KILN FLUSH?

Taken the 23rd March
MADE YOU LOOK!

OBVIOUSLY
It is not Cemex Rugby - this time - But Castle Cement, Padeswood.

When the tonnes of molten rock come crashing down it has a devastating impact as the dust is forced out of every weak point, coating surrounding areas in dust, as many kilograms, or tonnes, of particulates escape into the atmosphere, to be carried by the wind onto unsuspecting nearby inhabitants. These sufferers are normally animals, but the UK (unusually) seems to have a policy of building BRAND NEW cement plants in built-up urban areas, so PEOPLE are the unwilling recipients of this mass pollution.

Sometimes cardox is used in an attempt to break up the clumps, or free up the blockages. Kilns are very sensitive to changes in chemistry and any chemical imbalance can cause these incidents, as workers attempt to maintain control of the kiln, trying to avoid a costly and time consuming shut down.

The 14 and 15th October 2005 incident at Cemex Rugby, which earned a £400,000 fine at Warwick Crown Court, was such an occasion, when dust spewed out from everywhere, landing on people up to three miles away. The associated diversion of hundreds of tonnes of reject clinker into the reject silo caused even more clinker dust to be forced out into the atmosphere, from an open door higher up in the silo.

Kilns are likely to suffer these and other events fairly frequently, and it is difficult to gain information about these events, as the companies are, for obvious reasons, not broadcasting them to the inhabitants. The answers to this are twofold:

A) install a stack cam that videos direct to the web, so they can be checked at any time.

B) install telemetry so that the public can read the data from the CEM continuous emissions monitors from the main stack live online.

WHO DUNNIT?

RBC FINALLY CONFIRM WCC AS THE ARCH-VILLAINS !
WCC PERMITTED CEMENT PLANT - IN SECRET!


BELIEVE IT OR NOT? RBC PLANNERS WERE NEVER CONSULTED; NOR RUGBY RESIDENTS!
WARWICKS COUNTY COUNCIL GAVE "OPEN-ENDED, UNSPECIFIED PLANNING PERMISSION", FOR RUGBY CEMENT TO "BUILD WHATEVER THEY WANTED", WITH NO RESTRICTIONS, NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT, NO LIMITS OR CONTROL OF ANY KIND, AND INCREDIBLY WITHOUT EVEN TELLING ANYONE IN RUGBY - NOT EVEN THE RBC PLANNING DEPARTMENT!

The old cement plant had on average 50 "small" lorries each day:
The new cement/co-incinerator has 600+ giant HGVs each day.
WCC told RBC the capacity would be exactly 2.9 times that of the old plant. So, 50 HGVs X 2.9 = 150 a day.

SO WHO WAS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH?
And why did WCC not tell the truth to RBC planners, Nor to the Rugby people?
Or could it be that even WCC did not know what was being built?


RBC DIRECTOR OF PLANNING HAS FINALLY CONFIRMED That RBC PLANNERS had nothing to do with it, and KNEW/UNDERSTOOD NOTHING about the planning application for "a" new cement plant in RUGBY;

See below interspersed in CAPITALS, RBC's response of 15 March to Original email Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:34 PM

Dear Mr Ware

Re: The Rugby Cement plant that has now become the 2.3 million tonne cement per annum Rugby CO-INCINERATOR! I would like to come and see all the files concerned with the Rugby Cement plant and landfills regarding the planning applications and permissions back to 1994.

It is increasingly clear that the public, and most (if not all?) Rugby Borough Councillors have been totally mislead by the applicant, Rugby Cement, and by the officers involved in the planning and permitting process from WCC, the EA and RBC. Now we face the unlimited use of the plant as a co-incinerator starting with a mix of tyres and London's household and Commercial waste, while the Decision Document for the tyre trials is still incomplete, and data requested is still being concealed by the Agency.

There was never any proper consultation carried out by WCC for the planning application, as quite simply, the public were never told the truth as to what the application was for. The information issued by Rugby Cement was misleading - to say the least. The application itself as made to WCC was incomplete, misleading, and lacking in environmental information such as emissions and air quality data, and health impact assessments, as well as incorrect statements about what they were planning to build and what fuels, raw materials, and WASTES they were to use.

I have been looking back through the files and a fax from WCC to you (RBC planning department) dated 09/09/99 has caught my attention. It states the following: "Further to my fax of yesterday please find an updated version of the note.The change is in the 5th bullet. The EXACT CAPACITY of the NEW WORKS is 2.9 times of the existing, and so existing clay traffic figures will be at the lower end of the range quoted in the original note.I trust this information is of assistance."

It does not state why you wanted this information but I would like you to state, if you know, what was the EXACT CAPACITY of the old plant and what was then the planned EXACT CAPACITY of the new plant - according to your records? Note that Mrs Karen Down of WCC never uses any EXACT figures but refers to them in the abstract!

ANSWER: "I HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION OTHER THAN WHAT IS ON OUR FILES,
WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN."

Also please state the annual figures for the cement production at the old Rugby works for 1990 to 1994 when the planning application was made.

ANSWER: "I HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION OTHER THAN WHAT IS ON OUR FILES WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN.!"

I have these figures from Rugby Cement - if you can confirm that they are the same ones as RBC was using in deciding this planning application?

1990 : 282,052 tonnes cement. 22,086 HGV movements. Average HGV movements 60 per day.
1991 : 202,052 tonnes cement. 15,808 HGV movements. Average HGV movements 34 per day.
1992 : 236,772 tonnes cement. 16,855 HGV movements. Average HGV movements 46 per day.
1993 : 267,664 tonnes cement. 20,010 HGV movements. Average HGV movements 55 per day.

ANSWER: "AS NOTED ABOVE YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN OUR FILES YOU WILL HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THIS COMPARISON YOURSELF AND RUGBY DID NOT DECIDE THAN APPLICATION".

An Average production would be 247,000 tonnes per annum. X 2.9 - as according to WCC fax of 09/09/99 makes a total of 716,000 tonnes per annum. So what has gone wrong with the calculations - and where?

ANSWER: "AS NOTED YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN OUR FILES SO YOU WILL HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THIS COMPARISON YOURSELF AND RUGBY DID NOT DECIDE THIS APPLICATION."


The original outline planning application was for 1,050,000 tonnes CEMENT, which was then altered in February 1996 to read 1,250,000 TONNES CEMENT.

The Public were then told by the Environment Agency in the IPPC Permit August 2003 that the plant is a 5,000 tonnes daily production CLINKER plant, with a 25-30% increase on that figure for the total to make the cement, and that the plant was an "EXISTING CO-INCINERATOR" by virtue of the application which actually designated it as that.

The 5,000 tonnes a day clinker would equate to 1,840,000 tonnes CLINKER and about 2,300,000 tonnes CEMENT per annum, the manufacture of which involves the transporting in and out by many hundreds of HGVs daily, and also obviously affects greatly the emissions, from the stack, low level sources, fugitives and lorries. So now Rugby residents have far worse emissions than from the old plant - which was being closed down because of its very high emissions, and in the name of "environmental improvement". Now we have a waste disposal plant, cum cement plant - where the MAIN purpose it to make cement and the other purpose to dispose of waste.

There has been much confusion over the planning and IPC permitting process, Rugby Cement stating that RBC EHO was "not a statutory consultee", but the EA saying "they were" and officially consulting them - although RBC EHO made no answer to the IPC application and consultation in June 1999.

# Could you please clarify what RBC planners understood they were assisting in giving permission for? Did the RBC officers understand what the application meant?

ANSWER: "THE INFORMATION RBC PLANNERS HAD IS ON OUR FILES WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN AND I DO NOT THINK IT IS LIKELY TO BE HELPFUL TO SPECULATE HOW THIS WAS UNDERSTOOD - AND RBC WAS NOT 'ASSISTING IT IN GIVING PERMISSION'."

# What was the RBC understanding of the average annual CEMENT production capacity of the old plant, bearing in mind it only ever made about 1,000 tonnes clinker each day?

ANSWER: " I HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION IN ADDITION TO THAT WHICH IS ON OUR FILES THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN."

# What is the annual CEMENT production capacity of this plant as now built?

ANSWER: "I HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION IN ADDITION TO THAT WHICH IS ON OUR FILES THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN."

# What was applied for in the planning application - as we seem to have here a "great intensification of use", which should have required a new planning application and consultation.

ANSWER: " I HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION IN ADDITION TO THAT WHICH IS ON OUR FILES WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN. I SUGGEST YOU REFER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A NEW PLANNING APPLICATION AND CONSULTATION WERE REQUIRED TO WCC."

# The planning application clearly ruled out the use of wastes and any waste burning, so in your opinion have the public been properly informed, and doe the plant require a "Change of Use" for the co-incineration of waste?

ANSWER: "I DON'T THINK IT APPROPRIATE OR LIKELY TO BE OF USE FOR ME TO VOLUNTEER A PERSONAL OPINION ABOUT ABOVE MATTERS."

# RBC EHO officers apparently decided "in secret" with no meetings or records, or proper procedures involving any councillors, to make no input to the IPC application and consultation of June 1999. Was the planning department also involved in that decision to "make no response"?

ANSWER: " TO MY KNOWLEDGE PLANNING STAFF WERE NOT INVOLVED AND YOU HAVE SEEN THE INFORMATION WE HOLD ON OUR FILES."

# WCC also has no records and made no response to the IPC application and consultation although they were immensely involved in the process. It seems from the above that WCC did not know what was actually being built - even at 09/09/99 when the IPC Permit was just being issued - this is why we wish to ascertain if RBC planning office actually knew what was being built?

ANSWER: "YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE INFORMATION WE HOLD ON OUR FILES AND I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD."

I look forward to hearing from you with regard to access to the files within the statutory 48 hours, and any answers you may be able to give to my questions above. If you or anyone reading this wishes me to provide hard copies of my information, which has been copied from the WCC, EA, and RBC EHO files, they have only to ask. I can also fax Copies.

ANSWER: "YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN FULL ACCESS TO OUR FILES." JOHN WARE HEAD OF PLANNING.

Thank you very much.

Lilian

BLACK GREASY SOOTY DUST RAINS DOWN ON RUGBY

Except that it has not been raining!
Can it possibly be just Rugby Cement chimney sweeps at work?
Friday clean the car and go to bed. Saturday morning get up to find white car painted black.
Thank you Cemex.

The first official RBC version of events is that pulverised coal dust escaped as Cemex tried to feed it into the plant, and blew in the wind, covering everything in the area to the north east of the Rugby Cemex cement works, up to about two miles away. RBC, Cemex and the Agency have been inundated with calls from worried home owners, who are reported to be furious at yet another dumping. Its inside houses, on cars, window sills, conservatories, green houses, sandpits, vegetables, grass and in fact on everything - including on you if you happen to live there.

This black dust is merely the highly visible manifestation of the far worse small particles and nanoparticles that are emitted 24 hours a day in the tonnes of acid gas and air that fall on Rugby people, and around, depending mainly on the weather! These smaller particles are capable of penetrating the lung linings of humans and creating damaging effects in adults, children and even the unborn child. The toxic and carcinogenic heavy metals, dioxins, cadmium, thallium, etc adsorb onto the particles.

All this is taking place in the middle of a town of 60,000 people.

Ask yourself why do they not build cement plants in towns?

A prize for the best answer.


And why DID they build it here? Who thought it such a grand idea, and gave them permission? We asked Warwickshire County Council to answer our complaint against them that the planning permission is unlawful, and that what is built is not what was applied for, nor advertised, and is in fact not even the plant that was granted the "so-called" planning permission.

This is their considered response:

"Mrs Pallikaropoulos is wrong in so many ways that I/we can hardly begin to list them."

"We have given up trying to correct her because it is futile and disproportionately time consuming. However, this should not be taken as any kind of admission by us. Nor do I give any credence to her allegations against all of you."

John Deegan
Strategic Director for Environment & Economy
Warwickshire County Council
Web : www.warwickshire.gov.uk

We have the evidence, but WCC seem to be "in denial".
They provide no evidence to back up their claims.
Whose version of events do you believe?

Flying Pigs?

NOW RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM BANNED FROM DISCUSSING ANY ASPECT OF CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR OPERATIONS.
YES IT CAN AND DOES GET WORSE AND WORSE!

Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007
To: 'Karen Stone'; 'Sean Lawson'; 'David Burrows'; 'Cllr Carolyn Robbins'
Cc: 'WRIGHT, Jeremy'; 'Patricia Wyatt'; 'Helen.King Rugby PCT; 'Diane
Pask'; 'All Councillors'; 'Cllr Nigel Rock';
'matthewwilliams@warwickshire.gov.uk';
Subject: RCCF banned from discussing cement plant!

Dear Mrs Stone

RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM - THAT IS PROHIBITED BY RBC FROM HAVING ANY DISCUSSIONS AT ALL WHICH INVOLVE THE CEMENT PLANT !!

# This is a ridiculous waste and deliberate squandering of the Rugby Council tax money, and I am asking the Ombudsman to investigate the maladministration at RBC.

# Why are you and the officers and Carolyn Robbins controlling the Agenda of the FORUM and doing this to Rugby residents?

# What are all your motives?

1. Why was the RCCF not advised about the Cemex Southam planning application for the LANDFILL of bypass dust at WCC which went to the WCC Regulatory Committee on 27/02/07?

The application was made on 03/10/06 to WCC minerals planning committee and on 27/02/07 and they have passed it.

It still has to get an IPPC permit from the Agency which is now being applied for.

They said that Southam was the "least worst option", the other two options being Parkfield Road and also Lodge Farm! I did not know Lodge Farm was under consideration for landfill - I thought it was going to be restored?


4.30 RBC EHO expressed concern related to the impacts of carrying BYPASS DUST (hazardous waste) through the Borough from Rugby Cement works.

4.31 "In response to the Borough's concerns the applicant submitted further supporting information. This states there has been ONLY ONE KNOWN COMPLAINT OF DUST RELEASE SINCE 2001. This was identified as being steam rising from the vehicle rather that dust, which results from the dust being transported while still warm."
(Goes on to say risk of dust release small; HGVs have automatic covers: wheel washes; no dust; etc)

If you believe that then PIGS are truly FLYING in Rugby. The applicant has of course given FALSE and UNTRUE information in his statement. The RCCF and RBC EHO office know perfectly well there have been many complaints about it and cars being covered in white spots like paint as they go along to Southam, through DUNCHURCH, dropping the hazardous waste BY Pass Dust all the way to Southam. It has been discussed several times at the RCCF meetings.

What other "fairy stories" will they tell?
How can we believe anything they say?

2. The Decision Document for TYRE TRIALS also shows they had given FALSE and INCORRECT Emission Limit Values. Also they had quoted the wrong Permit and Permit number. Also they had made secret variation to the permit, behind closed doors and without telling anyone, and without any proper due process - with the Agency acting in SECRET.

3. Then there is the Cemex Climafuel application in South Ferriby that is on the South Ferriby Parish Council web site. It states, in April 2006 Cemex Cement Liaison minutes:

"The Source of the Climafuel is still being looked at. Our aim is for material to be sourced locally. However, for the TRIALS it is possible that the material may be sourced from EUROPE as they have well established arrangements for the production of this type of materials with a CONSISTENT QUALITY".
Presumably to use the good consistent quality in the trials, and to get a good result?

4. What is the RCCF and the RBC EHO going to do about it?
5. What confidence can you, or anyone else have in the data given by this company?
6. What confidence can anyone have in the EA to regulate fairly and properly?
7. What confidence can anyone have in WCC?

8. The EA state at South Ferriby (Minutes April 2006) that "all cement works are being regulated in the same way, and that a liaison group was a good communication channel" - SO WHAT HAS GONE SO BADLY WRONG AT RUGBY?

What confidence can anyone have in RBC: the EA and Cemex? The RBC and EA officers are concealing information and trying, very successfully, to STOP the RCCF from discussing anything at all about the cement works.
# We have had no discussion on tyre trials AT ALL!
# No discussion on Decision Document.
# No discussion of the variations that RBC/EA hid from us all.
# No discussion on landfill at Southam.
# No discussion on Climafuel application.

What do any other Forum members think - or indeed anyone who reads this think?
What a laughing stock they are making of the Forum, but it will back fire on those who seek to control the Rugby residents.

Lilian

In the meantime on page 8 of the Rugby Advertiser 1st March the Rugby Group Benevolent Fund is now seemingly run by Cemex, and is handing out a few hundred thousand pounds here and there to make sure the Community remains subdued and "on side", and does not raise too much of an objection to the burning of London's waste in Rugby. This will be handy as Cemex are preferred for the cement for the Olympics and it will be a piece of cake for them to pick up the commercial and household waste and bring it back here.

NO ONE SERVES RUGBY ELECTORATE!

"NO - WE ONLY SERVE OURSELVES!"
62 WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCILLORS;
48 RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCILLORS;
1 MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.

RBC is a Caring Council? NO!
RBC believes in public participation and consultation? NO!
RBC has 48 Councillors who run the Council? NO!
RBC has officers who run the Council? YES!
RBC acts in secret, without due process? YES!
RBC and WCC and the Agency are all TOO BUSY helping Cemex to hurry and push through its plans to burn London's household and commercial waste in the New Rugby CO-INCINERATOR to bother about the Rugby Residents. What do we residents matter so long as they all have a hand in our pockets? They prefer to help Cemex that than to consider and answer these "unpalatable issues" that have been sent to them all today.

TO WCC and RBC COUNCILLORS AND OFFICERS:
WCC (and RBC/EHO) MUST RECONSIDER REVOCATION OF UNLAWFUL CEMENT WORKS PLANNING PERMISSION/S! I would refer to the current Cemex application to burn London's household and Commercial Waste in the Rugby CO-INCINERATOR.

1. It is our understanding from the planning permission that WCC have granted for this "New Rugby" works that the burning of wastes was SPECIFICALLY RULED OUT in the planning application, and subsequent planning permission/s. Please confirm.

2. The planning application of 1996 clearly states that is was for 1.25 million tonnes of cement, but now we find there is a capacity of well over 2 million tonnes. This "change in application and permission" has taken place without any Environment Impact Assessment, and without any public consultation, as the public were simply not advised by WCC as officers, acting "in secret", (apparently unlawfully) several times amended the planning permission to include this VAST increase in buildings, in production capacity, HGV pollution, and works pollution, and unmitigated health impact and environmental detriment. Please confirm.

3. Then the "RETENTION of the (unlawfully built) TYRE BURNING EQUIPMENT" planning permission that WCC gave retrospectively in 2002 was also unlawful, without any proper public consultation or without paying any attention to the RIP industrial consultant and planning consultants' letters sent to the Regulatory Committee, and was given only for "TYRE BURNING" - as nothing else was put before the committee at that time. But now somehow it is being used to embrace, and indeed welcome London's wastes.

I suggest that you therefore advise Cemex accordingly that there is NO planning permission in existence for the burning of household and commercial wastes from London, or indeed from elsewhere. Please confirm.

Councillors SWEET and BARNES were all for pushing this CO-INCINERATOR onto Rugby people, without any due consideration, or environmental assessment. Councillors Wells and McCarthy argued against it, but the other WCC Regulatory Councillors simply refused to listen to them, showing a total disregard for Rugby residents. I will list the Councillors who decided to do this to Rugby people, but it must be stated that JOHN DEEGAN was the officer who "persuaded and recommended" that the Councillors take this action against Rugby people. He did not declare the TRUE FACTS to the Committee - they were kept in the dark by the officer's "limited" report that falls far short of any acceptable standard.


4. The so-called Rugby Cement "Environmental Statement" included with the 1996 planning application was "specific to that proposal", according to a letter from WCC dated 24th April 2002. The ES and planning application SPECIFICALLY RULED out the burning of any waste fuels. WCC subsequently have simply given yet another unlawful planning permission, all carried out by WCC officers and Councillors to the great detriment of Rugby residents. Please confirm.

5. Regarding the 2005 bag filters application there was NO PUBLIC CONSULTATION nor any consultation with the Rugby cement Community Forum. That forum is DEFINITELY NOT permitted to talk about the cement plant at any of its meetings! The Director of RBC EHO alleged that there was "no time for consultation, not even with Councillors, because Cemex are in a rush to get this through!" In agreement with RBC lawyer Andrew Gabbitas she took it upon herself to act under "officers delegated power" to write a hasty letter on 19th October 2005 fully supporting the installation of bag filters - so that Cemex could get the wastes brought into Rugby as quickly as possible.

RBC EHO rushed their letter of support through despite lawyers' letters warning them not to do this. All this just four days after the massive pollution episode of October 14/15 2005 during the TYRE BURNING TRIAL that lead eventually to a £400,000 fine. This letter was written - presumably on behalf of ALL of the non-consulted 90,000 RUGBY PEOPLE - in order for RBC EHO to ENDORSE and SUPPORT WITHOUT ANY TRUTHFUL EXAMINATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT the fitting of the bag filters. This letter endorsed the waste burning in the town. The Rugby Councillors and residents were simply not asked as RBC officers do not care what the public of Rugby think, and the elected councillors just stand by and let the officers do as they wish - or rather as Rugby Cement wish!

WHO BENEFITED FROM THIS ACTION, AND BY HOW MUCH? RBC clearly knew (and kept SECRET) that the plant would have had to CLOSE DOWN without the bag filter as it would have been uneconomic to continue run it without the burning of the WASTES! It clearly states that, in a letter from CEMEX Cement to the EA which is now, after some considerable delay, and after being HIDDEN, placed on the files at RBC EHO. The RCCF was never told anything about any of this as the EA and RBC apparently have a policy of hiding as much information as they possibly can.

It would appear from the available evidence (RBC cleanses files periodically so that vital evidence has "vanished") that the RBC EHO Officer decided - ACTING ALONE without any committee meetings and without REVEALING THE LETTERS that RBC EHO had on file - to support the bag filter application, in order, presumably, to increase the PROFITS of the cement company, and to damage the Town of Rugby? The letter that was signed by Mrs Karen Stone Director of Environmental Health was drafted by Mr David Burrows (Commercial Officer) - without any references to the "greater scheme of things" and without any comments on the letter on their files that clearly stated that the plant would have to close down if it could not fit the bag filters to meet the (WID) WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE LIMITS which have been put in place for cement/co-incinerators in rural areas!

# Why did these officers act in unison, and in secret, and without telling even the Councillors the truth?

# And why did they act against the best interests of Rugby town and its residents?

# What was these officers' motivation and incentive to damage Rugby residents, and to damage Rugby "town's assets" - i.e. the land that belongs to Rugby and its residents?

# Why do RBC officers act in secret with no written procedures and no code of conduct, and with no minutes?

Bear in mind that the RBC EHO department had also shown grave dereliction of duty by failing to answer the IPC application and consultation of 24th June 1999, and had (SECRETLY ) conspired with Rugby Cement and the Environment Agency to "KEEP IT OUT OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN" and to hide it from the Councillors, and from Rugby residents. In short the RBC EHO had deliberately damaged the town and environment and health of Rugby people. In fact RBC made no effort at all to even "BOTHER to answer the consultation and to BOTHER to try to limit the damage that RBC was jointly, in co-operation with Rugby Cement, the EA and WCC, afflicting on Rugby people. NO they did not even BOTHER to tell Rugby Councillors and Rugby residents". RBC EHO simply threw the opportunity to protect Rugby town into the bin. WHY?

6. The hazardous waste BYPASS dust travels from Rugby, with hazardous waste dust (they call it steam) frequently spilling out of its lorries in Rugby and all through Dunchurch, and all along to Southam, and it is still being dumped unlawfully at Southam. The planning permission that WCC officers keep on unlawfully extending was for INERT waste only, so WCC and Cemex and the EA are seemingly in breach of the UK and EU Law? Please confirm. The dumping at Southam (and Parkfield Road Rugby) has been REFUSED an IPPC permit, so for three years WCC has been endorsing an apparently unlawful activity - polluting unlawfully Rugby/Dunchurch/Southam residents? Please confirm.

7. If you look back at all the committee meetings (see WCC web site) about the WESTERN RELIEF ROAD you will find that WCC have deliberately, as puppets of Rugby Cement, delayed this road by working for the benefit and profit of Rugby Cement. The WCC councillors and officers have cost the ratepayers and public purse MILLIONS of EXTRA pounds through this ridiculous action, and of course damaged the environment and health of Rugby residents due to the unmitigated traffic pollution that WCC planners and councillors have deliberately caused. WCC and RBC keep on saying that Rugby Cement is not the MAIN polluter but the traffic is, the traffic that WCC and RBC planners have forced deliberately onto Rugby people. Meanwhile Cemex itself says no children (or women, by implication) should live in 40 new flats built near the Rugby Cement works because of the POLLUTION!


£11,000,000 in the year 2000 - now £32,000,000!
WCC PLANNING OFFICER: JOHN DEEGAN: 31st May 2000: "In compliance with the request from Rugby Cement no action be taken to advertise the legal Orders for Rugby WRR until after 31st July 2000.

Legal Orders for the whole length of the WRR be advertised as soon as possible after 31st July 2000 if Rugby Cement has not by then given a firm undertaking in writing to the County Council that it will promote the re-opening of the disused Rugby to Southam railway line through the necessary statutory procedures and PAY THE ADDITIONAL COSTS INCURRED IN CONSTRUCTING THE NORTHERN SECTION OF THE ROAD AS A FIRST PHASE.

The implication of this delay is that the date for opening the road will be PUT BACK THREE MONTHS. There is LITTLE FINANCIAL RISK IN THE DELAY (only £21 million!!) because the agreements with the developers have a 10 year life and the contributions are indexed linked to a standard industry materials price index."

8. # MP Jeremy Wright has met with Karen Stone of RBC EHO to discuss these various IPC issues but he "cannot reveal the outcome" of these talks. So does he know the truth and refuse to reveal it?
#Councillor Chris Holman has also met with Karen Stone to discuss it and he REFUSES ABSOLUTELY to answer any questions about it.
# Ex-Councillor Mrs Pat Wyatt met with Karen Stone at a meeting in which Karen Stone and Sean Lawson REFUSED ABSOLUTELY to answer any of Pat's questions about the EIA and the unlawful cement plant permissions.
#Cllr Craig Humphrey, leader of the RBC Council "mislead and misinformed" RBC full council by reading out a misleading statement given to him by the director RBC EHO stating a misinformation that there "had indeed been an EIA". I queried this and was EJECTED from the RBC public gallery - even though I knew and stated that what had been said by the Leader of the Council was untrue! The Public are ejected and threatened with legal action if they apparently dare to utter the truth?
# RBC also considered putting an ASBO on me at their meeting of 9th January 2006 in order to prevent me from approaching the Town Hall, and to prevent my looking at any Council Records that might reveal the TRUTH.


If anyone reading this can answer any/all of the above points, and justify the actions of WCC planners and RBC EHO I would be most grateful to hear from you. There are 62 WCC councillors, 48 Rugby Borough Councillors, who are ALL well aware of what this is going on and so, by refusing to listen to us, and by not intervening, are presumably "guilty" of collusion, and it would appear also are "taking our money under false pretences" and "defrauding Rugby ratepayers"; as are the officers who are pushing all this through without following the due process of UK and EU LAW? The Councillors do nothing to reign in these "uncontrolled acting-alone without-consultation headstrong council officers". Who are the true "CHAVS and BULLIES" in Rugby Town?

We call upon all the Councillors and MP to meet with us; to listen to what we say; to look at the evidence; and to start an investigation into the unlawful behaviour of officers and the obvious maladministration at both RBC and WCC. The Councillors take all the money from Rugby and Warwickshire residents, but what are they doing for that money?

IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE!

GREEDY OR WHAT?
NO you are not seeing double!
Rugby Cement said "one kiln not enough!"

In August 1999 when the Agency should BY LAW have been consulting Rugby residents and Rugby Borough Council on the minutiae of the New application and New IPC Permit for the New Rugby kiln and works, the Agency minds were actually pre-occupied by the desire of Rugby Cement to operate the TWO works simultaneously - together - at the very same time! So pre-occupied that these authorities apparently FORGOT to even tell us about it, let alone consult us. Except of course that RBC were consulted (sworn to secrecy) and they simply FAILED to answer the consultation; a decision made by RBC employees/person/s unknown who acted in secret, and simply HID the application and consultation from everyone.

And despite frequent Freedom of Information Act requests they still refuse to tell us WHO made the decision, and HOW, and WHY? What spurred them on to deliberately damage the environment, the whole town of Rugby, and the health of Rugby residents? What could possibly make an "Environmental Health Office" behave in this way?

Rugby Cement meanwhile, true to form, took full advantage of the incompetent, weak, and secretive WCC, RBC and Agency officers :

"Rugby Cement had planned to shut down the existing kiln at Rugby immediately before starting the new kiln. But a recent survey of MARKET REQUIREMENTS for cement has shown that almost the FULL capacity of the new plant is likely to be needed as soon as it has been put into service. It is unlikely that kiln 7 will operate at a high availability during the first few months of service so Rugby Cement has had to review its options. Rugby Cement requests a condition in its "Authorisation" allowing kilns 6 and 7 at Rugby to operate simultaneously."

"We have carried out Dispersion Modelling, and if the highest emission limit were combined with the most adverse weather condition then that value would be ignored anyway!"

"Rugby Cement recognises the need for operation of the plant to a proper standard during this period of simultaneous operation. The old and new kilns will be under overall control of the same works manager to ensure that operation (including staffing) of the two kilns is co-ordinated effectively.

The kiln operators for the old plant will be properly trained, and particular attention will be paid to the way they perform their duties!"

WCC SAY: "With regard to the operation of the two Rugby plants at the same time the situation is as follows. It has always been accepted that there will be a period during commissioning of the new works when cement will continue to be produced in the old kiln. Southam was not brought into the equation as the closure had not been announced. We are now aware that the chalk pipeline delivering chalk to Southam from Bedfordshire is unlikely to have sufficient capacity to run the new Rugby works, and so Southam will close."


# So that's all right then - proper training and a HOPE and PRAYER that the weather will be kind to Rugby people! #

Old Kiln 6 has:
Stack height 92.4 metres;
Exit Velocity 15.4 metres/second;
Normalised flow rate 54.4 Nm3/s:
Actual flow rate 92.1 Am3/s;
Temperature 189 C;

New Kiln 7 has:
Stack height 115 metres;
Exit velocity 15 metres/second;
Normalised flow rate 197 Nm3/s;
Actual flow rate 279 Am3/s;
Temperature 115 C;
Preheater : 24 m X 33m X 100 m = 79,200 cubic metres.
(planning application was - with integral stack 20 m X 20 m X 76 m = 30,400 cubic metres).


CO-INCINERATION IS HERE TO STAY.
THE AGENCY CLAIMS TO HAVE COMMON SENSE!
"It is considered the operator has a 'degree of success' in meeting the Critical Success Factors. In determining whether or not Cemex has succeeded in this we have applied 'reasonableness and common sense'."

HOW REASONABLE?
The Wrong Permit was quoted; the wrong ELVs (emission limit values); and the wrong CSFs (Critical Success factors). The Agency watered down the need to comply with ELVs 'at all times', and in secret, gave dispensations to allow Cemex to operate OUTSIDE of the permit conditions for both nitrogen dioxide and TOC.

The TOC limit in the original BL7248 permit was 10mg/m3 and it was varied on 1st November 2005, during the Tyre Trials (which had begun with the baseline in August) to 50/75mg/m3.


Nitrogen dioxide in the Permit was to be reduced by Improvement Condition to 500 mg/m3 from 13th August 2005, but in a 'secret' letter Cemex were allowed to increase the level to 800mg/m3, which was then confirmed in the Variation of 1st November 2005. So for 3 months the specified Permit ELVs were not complied with.

£400,000 FINE APPARENTLY NOT ENOUGH!
And we must not mention the Warwick Crown Court Case 3RD October 2006 which heard how the plant was being managed (or rather not managed!) during the Tyre Trials on October 14-15th 2005, when Rugby's Lawford villages got 'plastered' in reject clinker dust and particulate; and Cemex was fined £400,000. And in the three related Court Cases somehow neither Cemex nor the Agency just happened to remember to inform the Judge that this was during the Tyre Trials. Although blissfully unaware that this "two day pollution episode" occurred during the Tyre Trials, still a very serious sentence of £400,000 was imposed by a stern Judge.

CEMEX DECISION TO APPEAL APPALS !
On March 23rd the Court of Appeal will hear the plea for leniency, and be able to Judge for themselves whether they think the sentence was too harsh.

AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS:
MORE BAD NEWS FOR RUGBY:
New standards in air quality (designed to protect health) for heavy metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbons introduced in the EU Daughter Directive are not "absolute limits" and must only be "attained as far as possible" and will NOT apply round the IPPC regulated cement/co-incineration plant, which will only have to use BAT to control releases.

HOW RUGBY CEMENT PLANT MORPHED!

..click pic to enlarge.

INTO RUGBY CO-INCINERATOR!

2.300,000 tonnes cement per annum!
According to Environment Agency Permit.
(Incredibly without "anyone" knowing !)

Rugby residents now face the unlimited use of the plant as a CO-INCINERATOR: starting with a mix of tyres and London's household and Commercial waste, while the Decision Document for the tyre trials is still incomplete, questions have never been answered, and data requested is still being concealed.

PERMIT/CONDITIONS MEAN NOTHING!
It is now admitted that the plant was running "outside of its IPPC permit" for TOC and nitrogen dioxide during 2005, including during the TYRE TRIALS. Unbeknown to the Rugby residents, and more surprisingly unbeknown to the Rugby Cement Community Forum/Tyre Burning Review Group, who met regularly with Cemex and the Agency, in a secret exchange of letters the Agency had given a discrete concealed "permission" for the permit conditions "not to be met" - although this was not FORMALLY finalised until the Variation was issued on 1st November 2005.

CONSULTATION MEANS NOTHING!
It somehow simply "slipped their minds" to notify the Community Forum, public, RBC Environmental Health Office, and Faber Maunsell Air Quality consultants, who are supposed to be consultees on all these issues. RBC even brought in another paid industrial EXPERT from Faber Maunsell and even he was "kept in the dark", although he had come to specifically examine the INCREASE in the TOC emissions that the Agency were permitting. Both Cemex and the Agency never thought to mention the changes to the Permit Conditions and the nitrogen dioxide increases, nor to Dr Mike Holland who was brought in by RBC as a Facilitator to examine the Tyre Trials data; no he was not informed either. So much for "openness and transparency and honest consultation!"

ELV and CSF MEAN NOTHING!
So the "consultation" carried out by Cemex and approved by the Agency had the wrong EMISSION LIMIT VALUES printed in the tables, and thus the WRONG CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS. "So What?" It is apparently of no concern to the Agency that the whole consultation has been a "sham" involving misinformation and hidden data. So What?

PLANNING and IPC PERMIT MEAN NOTHING!
How did this happen to Rugby residents? Could it just be by an unlawful planning permission, and by an unlawful IPC Permit, that was all carried out IN SECRET behind the backs of the public, and even behind the backs of our elected councillors, and MP? Who knew what, and when, and what did they do about it?

MATHEMATICS MEANS NOTHING!
WCC planners seem to have great difficulty with their SUMS! Simple arithmetic is obviously not a job requirement. On 09/09/99 told RBC officers that the EXACT CAPACITY of the NEW WORKS is 2.9 times that of the existing."

These are Rugby Cement's Own Production figures for cement at the time of the planning application.

1990 : 282,052 tonnes cement. 22,086 HGV movements. Average HGV movements 60 per day.

1991 : 202,052 tonnes cement. 15,808 HGV movements. Average HGV movements 34 per day.

1992 : 236,772 tonnes cement. 16,855 HGV movements. Average HGV movements 46 per day.

1993 : 267,664 tonnes cement. 20,010 HGV movements. Average HGV movements 55 per day.

According to that WCC says anticipated production was to be (on average): 247,000 tonnes per annum X 2.9 = 716,000 tonnes cement per annum. So what HAS gone wrong with the calculations - and where?


# The original outline planning application was for 1,050,000 tonnes CEMENT, which was then altered in February 1996 to read 1,250,000 TONNES CEMENT.

# The AMAZED Public knew nothing until they were then told by the Environment Agency in the IPPC Permit August 2003 that the plant is an EXISTING CO-INCINERATOR manufacturing 5,000 tonnes daily production of CLINKER = 1,825,000 tonnes clinker each year.

# To make cement we add in a 25-30% increase on the clinker figure of 1,825,000 tonnes CLINKER and HE PRESTO we have about 2,300,000 tonnes CEMENT each year.

WCC and RBC ADMIT THEY KNOW NOTHING!
There has been much confusion over the planning and IPC permitting process, Rugby Cement stating that RBC EHO was "not a statutory consultee", but the EA said "yes they were", and officially consulted them in June 1999 when Rugby Cement finally finished its IPC application. This with a response to a Schedule 1 request from the Agency sent to them in May 1997. (YES - over two years to answer a few questions!!) But RBC EHO made no answer to the IPC application and consultation in June 1999, and kept the application off the Public register, and out of the public domain. There are no Council records, minutes, or any data at all about how this was done at RBC.

WCC and RBC HAVE NOTHING ON PUBLIC REGISTER! Similarly WCC mysteriously also has no publicly available records. And WCC, like RBC, also made no response to the June 1999 IPC application and consultation, although they were immensely involved in the process with the Agency and Rugby Cement. It seems from the above that WCC and RBC did not even know what was actually being built, even after it was already largely constructed.

WHY WERE PUBLIC TOLD NOTHING?
In JUNE 1999 the IPC Permit was slipped in "under the wire" to avoid the public finding out the truth about what was actually being built here, AND PREVENTING THEM FROM CHALLENGING THE PLANNING PERMISSION. The IPC Permit was issued 6 weeks before the regime changed to IPPC on 1st November 1999, because ANY DELAY to the proceedings would have meant that Rugby Cement would have had to make a WHOLE NEW IPPC application, (as opposed to the more simple IPC application) and operate under much higher standards, and also to have faced a very challenging public consultation BEFORE the plant was even operating. The public would have had to have been told then, in 1999, that what was built was an : "existing waste-burning CO-INCINERATOR making over TWO MILLION TONNES CEMENT A YEAR".


WE ANSWER NOTHING!
So instead of facing the TRUTH someone, somewhere, somehow, decided to HIDE the WHOLE IPC APPLICATION AND TO TELL THE PUBLIC NOTHING!

Daylight Robbery!

Rugby rate payers to bail out Rugby Cement!
Yet again!


It was revealed in the Warwickshire Telegraph and Rugby Times this week that there is a :

"ROW ON £2,000,000 BILL FOR ROAD DELAYS"

Rugby and Warwickshire Council tax payers could be footing a £2 million bill because of the delays over Rugby's planned "Relief Road" that is specially designed to assist Rugby Cement with its increased use of the cement works, its waste burning activities in the co-incinerator, and the development of its industrial site, the Malpas on Parkfield road.

BRIAN FOLLETT OF WCC:
"Delays getting the scheme approved by the government meant two of the four time-sensitive deals (section 106 agreements) have now expired.

Any shortfall in the total contributions from the Dept of Transport and the remaining developers will have to be MADE UP BY THE COUNCIL."

"It's not a total disaster, but some money will be lost. At risk is £2 million."

MP JEREMY WRIGHT : branded the situation "disgraceful" "It is a waste of taxpayers money and it is not acceptable. It is quite unreasonable that the government should make them foot the bill.

WCC AND RUGBY CEMENT HAVE DONE THIS TOGETHER:
It was Rugby Cement who "requested" Mr Deegan of WCC to delay the "issuing of the Legal Orders for the WRR for three months" in the WCC Cabinet meeting of 15th June 2000 - while RC considered the "opening of the railway to their clay quarry for 50 lorries a day".

"Legal Orders to be issued for the northern section only providing that by then Rugby Cement has given a firm undertaking in writing to the County Council that it will "promote" (whatever that means??) the re-opening of the disused railway line to Southam through the necessary statutory procedures, and PAY THE ADDITIONAL COSTS INCURRED IN CONSTRUCTION THE NORTHERN SECTION OF THE ROAD AS A FIRST PHASE!"

Then, as we all know, Rugby Cement came back and said they were willing to re-open the railway to Southam for their 50 clay lorries a day - as long as and only IF as a CONDITION the UK taxpayers paid for it!!! Otherwise it was a non-starter - as everyone knew all along. Dunchurch village had failed to stop the 50 lorries in their streets that SO worried them an their County Councillors!

Seven years on we have this mess! THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR DEEGAN :

"The implication of this delay is that the opening of the WRR will be put back by THREE MONTHS! There is LITTLE FINANCIAL RISK in the delay because the AGREEMENTS with the Developers have a TEN YEAR LIFE!" quote John Deegan 31st May 2000. Is WCC incompetent - or what? Don't ask!

MEANWHILE Rugby is polluted, congested, and intimidated, by the RUGBY CEMENT 800 to 1,000 LORRIES rumbling in our streets 365 days a year! Perhaps Rugby residents can have a whip round to pay for the road - or maybe the cement plant better close down instead?

And what are WCC doing about it? On 12th December 2006:

Gordon Collett (see previous post for piccy) proposed a motion and Heather Timms seconded it;

"That this Council views with great concern the lack of progress that has been made on the Rugby WRR. This project is VITAL to the people and businesses of Rugby and Warwickshire as a whole.

This Council commends the ongoing hard work of WCC officers in developing the RWRR, but also notes with CONCERN the cost implications of the delayed announcement of the secretary of State. This Council is disappointed that the delay of the Secretary of State announcement may result in a funding shortfall and hopes the government recognises this in any future settlement."

Motion carried unanimously by 33 councillors.

BUT WHOSE FAULT IS IT ANYWAY?

Who pays their wages?

Whose side are they on?

Lepers would have been made more welcome!

It's even more clear than before as to who CONTROLS this whole town!

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION
At Rugby Borough Council's full council meeting of 44 members we were standing just OUTSIDE the Council Chamber and we politely tried to give a leaflet to each Councillor from the Rugby residents.

One long-standing Councillor ("we can get this burning of London's waste through if we don't get hysterical" ) said he did not want the "rubbish" from the residents of Rugby; quite a few refused to take it - when we asked them just, at least, to read it; some made nasty snide comments - all without even looking at what we were saying; some took the leaflets and dumped them on the table without even looking at them; no-one actually spat in our faces - not quite anyway!

HOY POLLOI MUST NOT APPROACH THE COUNCILLORS Craig Humphrey (Conservative Leader of the Council) stood up at the beginning of the meeting and said, as he held aloft one specimen of the obviously "highly contaminated radio-active puke-inducing leaflet from Rugby peasants", looked almost like being sick himself, his face the colour of the green paper we had had the audacity to hand to our elected Councillors that :

" I object to THESE being thrust into our hands on the way in - I object to it as we come into the Chamber. We don't mind the public coming into the Chamber, but they must not give out leaflets."

(please note we did not give them out inside the Chamber).

WHO CARES ABOUT RUGBY PEOPLE?
Four Councillors,well-known for being "the peoples' councillors", and for really caring for and working hard for Rugby people; who are unperturbed by the Party Whips and Mafia that operate in RBC; signed them and gave them back.

Ron Ravenhall ; Terry Deery; Neil Sandison and Noreen New

(Some others said they would read it and get back to us)

The PETITION against the cement plant becoming a CO-INCINERATOR stood in 2002 at about 8,000 signatures (increased from the one handed to 10 Downing Street in 2001) which is probably about as many people who actually voted in these Councillors in any case. Some of those, who do not wish to deal with Rugby peasants, got in with only about 300 votes - so it will be easy to get rid of them!

COUNCILLORS TO BE BANNED FROM LITTERING AND DELIVERING JUNK MAIL?
At least we handed our leaflets (unread, and described as RUBBISH by some) to the Councillors, WHOSE WAGES WE PAY on the steps of a Public building FOR WHICH WE PAY!

At Election time they put their "rubbish" in our PRIVATE letter boxes!We have no say in that!
Perhaps we can do them for littering, or for delivering unsolicited junk mail?

CEMEX BANS KIDS!

SHOCK! HORROR! REALISATION!

Is Buffer Zone needed round cement works?

REPORT SHOWS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER POLLUTION IN GROUND; AND IN AIR!
Powers-that-be wake up to reality?
WHO is to blame for Rugby's pollution?
Cemex and Warwickshire County Council in dock, as cement and also Western Relief Road cited as culprits!



CEMEX 19/12/06:
States "It would be highly inadvisable to encourage these new dwellings to be occupied by families with young children" - in response to a planning application for 40 two-bed flats on adjacent Simms Scrap Yard Lawford Road site.

"The environment, as a result of its location and proximity of existing industrial uses, the Western Relief Road, and probable future use of the railway should be restricted to adults" at these 'most desirable' of affordable homes.

WESTERN RELIEF ROAD:
Cemex says: "SHOULD the WRR (EVER) be constructed it will bring SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC NOISE associated with that infrastructure out of ALL PROPORTION to the level of noise/dust/and activity associated with CURRENT levels on Parkfield/Lawford Road. The new traffic system will operate 24 hours a day/365 days in a year in a corridor very close to these proposed residential units. This will INEVITABLY create a NOISE and DUST impact, (Do not mention nitrogen dioxide!) from INTENSIVE vehicle operations quite apart from the current activities of the cement works. We seek to ENSURE that road noise and dust resulting from the WESTERN RELIEF ROAD will not be CONFUSED with POTENTIAL emissions from the cement works".


RBC:
busily granting planning permission, says that these wonderful affordable homes can have the LUXURY of "non-openable windows, air conditioning, particle filters and trickle ventilation facing away from the pollution." So that's all right then - no kids; no pregnant women; and no air!

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL:
Capitalises and gets the best part of £150,000 to provide school places for these "non-pupils".

THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:
also demonstrates a new simply-amazing "human side" expressing concern, for once, for Rugby residents: "emphasizing" that whoever lives there is LIKELY to be "on occasions subject to local nuisance", as "in the past the site has had incidents, whereby they have caused a considerable amount of nuisance to local residents." BUT "the cement factory's permit AIMS to CONTROL emissions from this site to a level below which it is BELIEVED (believe it or not) they do not cause harm to the local environment." DON'T MENTION HEALTH WHATEVER YOU DO!

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL:
Takes £20,000 in a section 106 agreement for OPEN SPACES - SOMEWHERE ELSE!

WHAT EXACTLY IS "LOCAL NUISANCE"?
RBC say "Dust events are not easy to characterize with regards to planning decisions. The cement plant does have (MANY!!) unauthorised discharges which already affect mainly New Bilton and Lawford areas. While these are "inconvenient", evidence from air quality monitoring by the Council indicate they tend to be of "short duration" (??), and is mainly "nuisance dust" rather than FINE dust which has the potential for causing HEALTH EFFECTS. Therefore, given the existing residential use (scrap yard?), the frequency of events, and their effect, "nuisance dust", while considered to be EXTREMELY ALARMING and ANNOYING for local residents, is not considered to be sufficient to prevent the development on air quality grounds, using available guidance and evidence."

"The ONLY guidance available regarding these issues (BECAUSE RBC DO NOT MONITOR!) are reports produced by Cemex, which MAY be potentially subject to bias by the author. However a SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY in the Cemex reports generally is that they consider MICRO-POLLUTANT emissions from the MAIN STACK ONLY (which SUGGEST no SIGNIFICANT health effects), but do NOT consider their impact on the particulates released from the LOW LEVEL POINT SOURCES and FUGITIVE emissions! This needs to be assessed because of the SIGNIFICANTLY ELEVATED levels of particulate at the Simms's Yard Site from the Cemex plant."

"However the Director of Housing and Environmental Health is of the opinion that the potential impact on GENERAL AMENITY (which is OUTSIDE of the remit of Environmental Health because the local authority has no jurisdiction without approval of the Secretary of State) ( APPARENTLY THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DUST IN RUGBY) of the INCONVENIENCE of the "nuisance dust", and the ALLEGED DAMAGE it causes to property, such as cars, is insufficient to recommend that Planning and Highways Committee consider this issue as a material planning consideration when determining the application."

DEVELOPER:
We have spent a lot of money on this application! Give us our permission!

WAR RAGES

AND THE WAR RAGES ON IN RUGBY

MERRY GO ROUND SPINS OUT OF CONTROL AS COURT CASES ESCALATE! WHO IS BEATING WHO?

SO...
RIP VERSUS THE EA; DEFRA; TREASURY; CEMEX; RBC; WCC
We have Rugby in Plume/Rugby residents in the GREEN corner taking on the Environment Agency (sludge corner) for unlawfully issuing an IPPC Permit. RIP request the House of Lords to QUASH the UNLAWFUL IPPC PERMIT: but the EA are backed up by, and joined by the very INTERESTED PARTIES, of DEFRA and the TREASURY (RED Blairite) ; and by Cemex (ORANGE Rugby Cement) - who work with RBC (YELLOW for obvious reasons), and with WCC (BLUE) (trying to stay in the background) : which all COLLUDE to try to "get away with it" and to PULP Rugby residents.

AND.....
Then the Agency scores against Cemex: a stunning £400,000 fine for polluting Rugby during tyre trials - see Warwick Crown Court 3rd October 2005. But Cemex, perhaps thinking that their "apology" to Rugby residents was enough of a penalty, now say they find the fine "disproportionate" and attempt to reduce it in an Appeal at the High Court.

IN COLORADO....
Cemex incurred a $1,500,000 penalty for pollution in a court action December 2006.

IN THE MEANTIME...
CEMEX TAKES ON DEFRA AND THE EU:
Rugby Advertiser (11/01/07) Reports:

Rugby Cement Cemex has lost a unique High Court challenge to scrap the limit of carbon Dioxide it can emit. In what was regarded as a test case Cemex asked top Judge Mr Justice Sullivan to quash the Government decision to allocate a CO2 emission cap on its works. It also sought an order to top DEFRA from re-allocating 343,838 tonnes of emissions from Rugby to another competitor.

BUT THE HIGH COURT REJECTED... the challenges, and said the rulings had NOT infringed "equality and discrimination" laws, as argued by Cemex. The CO2 cap was put on by DEFRA who said the Rugby plant could not emit more than 819,974 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Cemex also put forward an order in front of the High Court to stop DEFRA from re-allocating more than 343,838 tonnes of CO2 to one of its competitors. BUT Mr Justice Sullivan said DEFRA was justified in its decisions.

CEMEX HAD ARGUED...
That the allocation breached the EC principles of equality and discrimination, and " constitutes an unjustified interference with the fundamental right of freedom of establishment enshrined in Article 43 of the EC TREATY".

It also claimed that the ruling infringed Article 87, "prohibiting competitive distortions caused by unjustified State Aid." The Rugby Cement owners had already out forward the same arguments before the EC last November, but ended up with the same unsuccessful outcome when the EU Commission backed the UK's national Allocation plan for emissions.

WHAT THE PUBLIC SAY:
ADVERTISER POSTBAG:

I HOPE MRS P. STAYS A THORN IN THEIR SIDES...
I found the letter, "There is another side to the company" very interesting, inasmuch as the writer failed to tell us just what position he held at the Rugby Cement company prior to his retirement in such illuminating circumstances. Would he, for instance, have been granted the use of a car to use 'carte blanche' if his job was to 'sweep the yard'? I suspect not!

I can assure the writer of the glowing vision of the generosity of Rugby Cement, that the owners of the mills in Bradford and elsewhere, producing ASBESTOS, treated their employees in very much the same manner: including day trips to Blackpool, and Christmas and New Years Parties.

Their attitude, however, was entirely different when the workers began looking for compensation for ASBESTOSIS! Lilian P. is trying to get the Council to ENSURE that Rugby Cement does not treat the people of Rugby in the same manner that the asbestos companies treated their workers, and the SURROUNDING POPULATION!

I sincerely hope Lilian will remain a thorn in the sides of all concerned until they: TOE THE LINE! and COME CLEAN!

R. M. Knight,
Constable Road,
Rugby.

I AM CONCERNED AT WAY CEMEX PORTRAYS ITSELF...

I would like to voice my concern over a recent publication by Cemex owners of Rugby Cement entitled "COMMUNITY MATTERS" dated December 2006. My concern is that a large company like Cemex, with all its financial backing, can be SO ECONOMICAL WITH THE TRUTH: i.e. their portrayal of the VISUAL EFFECTS on the Community! (Which you can plainly see from the enclosed photographs it is easy to prove - using even the minute resources of a retired member of the public.)

My major concern is that it will be far simpler for Cemex, with all its infinite resources, to hide technical facts that Joe Public cannot disprove. I don't need to point out that whatever comes out of the cement works chimney - if you can see it - it can reach you and your families!

Cemex have shown little remorse so far fo the health hazards caused to date, and the DANGLED CARROT of the so-called 'nature reserve' in the very distant future does not fill me with JOY! Newbold Quarry Nature Reserve springs to mind - and how many lives has that claimed?

It is high time the people of Rugby SPOKE OUT about the UGLY MONSTER in our midst. It is were a wind turbine I'm sure it would get far more response?

T. Enticott,
Wordworth Road.,
Rugby.

Today's Gift from Cemex

Thank you to the person kind enough to email this photograph in.


This was taken today by a person out walking and as you can see, it is just another normal day in Rugby where a toxic cloud is grounding dangerously low and putting more lives in danger.

If you are brave enough to venture out and around Rugby town please make sure you have your camera with you so you too can send pictures like this in. Be warned though, as operating a camera can be difficult whilst wearing breathing apparatus.

Please keep your eyes and noses open, as this should not be happening!

Report anything you see to both pollution(@)Rugbytown.org and to the Enviroment Agency.. (what good that does.)

Happy New Year!

A TYPICAL DAY AT THE CEMENT PLANT - DURING 2005 TYRE BURNING TRIALS?

CEMEX ARE TO APPEAL THE £400,000 FINE.
ODD: NEITHER THE AGENCY NOR CEMEX SEEM TO HAVE MENTIONED THE INCIDENT TOOK PLACE DURING TYRE TRIALS; OR EVEN DURING TYRE BURNING EQUIPMENT "COMMISSIONING" TRIALS?

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY QUOTE:

"Dry cement and some raw materials used to produce it are dusty materials; it is not surprising therefore that FUGITIVE EMISSIONS OF DUST ARE AN EVER PRESENT HAZARD" - FOR RUGBY RESIDENTS!

QUESTION ONE:
WHY THEN DID THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL AND RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL COLLUDE, WITH RUGBY CEMENT, TO MISLEAD AND TO HIDE INFORMATION FROM RUGBY RESIDENTS, IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING OF THIS INCREASINGLY MONSTROUS ENVIRONMENTALLY AND HEALTH DAMAGING CO-INCINERATOR AND INDUSTRIAL BEHEMOTH ON TOP OF RUGBY PEOPLE?

From the Court attendance and case transcript as far as one can make out it would appear that this is what happened.

There were they say 60+ complaints for a "potential impact level three pollution incident".

According to the EA summary on the Public Register they HAD been burning tyres on 14th October 2005 but that had stopped TWO HOURS before the event.

Why had they stopped burning the tyres? Possibly because the plant was becoming unstable?

QUESTIONS:
2. How long does it take for the tyres to get completely out of the kiln system?
3. WHY are HOW are tyres SO DANGEROUS that they have to stop burning them during upset conditions?
4. But why are oil and coal (and petcoke) not considered as too dangerous at that time of instability and upset?
5. According to this case they cannot stop the plant "for any reason" as it would produce an even greater impact. Is that correct?
6. They got this £400,000 fine for ONLY burning oil and coal - how much more would it have been if the Judge knew about the tyre trials?
7. Why did the EA and Cemex not tell the Judge the TRUTH that it was during the tyre trials - or as they NOW try to say one year AFTER the event that the incident was "during the plant commissioning" for the tyre trials?
8. What caused the plant instability in this case? We know that any change causes instability, and that is why it is one of the CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS that the plant must NOT have more instability during waste burning.
9. How are the public to find out if it is more unstable, or not?
10. How many hours/days a year is the plant running with NO EMISSION LIMITS AT ALL?
11. At other plants where they change the fuels and combinations every day there are these upsets even more frequently - leading to a massive increase in particulate and exposure. Is this the future for Rugby with the application now in for household and commercial waste as well?
12. How can the public know what is being burnt at the co-incinerator?
13. The reason Rugby Residents took the EA to court was about the way they had HIDDEN the particulate emissions and refused to allow us to talk about them - both from main stack or low level sources. They said that tyre burning wouldn't increase particulate, nor increase the smaller more health damaging PM2.5 emissions - but it seems it does; and so does any change and CHEMICAL IMBALANCE! See REJECT CLINKER increase in DUST EMISSIONS and increase in SMALLER PARTICLES. Next will be climafuel and that will vary in substance as well.
14. Even the tyres vary no end - what sort of tyres were they using, and when? There are MANY varieties and chemical compositions!!


FROM COURT TRANSCRIPT and SENTENCE:
"Cemex failed to ensure an external door 100-150 feet off ground to clinker silo was maintained in good operative condition breaching condition 2.1.2 of the August 12th 2003 PPC Permit contrary to regulation 32:1B. The permit contains STRICT CONDITIONS enforced by CRIMINAL SANCTIONS which control and limit the specified activity. No person shall operate an installation EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT GRANTED BY THE REGULATOR. There was also a second information that is 'effectively the same sort of matter coming from a different direction'; it just relates to a different condition, so we felt it right and proper to accept the plea on the basis that that was part of the count one."

"This unpleasant material was not expected to escape in the QUANTITIES it did escape and to settle up to 4.5 kilometres away."

"The permit breach presented, we submit, a SIGNIFICANTLY increased adverse health risk to exposed population. Of course the word SIGNIFICANT is an ELASTIC term, and we mean it to mean simply NOT INSIGNIFICANT".

"On 27th July 2005 a FORMAL WARNING had been issued to Cemex relating to
SEVERAL BREACHES of the PERMIT. 12 August 2004; 12 and 15 November 2004,
when operated by RMC."

" 15 September 2005 - "a highly visible fugitive emission of brown dust" was investigated by the Agency who found "the best actual means were being operated at the site, that was not that there was not an offence committed. It does mean that it gives the Agency a strong view that it was NOT NECESSARY to pursue a case in relation to that particular matter."

"Total number of complaints 66."

"Another complaint with dust samples taken - is another incident."

AGENCY: "I believe there have been FUGITIVE EMISSIONS IN THE PAST which have resulted in complaints being made, BUT NO FORMAL ACTION was taken. It is not controversial that there have been properties in the past relating to that offence at the time in that area. And many complaints have been made to the Agency as a result of it. But it would be UNFAIR to go into any further observation of that point." AGENCY: "They should have fixed the door and piece of cladding right away, or if it was not fixed right away they should not have been operating the system until it was fixed."

Testing showed that the material that escaped was "POTENTIALLY VERY HAZARDOUS and TOXIC STICKY CLINKER DUST" and "CLINKER COURSE MATERIAL".
Describes impact of "contact with sweat, or tears, causing a strong alkaline solution that can damage nerve endings before damaging the skin, and therefore chemical burns can develop without pain being felt at the time." "Handling moist clinker may cause both irritant and allergic dermatitis, and so protective clothing must be worn; dust must be prevented from entering gloves, boots or protective clothing; and exposure to moisture must be avoided; and escape of fugitive dust must be prevented." PM10 evidence was NOT considered at Rugby Magistrates and has been included since and Amanda Gair and Professor Harrison have agreed a position after a meeting.


14th October 2005.

0600 kiln stop for repair due to "instability in the system."

0830 A walker says that dust is "swirling out of the reject tower".

1000 The same walker reports it is "still coming out intermittently", and phones the Agency and Cemex.

1030 EA call Cemex.

1310 door found to be "hanging off hinges" and "defective cladding two feet square" on reject silo at top. Cemex employees pushed back door in place leaving a 1 inch gap.

1400 kiln restarted.

AGENCY: "And the starting-up process then produced very high levels of dust emissions. There had been instability in the system throughout this period which is why of course it was stopped for repair. As a result of the start-up process the emission levels were well above 55mg/m3. High level of stack dust recorded 630 mg/m3. "The reason it's not in a sense a criticism is this, because the Agency allow for, or in start up allow for, 200 tonnes per hour dry feed to be produced BEFORE there's a beach of condition. And therefore when there's a start-up problem of 630mg/m3 they would not take action in relation to that, although it is fair to say that high levels of dust concentration were present and may be present, and there was instability in the system creating a further potential hazard, which of course again is not controversial. Cemex knew about it. They knew about the external door. But of course at this point they are producing reject clinker as well. This of itself does not cause a problem, but material going into the reject silo with the door open of course causes problems. At 7.00 pm the system itself was shown to be unstable."


1810-2000 "Graphs show that the clinker dust fell into the reject clinker silo between 1810 and 2000 on the 14th October and at various times from 0100 to 0850 on the morning of the 15th October. And he agreed there was lots of airborne dust. Some 614 tonnes of reject clinker was produced. There is a reference rate to dust in relation to the reject clinker - 2.2 grams a second equivalent to 8 kilos of PM10 each hour. At ten minute kiln flush rate quoted as 4.55 grams a second. This is worst case scenario post the kiln flush. Professor Harrison worked them out - this is not contentious. We do not know precise figures but 70 kg of PM10 was produced. The other figure for Total particulate matter was 7.35 tonnes. We do not know the true figures but there must have been a substantial amount to cover that distance, to cover that number of cars, to cover window sills."


JUDGE: "Just remind me of the time period that has been used for the calculation of the 70 kilograms."

AGENCY: It's about 12-15 hours. (takes advice) OH I'm told it is the FULL TWO DAYS."

AGENCY: " Reject clinker comprises particles of a wide rang of sizes including some PM10 which is of relevance to human health. The portion of smaller particles is greater in the reject clinker and during 14th and 15th October emissions of PM10 particles will have arisen from three sources: The KILN STACK; EMISSION FROM THE REJECT CLINKER SILO; AND ENHANCED EMISSIONS FROM REJECT SILO DURING THE KILN FLUSH THAT LASTED TEN MINUTES.

Dispersion modelling shows a breach of the 24 hour air quality objective. But it might not have reached that particular area. Health impact of PM2.5 and PM10 pollution as in this case: That health impact increases with increasing exposure, and with the range of many concentrations there is no demonstrable threshold of concentrations below which neither of these health effects occur. That is the difficult thing with this material. YOU SIMPLY DON'T KNOW!

JUDGE: I could interpret that as meaning any exposure is potentially harmful.

AGENCY: You'd be right to accept that. The problem here is that there is this risk which is both potential and indeed actual because of the material released. Any demonstrable increase could have that effect. Consequently an increase in concentration as predicted implies and increased adverse health risk in the exposed population."
"Cemex were in breach of strict conditions and put the public, at risk as well as creating a nuisance."


1900 kiln "system shown to be unstable again".
1945 kiln stopped, due to a kiln flush caused by a build-up of raw materials, which caused a "rush of cumulated material passing rapidly through the kiln into the clinker cooler. This is then diverted away from main CLINKER SILO into the REJECT CLINKER SILO. 7.35 tonnes of TSP emitted, and an estimated 70 kg of PM10. Gair report shows emission rate from stack of 4.55 grams a second which she said was double what it should be - being 2.2g/s. This was said to be a rate of 8 kilos PM10 an hour.

"Kiln flush forced a lot of hot raw meal through the kiln's cooler. The impact of this was the cooler grate hydraulic pumps tripped due to the weight of material on the grate affecting the sheer pins on the cooler Electro-static precipitator, so an ESP trip took place and there was dust emission into the cooler building. There was a minor fire in the cooler building and the spillage was too hot to clear up. The fine clinker dust from the flush escaped into the atmosphere on light wind SEVEN MILES per hour overall - to stick to properties 3.5 miles away.

FOOTNOTE: (this seven mile per hour wind quoted was not correct - wind speeds and directions were shown to be variable, and very low at that time about 1 metre per second which is about 2 mph)


10-2000 About 230 tonnes reject clinker was made.
2000-0000 "By midnight there had been 175 tonnes reject clinker produced, but the kiln had been stopped at 0600 so there was, as I understand it, no clinker produced after that up until midnight."



15 October 2005:
0100-0850 a lot of reject clinker made.
0235 a further 175 tonnes reject clinker made.
0300 a loud bang was reported by a resident to Cemex. "It's been much dustier than under normal conditions" says Cemex employee. An employee of Cemex visited the home of the complainant.


0830 dust found all over the rabbit hutches and cars. Many complaints to the Agency and Cemex from Long Lawford and Church Lawford. Shift manager took sample.

1000 MANY complaints to the Agency. Also one complaint on 16th at 11.45 that vening. The EA investigated the complaints and found them all to be totally justified. EA interviewed a Cemex employee: "The only information I can offer is that the dust may have come from the very small gap that's left remaining around the door and the small hole in the cladding could also have caused it." "Dust was confirmed on analysis as cement clinker dust. The source is the reject clinker silo."
1400 door effectively repaired.
1400 a total of 614 tonnes reject clinker had been made.

AGREED between Amanda Gair and Professor Harrison:
1. The offence.
2. The subsequent breaches resulting in public complaints.
3. Not agreed : to check doors each shift.
4. History of complaints arising from FUGITIVE dust releases, "so the defendant should have been better on guard".
5. Potential risk to human health.


KILN FLUSH:

AGENCY: "A kiln flush is a result of a chemical imbalance. Materials build up internally in those very large steel tubes, and builds up and builds up to level where it has GOT TO GO and it GOES WITH A FURY. And then there material comes straight through the system and goes into the system and out and through and into the REJECT CLINKER SILO."

JUDGE: "So a kiln flush is an event that can be anticipated being in the sense of it being a NATURAL RESULT of the process?"

AGENCY: "It can be anticipated, but it can't actually be seen."

JUDGE: " Kiln flushes are regulated by ENSURING THE CORRECT CHEMICAL BALANCE in the process., which reduces the likelihood of a kiln flush occurring", and reduces the likelihood of the material sticking.

CEMEX: have "Put in place procedures to try to reduce risk; not to eliminate it. Kiln flushes can occur, that have to be dealt with as best as possible. The company is being prosecuted for not properly checking a door, which on that particular day was aggravated by a kiln flush which is something beyond their control. The reality was that they could not have done anything about the kiln flush itself, and that undoubtedly did aggravate the size of the particles."

JUDGE: "So you would argue that whilst accepting there was pollution by Cemex on 14-15th October 2005 clearly other industrial producers around the area were creating a nuisance?" CEMEX:" We contributed less to the overall exposure than the background pollution arising from other sources. Dust released from the cement works would have increased PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations but any adverse health impact would have been small in relation to the factors arising from long term exposure to particles arising from other sources."


CEMEX: "This was not a case of profit being put before safety. It was relatively speaking a short-lived incident. Cemex did, AT LEAST, a temporary measure at about one o'clock on 14th October, leaving a gap of about one inch around the door. They could not repair it properly as the shift was ended. They completely repaired the door by two o'clock on the next day. Cemex had to continue to operate because hot materials were on the conveyor belts and within the kiln there is potential for significant and costly damage to occur. Irrespective of this the dust will need to be cleared from the cooler. The only option is to transfer it to the reject clinker silo. It was considered the chance of dust being released was remote.

It was a weighing up in the balance and a miscalculated risk in these circumstances rather than thinking "Hang it we'll go ahead." They had hot materials on the conveyor belt which had to be dealt with otherwise there could have been significant risk to the plant, something much more serious than we are dealing with now. There was potential health hazard to that."


CEMEX: "Why continue production when you know there is any fault? There would be three factors essentially playing:

1. Profit in this sense - if the hot materials had been allowed to remain on the conveyor belt the kiln would have completely collapsed and been destroyed completely shutting the plant.

2. There would have been a risk, albeit by all counts minimal, but a risk employees could be injured.

3. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, there would have been a VAST DUST EMISSION by the complete collapse of the plant in operation. They did a temporary repair, and there is not a kiln in the world that can withstand having hot materials on it while they wait for a repair to be done. It has to be dealt with. There is not a system in the world that they can put in place as it were to temper the situation. So even if they could have had the repairs within three hours they would still have had to keep the kiln operating. The breach was as a result of inadequate checks rather than none. We claim it was a) inadequate and b) it was at worst misinterpreted."



CEMEX: " I've printed off from the Environment Agency a Community Forum Summary simply to show that when the EA last year were assuring the public they were working together with Cemex and there have been some positive improvements although some difficulties, which have been outlined. There is little doubt that Cemex is a controversial company so far as local residents are concerned, which is why there are local community forums held on a regular basis."

CEMEX: "We have undertaken improvements to try to keep flying dust to a minimum, but I daresay the problem will not be completely eliminated."

JUDGEMENT:

The clinker dust was potentially hazardous and toxic; health impact of exposure to PM10 and PM2.5 increases with increasing exposure, an there is no demonstrable threshold concentration below which no adverse health effects occur. Anyone dealing with this material should take all forms of protection possible, because it is a severe eye irritant, and can cause effects on skin, and by ingestion of inhalation.

Environmental Checks were not completed: Fugitive Dust 6.5.1 "An inspection should be made of the whole site for any fugitive dust emissions. Any adverse findings should be acted upon and actions taken should be noted in the comments sheet.

It is incumbent on Cemex to ensure the plant is kept in as safe a condition as possible because of the potential ramifications of an escape of dust give, at times, the unstable nature of the process with which it is involved. Aggravating feature here is not just the imperfect repair but the fact that the kiln was restarted again at 2 o'clock. It is obviously part o the starting up process that a substantial quantity of dust emission is produced. That much is accepted by the Environment Agency and it is known that this would be beyond a certain level, but allowances are made as part of the start-up process.

There was an accepted risk of further instability in the kiln that manifested itself later that day. I am critical of Cemex for the lack of prompt repair once it had identified the problem. In my judgement this bespeaks a SLOPPY ATTITUDE in the first place; a sloppy attitude towards inspection of external doors such as this one. No regular inspection system, it was obviously insufficient, and there was no, or no adequate record keeping, of inspections. Previous warnings to Cemex or its predecessors have gone unheeded. Cemex was alive to previous complaints from residents and had had formal contact with the Environment Agency about previous problems of dust emission. My attention has been drawn to the substantial number of operational improvements which have either been put in place or it is intended to put in place over the course of this year and next. These include a daily door check and a specific door check sheet. Cemex say the incident was short-lived but it is clear from what has occurred that we are dealing with a period of 24 hours and probably in excess of that. Cemex have pleaded guilty and have apologised to the Community.

"We come to my conclusions about the appropriate penalty to impose. I have had to consider obviously the criminality, the seriousness of the offence against a back ground of what has occurred both directly in relation to the offence, and in the past, concerning the warnings and the operation of the plant. I impose simply a financial penalty on Cemex. I impose a fine of £400,000. In my judgement Cemex brought the prosecution on themselves. They had an opportunity to introduce expert evidence which could have been introduced before. I do not accept that the late arrival of Professor Harrison's report was enough to have warranted an adjournment. Equally if there was some force in that argument it was still open for Cemex to have produced written material, if they wished to rely upon it as they now do, at that hearing in August. Bearing in mind the amount and notwithstanding the obvious substance of the company I will allow time to pay and the fine and costs will be paid by close of business on Friday 10th November."