information requests on these issues be not individually responded to, but published on a FAQ list and
(3) any request that is potentially abusive, defamatory or other wise likely to cause offence be not responded to.

The Council is dealing with numerous requests for information from you and these requests will be dealt with as Frequently Asked Questions as resources permit in accordance with the cabinet's Decision.

The information in this current request is extensive and relates to issues dealt with 5 years ago. The Council's stance on the issue of tyre burning reflected public concern at the time and was a considered and balanced approach to the issue

Andrew Gabbitas

-----Original Message-----
From: L Pallikaropoulos [mailto:lpallikaropoulos@dsl.pipex.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:58 PM
To: 'Karen Stone'
Subject: FW: IPPC application 2001 and IPC 1999

Dear Mrs Stone

I ask that you answer the attached email that was sent to you nearly one month ago. (Under the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Regulations.) You should be able to answer all the questions yourself in say 15 minutes, as you have been involved in all these meetings and decisions. Mr Lawson will not know what this is about which is why he has such difficulty answering any questions from "before his time".

Thank you.

Lilian Pallikaropoulos


Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006
To: 'Karen Stone'; 'craig.humphrey@rugby.gov.uk'
Cc: 'all.councillors@rugby.gov.uk';
Subject: IPPC application 2001 and IPC 1999

Dear Mrs Stone and Mr Humphies,

It seems that this Council and the public have been totally mislead, whether deliberately or not, by RBC officers and the EA. I think the people of Rugby deserve some answers. I would like to know the following please:

1. Why did you present the 2001 IPPC application as being "only a Tyre Burning application"?

2. Why did you commission an AEAT report into "tyre burning only"?

3. Why did the PCT commission an HIA into tyre burning only? "Is it better for the people of Rugby to breathe coal dust or tyre fumes?" Cook and Kemm.

4. Why did you totally misinform the public and all the Rugby Councillors about the nature of IPPC consultations, and what needed to be considered, and that the "whole IPPC permit was open to question and scrutiny?"

5. Why did you not tell the public that the information given out was incomplete, and that that information being given out was related to the "tyre burning" aspect only: see Rugby Group Limited, Rugby Works, Application under IPPC to allow burning of tyres. Incidentally that application did not include any mention of particulates at all though it listed pages of all the other main emissions from the plant, and the public consistently expressed concern about particulates and dust from the plant as a whole. The Councillors and public were not aware that the whole
application was on the Public Register, and that the whole operation of the plant was to be taken into account?

6. At the Indian Club 2001 Roger Wade said, at the opening of the meeting, that "this application is like IPC, and is now called IPPC, and so there is no difference. It has IPC, so let's get on with the tyre burning." What was the RBC response to the IPC application in 1999, and the public response to it? What public meetings did RBC call in 1999 to discuss the IPC application? Where is the Public Register containing this IPC information?

7. How did you brief councillors, such as the Environment panel, and also the Community Leadership Panel, that lead to the March 2002 "marathon meeting"? What was the objective of such a meeting?

8. What guidance did you use to advise you, on what the roll of RBC was at statutory consultee, and what guidance did you use also on how to advise the councillors and the public?

9. Why are the Minutes, Agendas and attachments, of the RCCF and the Rugby Cement Liaison meeting not available to councillors and the public at RBC offices?

10. What action is RBC prepared to take against the Environment Agency for its part in this deceit?

11. Please send an email copy of the Minutes of the meeting RBC held with the EA on 13th September 2001 as a pre-meeting in preparation for the Indian Club meeting of September 20th 2001.

12. What was the role of the Rugby Cement Liaison Committee in all this? What was the RBC's role in that Committee? Why were no Rugby Cement Liaison Committee meetings held from March 2002 until 23rd October 2002, during the crucial part of the IPPC application, until when it "evolved" into the RCCF?

13. What is the RBC role in the RCCF? (Rugby Cement Community Forum)

14. What is the RBC role in the TBRG? (Tyre Burning Review Group)

Thank you.

Lilian

Agency Survey Backs Lilian!

RUGBY RESIDENTS WORRIED, CONCERNED
AND FED UP OF BEING POLLUTED.

LILIAN NOT DISGRUNTLED ACTIVIST!

Once upon a time, a long five years ago, Lilian innocently set off in quest of the TRUTH.

She planned to visit each in turn of Warwickshire County Council, the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council. How could she possibly have known that all that these locations were inhabited by gangs of unscrupulous and devious officers and councillors, peopled by individuals with no care and respect for due process, no care for the public, nor for the environment, nor for health, but were occupied by those whose own personal vested interest, and over-inflated egos and misconceptions of self-worth, compelled them to adapt ideas of grandeur, and to over ride the Law of the land, and to stop at nothing to hide the truth, and to ruin the town of
Rugby.

Soon Lilian became disillusioned by the disgraceful lack of professionalism in these places she visited. Each of these three authorities was fearful lest the others should blame them, and it should cost them money - a lot of money - and so Lilian became a victim in piggy in the middle, or as WCC prefer to call it "pass the parcel". Piecing together the actions of each has not been easy as of course they place all obstacles in your way, in order to prevent any truth coming out, and what they let you see, or even actually tell you, you need to take with a salt mine - or two! It is what they are hiding that is interesting. This is a gripping detective story of dirty deeds and foul play, worthy of a crime novel. How much did who make out of it? Who stands to gain what? Where there's muck there's money and this is about the very dirty, dusty grimy cement industry, and the WASTE industry! It is a filthy business, make no mistake.

Where there is muck there is money, and there is plenty of both in this.

I will put a few facts on the table and you can "be the judge".

1. Rugby Cement applied to WCC for a new cement plant in 1995.
2. The planning application to WCC was inaccurate and incorrect.
3. The Environment Statement was incorrect and inaccurate.
4. The people of Rugby were told "porkies" about what was to be built.
5. The photomontages showed that this was not what was actually going to be built.
6. The people of Rugby did not have time to respond - and in any case the "few" responded to what they PRETENDED they were going to build.
7. The Environment Agency used to be called HMIP till 1996.
8. The HMIP Advisory Committee had Christopher Hampson the Chair of RMC on it and he was subsequently on the EA Board and Chair man of that in due course.
9. Rugby Cement said all queries about the planning had to go to them.
10. Rugby Cement took the public, councillors and RBC officers to the plant and showed them an incorrect model.
11. The EA/HMIP say they received an application in January 1995 for an IPC permit - but they cannot find it.
12. The EA have no copy on the public register.
13. The EA say" The Application (that we cannot find) was received and deemed duly made by the Agency in January 1995."
14. The EA say that Rugby Cement had to place an advert in the paper and consult.
15. The EA say the "Regulator had to consider any representations made to it within the period allowed, in determining the application. This would obviously include any representations by members of the public."
16. The EA say "There was no requirement for us to hold a copy of the advert on the Public Register, the responsibility for which lay solely with Rugby Cement."
17. SEPA, Defra and the EA web sites all say that the Agency should have informed Rugby Cement to place the advert 14 days after the application was "deemed duly made".
18. The Agency itself - regardless of what they now say about any excuse about the ADVERT, seem to have carried out a partial CONSULTATION and to have consulted National Rivers in 1995, and English Nature, with no response.
19. The Agency say" we are not aware of any representations made by members of the public." BECAUSE of course the PUBLIC were not asked.
20. But from 1995 to 1998 Rugby Cement, assisted by the EA and WCC planning officers, kept on altering the size and specification and capacity of the plant.
21. Rugby people were told it was to be three times bigger : 300,000 tonnes maximum X 3 = 900, 000 t a year .
22. Rugby Cement have built a 1,800,000 tonne plant.
23. Stage 1 of the IPC application on 25th January 1995 was hidden from the Public Register.
24. Stage 2 was made 19th July 1995 - by now the stack was much taller.
25. Stage 3 was 8th August 1996 and by then the tower had TREBLED in size and the stack 30 % bigger than originally - it was 115 metres tall instead of the 91 metres chimney stack of the planning application.
26. WCC made a conscious decision NOT to tell the people of Rugby. KB who is still on the WCC said in response to shall we tell them, "as far as possible let sleeping dogs lie!"
27. Further information was requested by the EA on 15th March 1997 - Schedule 1 Notice.
28. RBC Karen Stone wrote and asked the Agency why this "Consultation " was not following the normal and proper procedure.
29. She had a secret meeting with the EA presumably to secretly discuss how to hide what was going on.
30. 16th June 1999 Rugby Cement FINALLY has the answers to the 15th May
1997 questions called the Schedule 1 Questions. They send these to the EA with this letter:

Dear Dr Davies
Application Under IPC for new plant at Ruby Reply to Schedule 1 notice:

"We have now collected all information needed to reply to the Schedule 1 Notice dated 15th May 1997 and attach this information. We have also included additional information that we request you taking into account in determining the application. This is the FINAL STAGE of application and we look forward to receiving your full authorisation for the plant in due course."
S Elliot
Works Manager 16June 1999

31. So the Agency the CONSULT : MAFF and HSE . But they do NOT consult RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL as they already have a SECRET agreement with Karen Stone.

THEY HIDE THE CONSULTATION.

32. But the EA claim that they had accepted the application in 1995 and that it was advertised to the public then in an advert, that NO ONE HAS SEEN, so why NOW are the EA consulting these other authorities - but not RBC?
33. If as the EA say it was "deemed duly made" what about all these changes in the FOUR YEARS - (1995 - 1999) such as the stack being 50% taller, and the tower being over 300 % more cubic capacity, and bigger on all sides, and the PRODUCTION going up to SIX times over the OLD PLANT, and DOUBLE what the planning application said?
34. The planning application and plans were revised over and over again by WCC and Rugby Cement - so the 1995 Environmental Statement and all the planning application was completely WRONG. It needed a completely new planning application, It is not remotely the same - not even the locations of the buildings are the same.

EA LETTER: of 23rd March 2006:

" This further search has in fact revealed some additional material copies of which I enclose. As you will see there is further correspondence between the Agency and statutory consultees which, for SOME REASON, was not on the Public Register file at this point".

OF COURSE it was not on the Public Register because they "CLAIM" that they had carried out the consultation in 1995, and did not want anyone to know that IN FACT they had NOT CARRIED OUT THE CONSULTATION AT ALL. How could they carry it out then as they did not know what they were going to build.
But the secret Agency file hid the evidence of secret consultation with Rugby Borough Council in 1997 and again in 1999 in which the Agency said "DO NOT SHOW THE PUBLIC. The PUBLIC HAVE 28 DAYS TO BE CONSULTED BUT DO NOT SHOW THEM!!"

EA LETTER continues: "there is also information relating to the public liaison committee. This supports the conclusion that the Agency fulfilled its statutory consultation duties".

BUT OF COURSE IT PROVED JUST THE OPPOSITE - THAT ALONG WITH WCC AND RBC THEY HID ALL THE DOCUMENTS - CARRIED ON SECRETLY, MISINFORMED AND MISLED THE PUBLIC. And set up a liaison committee who did not even know what an IPC application is in order to manipulate it. But Karen Stone and David Burrows from RBC were on there. Do they have any formal qualifications as they should have known better - or are they part of the cover up? Why did RBC officers fail to tell the TRUTH??? WHEN IS A LIE NOT A LIE?

35. I will not go on with the IPPC application as this needs a chapter all of its own, but again all three of them were at it: misinforming, misleading and misrepresenting the facts to the public. There is also the Misinformation given out by RBC officers and WCC officers for subsequent planning applications. I am afraid it is lies, lies, lies all the way. They do it all the time and they do not know when to stop lying. They have the habit.

CONCLUSION FOR THIS CHAPTER:

The EA, WCC and RBC have been and continue to be repeatedly guilty of crooked and unlawful practise seemingly specifically in order to damage the residents, the whole town and environment of Rugby, the air quality and the health of the residents. They have not followed due process and are all guilty of maladministration and worse.

IN ORDER TO TAKE THE SPOTLIGHT OFF THEM AND TO TRY TO STOP THE TRUTH COMING OUT THEY HAVE COLLECTIVELY: all tried to bully me, intimidate me, and threaten me; and have refused access to all data, even under the Freedom of Information Act in order to hide what they have done. All along they have tried to vilify me and say I am the only one concerned, and have tried to turn all people against me.

But the EA has just paid thousands of pounds of public money to try to hide what they have done. However the survey has not done what they wanted, and to the contrary has overwhelmingly shown that the 80,000 people of Rugby are very seriously Concerned and Worried about the cement works. The people will also soon be very angry when they find out exactly what these authorities have done to them, and how the 48 Rugby Borough Councillors have worked together to hide this and worked together to hurt the people of Rugby, and squandered thousands of pounds of public money.

TEST RESEARCH SURVEY CARRIED OUT IN RUGBY FEB 2006 SAYS THIS : IN SUPPORT OF LILIAN:

THERE IS ONE THING THIS SURVEY HAS MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR IS THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THE CEMENT WORKS FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE LOCALLY. IT IS NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS FROM A SERIES OF, ITS NOT MEANT TO SOUND NEGATIVE, BUT OF DISGRUNTLED ACTIVISTS, AS PEOPLE MIGHT SAY. IT APPEARS TO BE MUCH WIDER SPREAD CONCERN IN THE COMMUNITY. I THINK THE SURVEY HAS MADE THAT CLEAR, AND I HOPE IT HAS HELPED!

Yes it has. Thank you!!
Lilian

LILLIAN BEING NUKED!

LEADER OF COUNCIL THREATENS ACTION:

WE WILL HAVE NO TRUTH ROUND HERE!
PAT WYATT MUST NOT BE PRAISED.

May 7th:
Dear Councillor Humphrey

Thank you for your email.
As it appears you are threatening me I would ask that you do not correspond further with me but you write to my lawyer, Mr Richard Buxton, Cambridge.

The RBC legal department are well aware of his address as they are currently involved in supplying information and copies, (under the Freedom of Information Act), of the IPC Consultation that RBC was legally bound to have carried out in 1999. This is causing RBC great difficulty, and is taking some considerable time, as they do not appear to have either the copies of the IPC consultation and application, or to have actually carried out their lawful duties regarding the IPC consultation of the people of Rugby.

This all goes to add up to the fact that his plant is unlawful: unlawful in terms of the WCC "unlawful planning permission", and the subsequent EA "unlawful IPC Permit" of 1999, and now the "unlawful IPPC Permit" of 2003.

The due process has not been carried out, and there has been maladministration by all the authorities concerned. This involves RBC, WCC and the EA, and of course Rugby Cement. The people were entitled to expect their Council to take the necessary and correct action to protect us, and to ensure that the letter of the law is/was upheld, and that we, the Public, were correctly and fully informed, and correctly consulted, and were not involved in "sham" consultation at great public expense in order to cover-up the illegalities. Trained officers should know, and should have known, what an IPC Application is, and what it lawfully entails, and the same applies to an IPPC Application.

The INCREDULOUS people of RUGBY, and people the WORLD OVER, have been asking for years:

"HOW DID THIS EVER GET PERMITTED?"

I, and thousands of other people, have been asking this Council to help us for years. But this Council has turned its back on the people of Rugby, and is exploiting us, and abusing its power. Things are getting worse and worse as the TOTAL BURDEN on the air, and on the health of Rugby people, increases:
# production increases,
# pollution increases,
# HGV pollution increases,
# toxic chemicals in the air increase,
# and waste burning increases.
Now they are burning the POISONOUS PETCOKE; along with many other industrial wastes; about 8,000 tonnes each day.

THIS COUNCIL HAS UNLAWFULLY PERMITTED THIS TO HAPPEN TO RUGBY RESIDENTS!

The Law of the land must be upheld; and I am prepared to do whatever it takes; and to "STAND UP" for the people of Rugby, against any authority that is unlawfully damaging the interests of the Residents.

I have only ever spoken the truth, and I am right, as you will see. As I have truthfully said all along this has only been permitted by "crooked and unlawful practise!"

Lilian

#########################################################

From: Cllr Craig Humphrey
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 7:18 AM
Subject: RE: Leader to "take the matter further"

Lillian

Marvellous,at least you realise I am serious!

Craig

############################################################

Sent: 08 May 2006 10:02
Subject: Leader to "take the matter further"

Dear Councillor Humphrey

I have passed this email to my lawyer and we are waiting for further information about the action that you intend to take against me.
Thank you.
Lilian

############################################################

Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 5:00 PM
Subject: RE: Pat - an honest, hardworking force for GOOD!

Lillian

Unless you retract your allegation of ` crooked and unlawful practises ` I will take the matter further.

Cllr Craig Humphrey

###############################################################

Sent: 05 May 2006 08:09
To: Pat Wyatt and All Councillors
Subject: Pat - an honest, hardworking force for GOOD!

Pat

As you will have seen it is all the Midlands and southwards the same story... And it was only to be expected. Your losing your seat is as result of the protest vote against Labour, NOT a protest vote against Pat Wyatt, and NOT a vote for the Conservatives.

What gets me, and shows exactly how wicked they are is the childish and open ridiculous delight they showed in getting rid of you, which was far more than they showed when they gained any other seat. As I say Jeremy Wright and his massive Tory machine "licked the boots" of Lawford residents, and a lot of money was spent on this campaign in Lawford including, "personal" letters from Cameron. They HAD to get your seat because, clearly, they are suffering so much from:
# the truth you have told,
# how you have exposed their unreasonable "practises",
# and from what you have been able to achieve.

They are feeling so very relieved as now they can get on with their crooked and unlawful practises, unmonitored and undiscovered, as I doubt any of the other Councillors have the heart, intelligence, or will to take them on!

WELL DONE PAT!! YOU HAVE MADE YOUR MARK IN RUGBY FOR RUGBY PEOPLE!!!
THIS IS A SAD DAY FOR RUGBY PEOPLE. WE HAVE LOST OUR CHAMPION!
Lilian

CAUTION! KEEP CEMENT DUST OUT

One note of caution I need to mention is that people who live near cement plants need to be extra careful about tracking the cement dust into their homes where they can ingest it/breathe it and keep the cement dust inside their homes to as close to zero as possible since it's toxic. It's best to keep doors/windows closed as much as possible when winds blow from the cement plant, filter the interior air for dust, keep shoes outside or in a special box, and do not wear shoes/boots from outside into the house. Otherwise it could be ingested in dirty glasses and dirty plates and soup bowls etc. But if you keep your kitchen clean and all dishes washed well with no cement dust on them and filter your house, then the challenge is HOW MUCH ARE YOU TRACKING INTO YOUR HOUSE?

Young children may suffer more health effects from exposure to cement dust since they put their fingers in their mouths frequently and have developing nervous systems. Outdoor dust exposure may occur through both some degree of inhalation and ingestion depending no several factors.

Local water needs to be tested routinely to see if the Cr VI is showing up because the cement plants have dumped so much into the environment that's some may have entered the water system.

Cement kilns burning hazardous waste tend to have significantly higher levels of Chromium VI in the cement kiln dust and stack emissions due its presence in the hazardous waste.

Cr VI also causes skin problems through dermal exposure. Cement workers commonly suffer from skin lesions due to Cr VI cement dust exposure. Cr VI was featured in the movie Erin Brockovitch and one of the scientists involved is a friend of mine who told me about the case years before the movie came out.

NEIL CARMEN

Give Them an ASBO (UPDATED!)

who deserves one?

Both RBC and the Environment Agency deserve ASBOs;
Officers and Councillors!

BANNED: KEEP FIVE MILES AWAY
BANNED: FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
BANNED: FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES

Now the EA have allowed Cemex to: trial tyre burning; and petcoke burning; and allowed five to eight fold increase in some TOXIC emissions; and by a very strange and untimely, fortunate-for-them, co-incidence:

The Agency has WITHHELD the mandatory Public Register MONTHLY EMISSIONS DATA information from Rugby Residents for NINE months.

Cemex have apparently provided it, but the Agency claim they have "forgotten to send it". What else have they forgotten TO TELL Rugby sitting-duck residents?..

Like how the plant came to be unlawfully built and operated in a smoke free town?

We don't know the half of what is going on.

SSHHH!! They do not want us to.

PROTECT RUGBY TOWN!
BAN THEM ALL!
GIVE THEM AN ASBO!
..............................................................
UPDATE:

CEMEX'S TOXIC DUST IS FOUND IN HOMES

The Environment Agency did not FAPP test Cemex before allowing them to take over the Rugby Cement plant.

Are Cemex Fit and Proper Persons to "cook" 8,000 tonnes a day in Rugby town centre?

Is Rugby urban area an acceptable location for ANY cement company to "cook" nearly 8,000 tonnes daily?

Should they be burning HERE nearly 1,000 tonnes daily of PETCOKE made from WASTES from the oil industry?

Is this an acceptable location to burn waste tyres, or even coal?

And hazardous waste; meat and bone meal; plastics; low grade explosives; various WASTES of minimal calorific value?

You be the Judge!

The article below reveals why citizens need to be concerned living near cement manufacturing plants. Many cement kiln communities suffer serious cement dust impacts outside and inside their homes as observed here in the USA for years and in Belgium in April 2005 even up to a mile away.

What citizens in cement kiln communities need to do is conduct cement dust sampling and analyze the cement dust particles for metals especially Chromium VI which is a key toxic metal showing up in cement dust like the citizens found below in Lyons, Colorado, USA, just north of Boulder, Colorado.

Hazardous waste burning may result in even more Chromium VI released than from conventional fossil fuels like coal because hazardous waste has been found to contain much higher concentrations of the metal.

http://www.boulderweekly.com/newsspin.html
Boulder Weekly
Boulder, Colorado
USA

May 4, 2006
Blowing in the wind
CEMEX'S TOXIC DUST FOUND IN LYONS HOMES.
By Tyler Wilcox

If it wasn't clear before, it's a scientifically proven fact now: Making cement is, quite literally, dirty work. Cemex, the Mexican-owned company that stands as the largest cement manufacturer in North America and owns a cement plant just outside of Lyons, is sending harmful chemicals into the Front Range's air. Residents within a half-mile of the Cemex Lyons Cement Plant have found heavy metals in the dust on their cars, porches and inside their homes. These heavy metals are typically found in cement kiln dust, a fine, toxic dust that can burn skin, lungs and sensory organs.

Residents collected dust samples two weeks ago and submitted them to Cardinal Environmental Laboratories, an independent lab in Ohio, for analysis. The results confirmed the long-held suspicions citizens had about the plant's toxic discharge. In the samples, levels of chromium twice the level of the Environmental Protection Agency standards were found. Chromium is known to cause some types of cancer. Antimony-a metal that can cause heart and respiratory ailments-was also found in the dust. The tests were conducted with the help of the Colorado Citizens Campaign, a statewide grassroots group that has been keeping its eye on Cemex, and Denny Larson, director of Global Communities Monitor, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that assists communities worldwide to independently verify air pollution and health concerns.

"To me, one of the most meaningful results is that chromium was found, both inside the homes and outside the homes," said Jaime Rall, program director for the Colorado Citizen's Campaign. "That's not normal. That indicates to me that we need more testing to find out exactly what neighbors are being exposed to by living next to Cemex."

Lois Hickman, a Lyons resident who participated in the test, found heavy metals in the dust inside her home. "We want to know exactly where the cement dust comes from," she says. "Unwashed trucks on the highway? Fugitive dust from the plant? That will determine what Cemex needs to do to clean up our community."

In the coming weeks, Lyons residents will test for mercury, which is another toxin commonly found in cement kiln dust. They'll also test for more dangerous types of chromium. "Until we know which form is there, we can't speak clearly to the health risks," Rall says. "We do know that chromium 6 is a very dangerous toxin that is very frequently a byproduct of cement manufacturing-it's been found to have carcinogenic properties. That's what we're looking for."

And, Rall is quick to point out that the recent tests have only covered one aspect of Cemex's pollution-causing methods. "This doesn't even get to the stuff that's being released by the plant smokestacks, which is a whole other host of toxins," she says. "That includes sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds-and those are released in huge amounts by the stacks. We're talking about a 50-mile radius that is being affected by these emissions."

Since January of this year, members of the Colorado Citizens Campaign have written 1,958 personal letters to Cemex managers demanding the reduction of pollution produced by Cemex. With a recent management change at the Lyons plant, Rall is optimistic about the future. "John Lohr, the former plant manager, was replaced last week by Steve Goodrich," she says. "We know that the plant was receiving and reading the letters, but we see this as a new opportunity to make changes to the plant. We're hoping to build a relationship with him and really work at improving the plant. I'd like to meet with him personally and talk about what we can do to clean up the plant. Our goal is to build a lasting relationship between the plant and the neighbors that will create lasting changes to the pollution problems that people are experiencing. We're not going away until it's achieved. We're committed to the campaign until the company sits down with us."

In the meantime, Lyons residents are starting to make their voices heard. This Saturday, a "March To Clean Up Cemex" will take place. Organized by a new group, Mothers Against Burning Tires (MABT), in response to Cemex's plans to start burning tires as a source of alternative fuel, the march will start at 12:30 p.m. at the Stone Cup Café on 442 High St. in Lyons and will end at the Cemex plant. Prior to the march, from 10 a.m. to noon, there will be a letter-writing drive held at the Stone Cup.

"[MABT] came out of all of the mothers getting up and speaking at recent hearings that have been happening out here in Lyons," says Michele Leonard, one of the organization's founders. "Because they've extended the public comment period until May 18 for the state's air-quality control commission, this is our last-ditch effort to be heard, to let the state and Cemex know that we will not tolerate tire burning in Boulder County... Our goal is to have alternative fuels removed from the Title V operating permit that's about to be issued [to the company]. If Cemex proves that they can burn coal safely for five years then we're perfectly willing to come back and discuss other sources of fuel. But because they haven't burned coal safely for 40 years, there's no indication that they can burn tires safely. The EPA has said that tire burning is one of the most toxic forms of getting fuel. We are not willing to be experimented on, which is what they want to do."

For more information on the Colorado Citizens Campaign, go to www.coloradocitizenscampaign.org, or contact Jaime Rall at 303-863-8168. For more information on the MABT's "March To Clean Up Cemex," contact MABT at 303-709-8343, or mothersabt@yahoo.com.
Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com