TOLD YOU SO!!!

And what have Rugby in Plume been saying all along?

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

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

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

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

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

CEMEX, BAT AND DUST ABATEMENT ENDS REPORT May 2007.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

# and to make no reply to it;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch this space.

WARWICKSHIRE WASTE STRATEGY

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

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

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

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

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

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

# the waste hierarchy.
# the proximity principle.

Other issues:

Traffic flow is an important factor.

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

How does the BPEO apply to it?

How does the Proximity Principle apply?

Not to mention all those extra thousands of lorry miles?

CEMEX -PROPOSED CLIMAFUEL BURNING

The Environment Agency are holding a PUBLIC SURGERY to give you an opportunity to talk through any concerns you about the proposed Climafuel burning trial at Cemex in Rugby.

The surgery will be held on 1 may 2007, 2.00pm to 8.00pm at NEW BILTON COMMUNITY CENTRE, 1 Gladstone Street, Rugby.

DAVID HUDSON, Environment Manager, and members of his team will be there to answer your questions. To ensure you have enough time to talk through your concerns, please contact CYNTHIA KNOWLES as soon as possible with your preferred arrival time.

CONTACT DETAILS:
01534-404967 and midscentral@environment-agency.co.uk

IF you are unable to attend please forward your questions and we will arrange to call you back to discuss them. I trust these options will provide adequate opportunity for you to contact us and give you the chance to raise your concerns."

TINA SCOTT TEAM LEADER EXTERNAL RELATIONS
TEL: 01543-404967
FAX; 01543-404931
midscentral@environment-agency.gov.uk

If you still don't know what Climafuel is..

The official line is:

Climafuel is a shredded, dry waste material that would typically consist of household refuse, screened paper, cardboard, wood, carpet, textiles and plastics. All recoverable materials are removed for recycling purposes, while the remaining waste is subjected to a rapid drying and composting process to produce a solid, clean and non-hazardous fuel.

Right.. So if "All recoverable materials are removed" then why is there still cardboard, wood and paper in the fuel?!?

How can this kind of fuel be described as a "clean and non-hazardous fuel" when it contains carpet, plastics and general household refuse?!?

How can the quality control of Climafuel be known when the source is household waste?
CEMEX can not guarantee the that household products high in cadmium and mercury, such as batteries, will not be in the fuel.

Burning of domestic waste in cement kilns cripples the drive to recycle as over 60% recycling produces a low energy fuel unsuitable for cement kilns. Energy in these fuels tends to derive from wood products (paper, cardboard etc) and plastics. These are exactly the products that society should be recycling more efficiently.

The burning of Climafuel will increase the fine dust particles (2 micron particles) that directly effect health. No requirement is placed on CEMEX or the Environment Agency to monitor levels of fine particles under 10 microns (pm10).

If you care about your air you MUST ask questions.

REGULATION AND COMPLIANCE?

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY NOW ADMIT:

TO NOT:
knowing if the Rugby Cement plant is stable, or not;
knowing when the plant is "started up";
knowing when waste/tyres are being burnt;
knowing what the emissions are;
knowing what the health effects are;
knowing why Rugby residents are worried.

WE KNOW NOTHING!

Take a deap breath before reading..

ACCOUNT OF RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM 24 JANUARY 2007. VESTING HEALTH EXPERTS ON HEALTH PROTECTION, LOCAL DATA, AND CEMENT PLANT REGULATION.

1. PLUME MODELLING DIFFICULTIES AND EXPOSURE (LP: NOTE THIS IS NOT A CEMENT PLANT EXAMPLE: NO MENTION OF ALL THE DIFFERENT PLUMES/STACKS ON SITE ONLY A MAIN STACK IN THIS EXAMPLE)

TIM DAVIES WARWICKS NHS: I mentioned we have not tried to model a plume, modelling plumes is not my area of expertise but I do know enough to know that it is full of difficulty, like what sort of weather conditions you will have and where it will come down, and it will change, and all sorts of things so we went for the simplistic way. The cement factory is here and we went for - not quite circled around it. If you wanted to do something about the plume now what would you do - you would draw it, and...... It is quite difficult to do.....given that it changes and therefore the exposure in different areas will be different from day to day, its then quite difficult to put that in.

ROY MCCARTHY: Well the wind blows in this area for something like 280 days a year in the same direction....
TD: well it is something you could do if people wanted to see that sort of analysis. It would raise questions about the population exposed... Type of population and age and what is coming out of the stack and the concentrations and it would only give you an estimate of impact but what it does not give you is any objective data on exposure. It gives you a general things about the direction the plume is in, but it does not give you the exposure. The key thing is not what is coming out of the stack, but what people are exposed to....

CAROLYN ROBBINS: Thank you for presentation and questions.

DR PAT SAUNDERS HPA: (giving an example of a MAIN STACK ONLY plume model and health effects - NOT A CEMENT PLANT) We have here Plume dispersion model in another plant - see south westerly wind and the grey areas are where the concentration is highest so you would say the people who live in the shaded areas are more likely to be exposed than these areas, so you get a curious protective effect from living closer to a stack. But this is still only a statistic. And these models have not been validated using personal exposure data. They have been validated using environmental data, but that isn't necessarily the same as the exposure data. A personal bugbear of mine is that these models take no notice of personal behaviour - they presume that anyone living hear is going to be breathing that stuff in 24 hours a day - it takes no account of people working, nor how long they have lived there, not how much time they spend indoors, and the types of processes. I think that is grossly misleading.


2. HPA SUGGESTS LOOKING ON NATIONAL BASIS AT SIMILAR SITES (LP: WHEREVER THEY MIGHT BE SIMILAR TO RUGBY?)

PAT WYATT: statistics only as good as you want them to be.. Why have we wasted all this time when we could have done other things. We could have
done a study - cement is hazardous and dioxins are not measured - if Dr Saunders would live in Rugby in this dusty area?
PS: Yes.
CR: What exactly is your question Pat - are you just asking Dr Saunders if he would live here?
PW: No I am asking him about the HPA and that the statistics in this area can't really tell us anything?
PS: "It is a very fair point. In terms of single site studies the considerable scepticisms of expending resources on those sorts of studies. If science suggests any sort of relationship WE SHOULD BE LOOKING ON A NATIONAL BASIS AND LOOKING AT DOZENS OF SIMILAR SITES"
(LP: Where would they find EVEN one similar site like RUGBY to compare with?)
You could then expand the numbers. If the evidence of the science tells us that there is a plausible link between exposure to chemical X and health effect and the source of those chemicals is A SPECIFIC plant certainly we would be prepared to look at a large scale study. But in order to justify the costs it would have to be compelling as it is hugely expensive.


3. NUISANCE AND STATUTORY NUISANCE AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS:
WHAT EXPOSURE IS "RECOMMENDED" TO TOXIC POLLUTANTS?
DOES EXPOSURE TO CEMENT PLANT EMISSIONS EQUATE TO NUISANCE?

LILIAN P: What sort of daily exposure/dose of chemicals such as thallium;cadmium; Arsenic; mercury do you recommend? We know the plant gives these out and falls down in the vicinity .. The people have constant exposure to this.. 350,000 people die in Europe every year from air pollution - we know that even the EA and Cemex say that children should not live near the cement works, so is there a recommended daily dose of pollutants?
PS: It is offensive to suggest that people should be exposed...
LP: No no.. I....
PS: the clear indication from your question is that I would recommend the public to be exposed to toxic chemicals and for the record I am a public health professional of 30 years experience, and have spent entire 30 year career studying effects of pollution.

The question about exposure to "nuisance" is a matter for the LA and the LA would need to assess it if there is a "nuisance", that would be statutory nuisance and they are under an obligation to investigate it. You also made a statement that people are being exposed to that cocktail of chemicals and I cannot comment on that I am not involved personally in this particular issue, but I am sure if you could show us data I am sure my colleagues in the HPA would look at it. If you supply them with data that demonstrates exposure then we would be perfectly prepared to assess that. I am not aware of that. I don't know if the Environment Agency are aware??? (THERE WAS A LONG PAUSE AND NO ANSWER)

CR: I have got Martin. MARTIN EVERSFIELD: .. About asbestosis..... Then the nuisance is not the responsibility of the Local Authority but of the Environment Agency.
SEAN LAWSON: This is not a question for Dr Saunders to answer.. We have been through this before. We have been going over this ground on a number of occasions at different forums. The emissions from the cement plant are principally covered by the PERMIT issued by the EA, and they are the regulatory force upon it. STATUTORY NUISANCE IS EXCLUDED. We have exhausted that. There are perhaps other things we can move on to.
CR: Do you have a specific question?

Martin: You alluded to prevailing wind and weather conditions damping down - so I ask you..? And the other question is what factors you would recommend we investigate in Rugby? Are we on the right track or the wrong one?
PS: There are three issues there. I may have mislead the group in my answers about statutory nuisance. It was not specifically about Rugby Cement - I was talking in general terms. So the next question was.. Once you have made the decision there is something plausible then clearly you would want to take
into account weather conditions and you would want to consider some very heavy duty environmental monitoring. But that would follow a decision as to whether there was justification for a single site study. And that would mean data by emissions; environmental monitoring data ; health assessment data - all to be provided provided. I would certainly be prepared to be involved in making those sort of judgements and and I understand colleagues in the HPA have provided that sort of support.


4. INDUSTRY HAS TO COMPLY WITH PERMIT TO BE SAFE: INDUSTRY HAS TO COMPLY AND ADHERE TO CONDITIONS AND STANDARDS: SHORT TERM EXPOSURE VERSUS LONG TERM EXPOSURE:

CR: In view of time limits I have 5 more people:
NEIL SANDIS0N: What would be interesting is how you measure short term exposure against cumulative exposure. We would be on seventh heaven here at this site - we have a cement plant, a landfill nearby, 3 big primary schools in close proximity. It was very interesting what you said about expectant mothers, how it may be passed on. How would you measure? We have had several pollution incidents over a number of years; how would you measure that short term exposure - problems with eyes and skin - with cumulative exposure are the sort of concerns we have with respiratory and bronchial problems? I accept that what was said about it being difficult to measure but Clearly they are the concerns aren't they?
PS: It is very difficult to do. We would work on the basis that ALL the regulated industries would HAVE to COMPLY with the CONDITIONS set by the Regulators. We have confidence in those standards - IF THEY ARE APPLIED - and IF IF THEY ARE ADHERED TO THEY ARE PROTECTIVE OF PUBLIC HEALTH.

5. HOW TO DECIDE IF LOCAL STUDY IS NECESSARY AND TO ENGAGE WITH COMMUNITY:
CONFOUNDING FACTORS:

NS: How do you intend in engaging with the local community for working out parameters for your study?
PS: Firstly there is the process to go through to determine whether the study should be conducted or not. Then once that decision has been made and at some stage that would involve liaison with the local community. Then various options open to the local Health Agencies: there are existing bodies; Community forum like this could be appropriate. BUT before you get to that stage once you have made the decision then it is imperative to involve the community. That does not necessarily mean that the community would get everything it thought it should do, but at least it should be part of the design of the study itself. But the step before that is when the Agencies have to make a decision on whether it is justified to make a study at all. I do not know at this stage whether that decision has been made in this circumstance? If you are asking me about Rugby Cement then I cannot comment on data, but in terms of principles the community involvement would have to be in the design plan. But a decision would have to be made by professionals with support from academics as to whether was study was necessary.

CHRIS HOLMAN: One of the factors we have not taken into account in New Bilton is half a mile to east was a foundry that lit up every morning and threw out an enormous amount of emissions and no controls. People worked there and with no masks and lived locally in New Bilton so environmentally there are a number of issues that PREDATE anything to do with the cement plant.
(LP: a cement plant has been here since about 1860 - the new one since February 2000.)
PS: That is an important statement and a very important potential confounder.
CH: As Lilian alluded to earlier there is still a pile of foundry sand right besides the houses and is also being built on.

6. DUST AND LOCAL POLLUTION - WORRIES FOR NEW BILTON AND LONG LAWFORD. CEMENT PLANT WORKERS WEAR MASKS - ISSUES FOR LOCAL COMMUNITY. DIFFERENT ASPECTS:

ROY SANDISON: There are studies about workers in cement plants. One of the worries I had was the bagging plant - they had masks - I think there are
issues. Clearly the perception in new Bilton is extreme worry about the health consequences. When you look in your window and there is all dust - that does worry you. We all worry because we know that a few years ago they said that smoking was not bad for you - now we know passive smoking is bad for you. A few years ago asbestos was not bad for you as well. Now clearly, clearly, the problem is, and I don't want to be unkind, but there are different positions on different studies in terms of small area studies, and clearly we would if we had had the PRESENTATION before tonight we might have been able to put in different positions. That is the problem. If you will not agree, that there are different positions? This is Rugby and clearly there is a high level of worry that the EA has picked up on. We cannot just take one position. Next week we should discuss this again as there may be an alternative position to what has been discussed today.
PS: I agree there will be other opinions but I have not seen any official guidance from any Agency in the world that would contradict what I have said here today. All the guidance differs in emphasis, but it is all based on the same hierarchical approach and you need to tick certain boxes before you go on to study and those boxes are as I described: environment data; environmental exposure; plausibility; and spatial, temporal, biological. I don't think you will find any technical scientific data that will be different at all.

GARETH PREWETT: Not much difference between near and far - statistically. We have discussed so many times the exceedences, and the shut downs, and cement mills and for my case I have seen hundreds and hundreds of belching trucks going through our town. I have white dust all over my car and then I have to walk my children to school all in that. Regardless of what the statistics say I think in a few years time we will reap the benefit of that. The people in New Bilton suffer from deprivation, but they cannot do anything else. It seems to me if the cement works were not there then they would not have to live in that environment. I just wonder what is in the air - I have this cement plant in front of my lounge window. I find it odd that you come here and say it makes no effect.
PS: I do take your point, but I am talking about the difficulties of doing studies. For the circumstances you describe I have tremendous sympathy. In terms of you doing a small area study to substantiate your concerns... The difficulty is..
GP: You come out with these statements and then you seem to retract them. You say there is no problem. You seem to be disagreeing - one moment you say there is no risk to the people of Rugby, and we are all breathing good air, and have good health, and then you seem to say it is very difficult to get the data.
PS: Dr Davies was describing "large areas", which is routine, and I am talking about those "small areas" and focussing on an area round a particular plant, or several conditions, but the circumstances you describe regarding the dust it seems self evident that I cannot comment on the specific fact, but

it seems to me IF THE PLANT IS NOT OPERATING TO ITS REGULATED CONDITIONS THEN SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IT. And you don't need to be looking for some kind of health assessment to validate that - EITHER THE PLANT IS COMPLIANT OR IT IS NOT! And that has always been our view and we advise health authorities and Local Authorities all over the country. And the first priority is make sure the plant is COMPLYING with the STANDARDS. Everything else is subsidiary to that.
GP: Lilian mentioned chemicals off the top of her head, and we know they are being emitted from the chimney. It is the nature of the process. Does zinc come out of the chimney?
CR: I understand what you are saying Gareth but what you are asking of Dr Saunders is not relevant. They are technical questions for the right people.
GP: I understand, but I am trying to make a point that it is difficult for us to take on board the figures that we have had the figures of Dr Davies when there seems to be a view by yourself - if I understand what you are saying - that it is too difficult to measure the impact?
PS: On a single site basis yes. It is very challenging to do - not impossible - but very challenging and you really have to meet the criteria I have laid out today. We are talking about two different things.
GP: Are we talking about the environment of the cement works?
PS: NO.


7. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE TO BE APPLIED : PARTICULATE AND PEOPLE TO STOP DRIVING CARS

CR: We must move on. Very quickly then.
NOREEN NEW: I am confused that unless we have facts that people are suffering illnesses we cannot actually say there is a problem? I am confused - because you are in health protection, and we have to get ill first and then?
PS: No I did not say that.
NN: My point of view is that surely if we have precautionary principle should we not say that prevention is better than cure.
PS: Yes but Precautionary Principle does not mean we will not do "anything" just in case.
NN: But we KNOW there is a problem.
PS: NO! we do NOT KNOW there is a problem. I do not know about this particular case, but over the years I know you cannot say that until you have investigated the exposure and health effects. I did not say that you have to wait until you have health effects, but that in order to justify, you should. If there is an exceedence of a health-based standard you just address the issue. You don't need a health based study. If there is a statutory nuisance, and I am not referring to Agency regulated processes, you abate it. If there is an excess of disease then you investigate it - an excess of disease from the health agency. They need to investigate it. But unless you have got the data we cannot ..
NN: But we know that particulate causes problems and ..
PS: Then in that case everyone would stop driving cars.
NN: That is a separate issue. We are discussing an industrial process not cars.
PS: All right then, if this plant, is this plant then the source of exceedence of..
NN: particulates yes
SEAN LAWSON: (barely audible) matter of public record
CR: I think we are getting bogged down in an area that is not relevant to this area of discussion.

8. INCONCLUSIVE ON FACTS AND EVIDENCE ABOUT THE AREA - IS CEMENT PLANT AND TYRE BURNING SAFE? ONUS OF PROOF TO BE ON THEM TO PROVE IT - NOT ON US.

ROY MCARTHY: I think you have convinced us that what we are looking at is inconclusive facts and evidence, but you are shaking your head. We are the people who may suffer if this is not right, but surely if someone is asking to do something that causes even the slightest risk of health to our children and community then surely the onus is on them to prove to us that this thing will be safe, and at their expense, rather than the way we are going around. We are all fluffing around, but we want to know is IS THIS THING SAFE? AND CAN IT BURN TYRES? From the information we have that is NOT THE CASE so why this INDECENT HASTE to let the people do this dreadful thing and to burn tyres in the community?
PS: I cannot comment on the specifics but what you describe is a matter for the regulators and the regulators WILL enforce health based standards - so that SHOULD happen. And my experience is that the regulator enforces health based standards and if these standards are breached there is an OBLIGATION to do something about it. I think that system already exists. The HPA certainly has confidence in the regulatory process - that is presuming that the Law is enforced and is adhered to. If a process, an unspecified process, does not operate to the standards that apply for it, then that is another issue. But the health based standards are based on a wealth of evidence and research and are the best available standards to us at the current time.
RM: The question is who is the onus of proof on? But we have stuff being pumped out of the chimney and who has the onus to say if they can burn tyres?
CR: That is the Environment Agency.
RM: They should be able to tell us that it is definitely safe, sufficient assurance, but based on what Dr Saunders says it is definitely not.
CR: That is not what he said at all.
RM: He said it is inconclusive. Can you answer that Dr Saunders?
PS: No I am sorry. I don't agree with that statement. I CANNOT COMMENT ON
THE SPECIFICS OF THIS PLANT.
RM: I am not asking you to do that. The current information as presented tonight is inconclusive.
CR: You are misrepresenting what Dr Saunders said - I am moving on.


9. REASONS WHY HPA IS HERE TONIGHT - AND COMMUNITY FRUSTRATION. NEW BILTON AND AREAS NEAR CEMENT PLANT ARE DEPRIVED AND POLLUTED. GET DOUBLE WHAMMY.

DIANE PASK: Can I just say I would like to reiterate why Dr Saunders is here tonight - out of constant questions about small studies, and to explain that the PCT stance was always, and still is, that they have a lot of difficulties in proving anything, and that is why Dr Saunders is here. But having said that I have sat here this evening quite disappointed and frustrated because we are saying that small studies are not that much help and we are also seeing statistics that on the face of it don't appear to be telling us what we think they should be. I think therefore there is frustration in the community, so where do we go? There are problems, we see the problems, we experience the problems, we hear the problems. We cannot have a small study, and the statistics on the surface seem to show no problem, and are not that much help. So where can we go? And I would also like to say in relation to that there is a huge research that toxicity can affect the human cells in a very bad way, and that people who eat well can withstand that much more than people who don't. Therefore I say the people who we are hearing are deprived are facing a double whammy, as they do not have the money to buy the right kind of nutrition to fend of the toxins that they are being exposed to. The frustration is high.
CR: I don't think Dr Saunders can answer that it is nothing to do with the discussion.

GOVERNMENT AGREES WITH LILIAN

(click pic above to enlarge)

As Cemex Rugby plant suffers a renewed and prolonged attack of "SHY PLUME SYNDROME", a cement plant affliction, seemingly brought about by the 24 hour presence of the RIP web cam, Lawford resident Gareth asks in the Postbag of the Rugby Advertiser:

COULD IT BE THAT LILIAN WAS "RIGHT ALL ALONG?"

"A recent presentation (or softening up process) arranged by Long Lawford Parish Council, allowed Cemex the opportunity to pedal their usual 'trust us we're a clean company' credentials.

It became apparent, yet again, that as with their tyre burning assault on our air quality, they cannot answer even the simplest of questions regarding the chemical content of the material they wish to burn. Consequently they can make no solid claims regarding the effluence leavings their chimney, which continuously falls on us.

They were happy to pass round the audience a biscuit barrel containing some fluffy material (how quaint) and to press home the fact that organic matter and metals were removed. However, when pressed to provide a list of the chemicals present in the 'fluffy stuff' on display, the usual silence fell on the room.

When Cemex was asked for the chemical constituents of the tyres, prior to being given permission to burn them, they studiously avoided the subject.
How nice to see some things never change.

If you want insight into what the company intends for our future generations, then take a glance at the new Government sponsored advice on the advertising billboard by the cement works on Lawford Road warning of the dangers of smoking.

Apparently it is not the 15 per cent of smoke you can see that will kill you, but the 85 per cent of TOXIC FUMES that you can't see which is much more lethal.

It would seem Lilian Pallikaropoulos was right all along!
Even the government agrees with her!"

CEMEX MAY DEVALUE HOUSES:
WHINGEING TO START!
Says a letter in the Rugby Observer.

"I have read recent letters on Cemex/Rugby Cement with interest. Protecting the HEALTH of one's family is PARAMOUNT for most people.

Environmental reports are becoming commonplace as part of the house buying process, not just for the property itself but for the surrounding area.

I wonder how long it will take before Rugby and nearby villages keep losing purchasers due to Cemex burning hazardous materials; and the worrying dust showers? That's when the real whingeing will start!"

800 Lorries now..burning issue!

ROW RUMBLES ON OVER PLANT STABILITY:
Tyre burning at the Cemex New works plant has started again - when and IF they can get the plant working, with its brand new bag filter!

And the burning of London's household and commercial waste - described as "Climafuel" - along with the tyres, coal and petcoke, is now imminent. RBC councillors, officers, and an expert, have said in a Report that this is UNLIKELY to cause ADDITIONAL risks to health. But they have added an almost impossible-to-meet proviso that this should "ONLY" be carried out in a "STABLE" plant. And "Cemex will have to strengthen the plans significantly to prove further evidence of its safety in the town."

For seven years the Environment Agency has refused to answer any questions about plant stability, and the unlimited hours of operation when no Emission Limits are in force. The new STACK CAM shows how very many hours downtime there are, and how the plant occasionally puffs into life and then dies again. It admirably demonstrates plumes from different point sources at the plant.

The Rugby Advertiser Editor's Viewpoint:
"The Environment Agency in its wisdom has made its decision. It is unfortunate that there have been incidents which have "dusted" cars and homes in the vicinity (not to mention stripping paint off cars!) This must be very irritating and a little worrying when you think about the dusty particles in the air when this happens.

Anyway the decisions have been made and I know that despite this Rugby in Plume campaigners will continue their protests. That is their right. In essence I go with their concerns, but I think it is now time to move on.

The new main issue has to be the number of lorries thundering round the town each day. I think I remember the figure of 200 lorries a day, (at the turn of the century in the first year of operation maybe?) but certainly there is a constant flow of heavy vehicles trundling round the town each day.

Quite apart from the NUISANCE and the POLLUTION (Goodness knows what our carbon imprint is like?) this has got to be CAUSING DAMAGE in the streets and ROCKING the foundations of our buildings."

IS TRAIN TO SOUTHAM THE ANSWER?
"Whatever happened to the proposed re-opening of the railway between Rugby and Southam to deal with this freight? Although I think there was a plan and it was shelved, I think it is time to reconsider!"

HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU?
# The railway was always a red-herring and was always a non-starter, but Warwickshire County Council has deliberately caused all this harm to Rugby town, giving extra permissions all the time without considering the "damage and destruction" they allow.

# Actually only the 70 (?) lorries coming from Southam daily loaded with clay would use that route - and those returning empty, or loaded with steaming hazardous bypass dust that has been dumped unlawfully at Southam since 2000, using WCC's extended "temporary " planning permissions for INERT Cement Kiln Dust - without any IPPC Permit.

# The other 600 or so HGVs daily are going to, and coming from, other places and would not use any railway - even if Rugby people paid for it ourselves!

# WCC stopped the Western Relief Road from being built, to allow Rugby Cement time to contemplate IF it would like the railway to "nowhere" to open - but of course it would not, as hardly any lorries travel that route.

WHY TELL THE TRUTH?
When lies are all they know? Of course Rugby Cement did not tell the truth about what they were building; what the emissions would be; what the total number of HGVs would be; and what any environmental impact would be.

The gullible WCC planners said, initially, regarding the planning application: 4 July 1994: " The large increase in HGV traffic proposed appears to raise some doubts as to whether the existing network could cope. Consequently there must be considerable doubt as to the acceptability of the proposal."

But Brian Cole Associates of Wellingborough put in a lorry plan saying the maximum movements going in would be 173 and going out would be 229. They added that up to be 403 lorry movements a day. Then that became 806 lorry movements a day.
Then 16 December 1994 BCAL wrote again to WCC: " We enclose for your attention a copy of the TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT. The report concludes that the effect of the proposed works traffic will have no significant impact in terms of NOISE: VIBRATION; AIR QUALITY. Rugby Cement said that the Rugby Cement old plant "has on occasions generated up to 365 HGV trips, and as a result of this UPGRADE a further 446 trips could be generated." A most unlikely story!

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL :
"From a practical point of view the increases in heavy vehicle movements on Parkfield road and Lawford Road are likely to be unacceptable in environmental and safely terms."

The Environment Agency (13/3/95) itself was not at all concerned with the traffic that the Agency was FORCING into Rugby - and they wrote to Rugby Cement : "If you do not provide the necessary data and need an extended period then we may delay issuing the IPC Permit." In the event Rugby Cement did not FINISH its IPC application until FOUR YEARS LATER on 16 JUNE 1999!!! Then they decided with the EA; and RBC to HIDE the application from the public, so there would be NO CONSULTATION and NO REALISATION as to what was built. Any delay in the IPC permitting would have inevitably have lead to an ESSENTIAL LAWFUL IPPC application being made, as the EU Directive 96/61/EC was due to be implemented on 1 November 1999.

PULLING THE WOOL TO GET UNLAWFUL IPC PERMIT - UNDER THE WIRE.
So all three authorities involved and Rugby Cement colluded together to hide the application.
The Agency gave an UNLAWFUL IPC permission on 8 September 1999 - to get it in under the wire, without the public having any opportunity to say, or indeed even to ask, ANYTHING at all about the works;

# the pollution;
# the raw materials;
# the fuels;
# the emission limits:
# the lorries;
# the 18 low level sources;
# the fugitive emissions;
# the TOTAL BURDEN.

POOR RUGBY RESIDENTS:
What they do not know will not harm them - MUCH!

New Webcam Under Test

Those more astute of you out there would have noticed an attractive little camera image on the top right of the blog. Those even more observant will see a new link on the right to the domain 'RugbyWebcam.com'.

Refresh the blog and the little picture will refresh everytime.. Click the link, and in full screen, you can see the plume in all it's glory billowing across the rooftops 24 hours a day.

Although we are still under test and the camera operation is sporadic, please let us know if you see anything untoward happening at the works.

Things to look out for:

The plume dipping and 'grounding'.

A thick black plume.

An intermittant plume starting and stopping. (Especially in the middle of the night like now!)

Please feel free to document what you see by clicking the 'Snapshot' button on the top right. This can then be emailed to me (lilian @ rugbytown.org) and the enviroment agency as evidence.

I would like to thank Ron Lewis for sending in the following photo and although the UFO pictured is all very interesing, I think we have our own IDENTIFIED flying objects to worry about. :)


So OK guys.. It's eyes to the skys.. If our council won't police the polluters then we shall!

Tyre Burning Whitewash

PERSISTENT POLLUTION AND PROVOCATION OF THE PUBLIC PROMOTES PAINTING.

As Cemex takes court action against DEFRA and the European Commission (Case T-13/07 - 2007/C 56/70) for an increased allocation of CO2, for its uneconomic and energy-hungry, inefficient, unsustainable, semi-wet process coincinerator, (and other pollutants/green house gases), it also begins to burn tyres, with London's household and commercial waste already in the pipeline.

Public dissatisfaction in Rugby is at an all-time high, and the authorities seeking to allay public health fears about the impact of persistent pollution have come up with this novel masterplan!

In a prime example of "Partnership Working and Co-operation" Rugby Borough Council and Cemex today joined forces with the Environment Agency, sending out the usual army of car and window cleaners, but this time with a different mission.


Fed up with investigating the frequent streams of complaints about plumes and dust coatings and coming up with the following excuses:

# Saharan sand;
# Icelandic volcanic ash;
# bonfire night;
# construction of a garden shed;
# excess pollen;
# pre-school sand pit;
# excess use of talcum powder;
# influx of carpet beaters;
# to name but a few...

..the powers that be have today decided to paint the town "cement-dust grey" - and as of today all cars, windows, houses, streets, roadsigns, conservatories, garden furniture will be monochrome.

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.