MAKING MONKEYS

(click to enlarge print and wear!)

..OF RUGBY RESIDENTS YET AGAIN!

Speaking of Rugby residents a reliable source informed "They have been duped yet again. It is easy when you know how. We do it all the time. Making monkeys is us!"


PUBLIC CONSULTATION ANYONE?
The new-Labour Environment Agency promised much - "better regulation; open transparent governance; access to information; public participation; adequate effective meaningful consultation; environmental protection; air quality and health improvements; stricter controls on industry...."
The EA already had the Cemex Application to increase tyre burning by 100% was by 12th July, but "somehow" it was omitted from the July 18th RCCF meeting, and now we are being scrambled to consider it on 29th August, with only five days notice. No time to inform the public either! Typical.


RBC ON EXTRA TYRE BURNING * "While it is accepted that the statutory period for consultation is 28 days it is not considered appropriate for the voluntary sector, which have valid reasons to consider this application. Under the Warwickshire Compact Agreement 12 weeks is normally provided for consultation, in line with Government recommendations. "
* "Only 2 weeks is proposed for the trials. This is considered very short especially as new bag filters have been fitted and the proposal is a SIGNIFICANT increase in tyres as a substitute fuel. (100%.)"
* "The previous tyre burning trials had shown an increase in respirable particulates. The area has elevated levels of particulate. The Council requests the impact of the trials on particulate emissions be closely monitored and carefully considered."


BUNCH OF FLOWERS BUYS OFF TOWN - COMMUNITY MATTERS?
The Cemex Rugby Cement Plant Community Matters newsletter has dropped on the mat of the lucky few thousand houses in the areas CV21 and CV23 nearest the works. Funny it is not delivered in the town centre, nor of course in the nearby Rugby School conservation area, where residents seemingly do not need to know, and do not breath the same air? The latest charitable donations, £125,000 to Church Lawford Village Hall, and unspecified sums to RBC for the Rugby in Bloom competition are proudly announced. Never let it be said that these "timely select donations" are not specifically designed to buy-off, divide up, or compensate sections of the Community.

As the World Business Council for Sustainable Development admitted, the cement industry is not sustainable in the long term. It advised the cement industry to target decision makers, divide up the politicians, and to deal with protesters by isolating them or by engaging them in things the cement industry wants them to do, to keep them busy, and to keep the population happy by telling them plausible stories for the future.


TIME FOR REFRESHMENT?
Cemex say: "In a recent report to RBC Sean Lawson, Head of Environmental Health Services set out the options for the future of the Rugby Cement Community Forum or RCCF.
The RCCF was set up over five years ago to provide a means for the community and the company to meet, exchange information and examine any issues concerning the plant's operation. It was, he states, a short term measure which should now be reviewed. A number of options were presented and these included carrying on in its present form, disbanding it completely, or passing the responsibility (and the expense) to the company.
He believed that the Forum had become 'adversarial in nature' and this had contributed to it not achieving its objectives.

It is certainly more common practice for such liaison to be facilitated and financed by the company involved and it was this option that was accepted. However a final decision has been put off until later in the year. If the original decision is upheld, independent research would be carried out to establish the make-up and organisation of a new liaison group and how this can best serve the needs of the community."

WISHFUL THINKING CEMEX!
This "Option" has been "called in" by some environmentally aware Councillors. The Tory Cabinet have had their knuckles wrapped over their hasty and non-constitutional decision to disband the RCCF. A scrutiny exercise is being conducted into this apparent abuse of process, and into the aims and objectives of those who started this action.

BUNKUM!
As for Sean Lawson's Report to RBC Cabinet Rugby in Plume say how will handing over control to Cemex improve things? And if the RCCF has been ineffectual it is because:
* The so-called exchange of information is incomplete, stilted, censored, often misleading, and has to be dragged out, like pulling teeth.
* Neither the EA nor Cemex (nor hapless RBC) are capable of answering a basic straight question with a straight answer.
* Their objective appears to get away with telling us as little as possible.
* They do not tell us about incidents at the works, malfunctions,emission limit exceedences, and vital Public Register information is never presented.
Forum members have to dig it out.
* They hide data for months and even years.
* The Agency takes months and years to investigate pollution incidents and in the meantime tells the RCCF they may not discuss them.
* The consultations appear targeted at holiday periods, presumably in the hope the public eye is "off the ball!" and the RCCF numbers are down.
* The "consultations" fit neatly in between the four annual RCCF meetings, the dates of which are planned over year in advance, so that in effect the Forum as a body never ever discusses the variations and applications.
* The RCCF was never said to be only a "short-term measure".
* The RCCF declined the offer of reverting to the previous model where RMC would not permit the public, controlled the agenda, the venue, and minutes.
* The RCCF suggested Cemex should fund the RCCF as it is now - in line with the Polluter Should Pay principal - in an open and publicly accessible venue.
* The RCCF asked RBC how much the Community, (only trying to protect itself), has had to pay to subsidise Cemex, and its ever ongoing new applications for variations, planning permissions, changes to equipment, storage, waste raw materials, waste "fuels", increased emission limits. extra HGVs etc? How do these compare with the industry hand-outs?

SET UP NEW COMMITTEE TO FOOL PUBLIC
The track record of the Rugby Cement, the Environment Agency and RBC shows that they resort to setting up a new committee when they are discretely trying to slip in something unpalatable.

LIAISON GROUP 1999 QUITE UNAWARE and UNINFORMED
They had a Rugby Cement Liaison Group controlled by the works, and in June 1999 they tried to get away without following the LAWFUL PROCESS, and to evade the IPC Consultation for the new plant. So they formed a new committee involving many uninformed Councillors. Karen Stone, (Sean Lawson's predecessor), was then Director of Environmental Health, along with a Mr Cudlip who was in declining health. Dianne Colley was the Chief Executive and is now living comfortably on a pension after taking early retirement on ill-health grounds when it had all become too much for her! And for us!! Karen Stone was involved in secret meetings with the Agency about why this IPC application is "different", and "special", and why it is not following the "standard procedure."
FAILINGS AT IPC IN JUNE 1999
* IPC was "mentioned" once in passing at an early 1999 Liaison meeting, but the RBC and EA officers did not bring the consultation to the attention of the members, and Councillors. * They all now refuse to answer questions about why this deceit took place... and who decided they should do it.
* The Agency refused to provide copies of the IPC application being "duly made", and refused to give any copies of the "fees" that should have been paid for the IPC application.
* Neither RMC nor the Agency have any copy of the essential IPC advertisement, and the Agency admits to having no responses from the public because, as we now know, the public and the "gullible" Liaison Group had been bypassed completely, and kept in ignorance.
* RBC finally admitted that some officer/s at the Council had decided to completely ignore the IPC application they had received in June 1999 for the one month consultation. They have no records, no minutes, and no memory of who made that decision nor by what procedure this decision to "do nothing" had been arrived at.
* Whoever decided to act in this way wilfully committed the Rugby residents to many more years of unnecessary excess pollution, and deliberately damaged the environment, and air quality for Rugby people. What motivated them to get a lesser protection and a much lower standard than should have been enforced at that time?
* RBC and the Agency bypassed the lawful process. The Agency claims that Rugby Cement was responsible for the failure to advertise the mandatory consultation, for the IPC application which was completed on 16 June 1999. But surely this demonstrates the Agency's failure to regulate?

RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM OCTOBER 2002
The Liaison Group bumbled along, controlled, ineffective, secretive, minutes unavailable, until the time the public were in revolt as they had been told there was a "tyre burning application". Straight after its construction the cement plant was suddenly to become a co-incinerator. The growing public awareness was that they had been duped by: Warwickshire County Council planning office; by Rugby Borough Council planning and environmental health; by the Environment Agency's failings; and by Rugby Cement.

Even the Liaison group was not told there was an IPPC application - and were given copies of a tyre burning summary, and colour sheets about the joys of alternative fuels. The full IPPC application was deemed duly made on 31 August 2001, but the public were not informed. The "Tyre Burning meetings" were being held and for a year the Agency, unbeknown to the Liaison Group and the public, was collecting extra information from RMC, in correspondence dated 21 December 2001; 1 March 2002; 5 March 2002; 28 March; 3 May; 31 May and finally 5 June when the Agency advised RMC to revise the whole site plan for the application. So you see the level of ignorance even included not knowing exactly what the site included, and what the public and Council were actually supposed to be being consulted on.

The June 2002 Liaison Group meeting was cancelled without warning, and a new committee was set up seven months later in October 2002. Initially this was run by a Public Relations Company, Green Issues, hired by RMC. These carried out the first two meetings "in order to get the Critical Success Factors through" before new members understood the significance of them. Only the few hand-selected councilors were permitted to vote, and the voluntary sector community group members were treated as second class citizens. The January and April 2003 RCCF meetings saw the Agency evade all questions until after the IPPC Decision had been made - August 2003.

OTHER NEWS - FILTER BOOST
"Rugby Cement plant's new £6.5 million bag filter is performing well beyond expectations by achieving 80% reduction in dust emissions, despite having operated well inside the dust emission level allowed by its Environment Agency Permit." "The bag filter is replacing the kiln ESP, which collects dust, mainly chalk, to recycle back into the process". One wonders to which permit they are referring? Meanwhile the gases from the clinker cooler ESP and bypass ESP emit from the main stack, without passing through the bag filter.

A LITTLE SYMPATHY IS CALLED FOR
Cemex confirm that "at present adequate supplies of material of a consistent quality are limited in the UK, due to the slow progress in the development of mechanical biological treatment plants to process waste and meet the industry's rigorous specifications for a quality fuel, and Cemex is already HAVING to import waste (Climafuel) from Holland for burning at South Ferriby and possibly Barrington." Spare a thought for them "having" to import household waste!

SURVEY OF RESIDENTS IN THE VICINITY OF CEMEX PLANTS
The newsletter contained a Liaison Group Questionnaire for residents to complete. "It is important to us to be aware of your views"....fill in and post, or download from http://www.cemex.co.uk/su/su_co.html

LOST - ONE CEMENT PLANT.

£50 REWARD.

(I see no cement plant?)????

LAND REGISTRY DENY VERY EXISTENCE OF RUGBY CEMENT!
WCC, RBC, & AGENCY CARRY ON IN SECRET, AS EVER!
PUBLIC NOW BLAMED FOR TYRE TRIAL DISASTER!
COMPANIES HOUSE CONFUSED AS TO OWNERSHIP OF THIS NON-CEMENT PLANT.

The Land Registry are in denial. They say they have no details of any cement plant at Rugby, despite the new plant changing hands twice since compulsory registration. The Environment Agency omitted it from the Pollution Inventory. Warwickshire County Council admit it never had any consultation in the planning stage, or over the addition of the equipment to make it a CO-INCINERATOR. It never had any kind of environmental impact assessment at any stage. The EA and Rugby Council admit they hid the June 1999 IPC consultation, and made no attempt to limit the damage to Rugby's environment and air quality. The Agency conveniently omits to put public notices on the Public Register. 62 County Councillors and 48 at Rugby have bags over their heads; and gags!


So here is the latest news from "no cement plant" at
Rugby Works OS Grid ref: SP 4487 2757
Cemex UK Cement Ltd (company reg: 475212)
Cemex UK Operations Ltd (658390)
Chinnor Transport (475212)
Rugby Limited (475212)


NEW TYRE TRIALS
One month consultation has now started by the EA as Cemex wish to double tyre burning, to 25% substitution. The baseline will be with 3 tonnes an hour tyres, and there will be two weeks testing after that at 6 tonnes. This trial will be different - so they say using a novel approach - it is to be "well-conducted!" Ha! 600 tonnes of tyres will now be stored in the open, and the restrictions on run-off into the sewer will be removed, presumably to allow all drainage from the tyres into the water course.


HOW TO JUDGE TYRE TRIAL SUCCESS
Cemex comedy sketch writer: "This trial will build on the success of the previous trial." The seven previous CSFs (Critical Success Factors) will be removed and replaced by such little gems as: CSF 1 "The current specified emission limit values will not be exceeded for any reason DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE to tyres." So there is a challenge to the public. How is anyone to know, when even the Agency does not know.

AGENCY say:
"Emission limits apply to the Works at ALL times, with the ONE (teeny weeny little??) exception:
"The limits do not apply during shutdown or startup. Startup is complete at 200 tonnes an hour of dry raw material." That is at about 80% of full rate.
No mention is made of fuel/s! Nor for how many hours these shutdowns/startups occur.
Also when asked repeatedly for how many hours a day/week/month/year no emission limits count the Agency said to go to the Public Register and try to work it out. Finally, after seven years of badgering the Agency admit to having no idea at all about how many "unlimited" hours there have been since February 2000. They have, at last, asked Cemex to provide it. We would only note that in the tyre trials data the 1,000 hours was interrupted by 53 stops - with no data made available - so watch this space.

CSF 5: "There will be no increase in reportable incidents or JUSTFIED complaints relating to the use of tyres."
So that nicely puts the onus back on the public to collect samples and evidence.


£50 REWARD FOR SIMPLE SUMS:
The Environment Agency needs help. They cannot work out how many tonnes of clinker were made in the two "supposedly comparable" 1,000 hour periods of the trial
Can you help them work out how many tonnes of clinker in each of the 1,000 hours?
* 1,000 hours baseline produced 3291 tonnes bypass dust = 1.37% clinker produced.
* 1,000 hours tyre trials produced 3006 tonnes bypass dust = 1.59% clinker produced.
The Agency have asked Cemex to help them. One wonders why the Agency has permitted the permanent burning of tyres when the Trials and the with holding of all the crucial data were condemned widely by all the consultees. (Even Rugby Borough Council agreed with us for once! And the Primary Care Trust,Tyre Burning Review Group, Rugby Cement Community Forum etc etc)


POLLUTION EVENT 10 MARCH 2007 UPDATE.
Six months on and the Agency admit that they still have no idea of the chemical breakdown and particle size distribution from the Cemex pollution episode. Cemex confessed that an estimated eight tonnes of milled coal "escaped" from a silo and rained down on sleeping residents up to three miles away. The Agency do not know the answers to questions about the health and environmental impact, nor when, or even if, they are going to prosecute.Rumour has it that frustrated Rugby residents are taking a private action through the Magistrates Court. Against Cemex and against the Agency for permitting this type of incident to keep on happening to "innocent victims".

NO SURPRISE!

AIR QUALITY GETS WORSE IN RUGBY.
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA BOROUGH WIDE FOR NITROGEN DIOXIDE, AND NOW ALSO PM10 INCREASES CAUSE CONCERN:
RBC say previous tyre trials increased particulate emissions. Main stack, bypass area, and cement mills increase burden and health impact of particulate of which THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL!

PM 10 Readings in MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METRE
AQMS 1 Webb Ellis Road :
25 March 72 Micrograms cubic metre
27 March 59
28 March 67

Has Maximum PM10 hour at 120 and PM2.5 at 72.

AQMS2 NEWBOLD ROAD : 11 EXCEEDENCES
25 January 54
3 February 66
4 February 62
6 February 80
7 February 68
25 March 82
26 March 57
27 March 70
28 March 77
30 March 59
31 March 53

PM10 maximum hour 206!
Why is this the ONLY TEOM with NO PM2.5 monitor?

AQMS 2 has massive NOX at 1138 for one hour!
NO at 683 and NO2 at 141 for the hour.

AQMS 3 LAWFORD SCHOOL
3 February 53
4 February 58
6 February 53
25 March 83
27 March 63
28 March 68
31 March 52

PM10 maximum 142 for the hour, and 62 for PM2.5 with a daily average of 42 for PM2.5!!

AQMS 4 Avenue Road
25 March 77
27 March 57
28 March 64

Avenue Road maximum hourly was 130.
Highest PM2.5 was 57.1 hourly and daily average 39.3!!!

CEMEX EXCEEDS EMISSION LIMIT VALUES

DIOXIN and FURAN EXCEEDENCE (admitted 4 July)
The ELV for the most toxic substance known to man was exceeded on 22 March at the CEMEX RUGBY works in the twice yearly tests from 0915 to 1540. After they removed the what they call "measurement uncertainty" they still had readings of 0.43 ng/Nm3 ITEQ (1&2) and 0.5ng/Nm2 WHOTEQ (1&2)

CARBON MONOXIDE EXCEEDENCE
Also on 13 June 2007 main stack test hourly average AFTER they removed confidence interval (-10%)was carbon monoxide 629 mg/m3 as an hourly average.

CEMENT MILLS EXCEEDENCE
Also they now admit (4th July) that the mills are also exceeding their permitted levels as well. On 28/03/07 from 16.15 to 18.20. Cement mill 4 running at 52.6mg/m3 particulate, after removal of confidence level.
23/03/07 Mill 5 separator at 34.2mg/m3 after removal of confidence level.

If you add back that 30% that means they have taken away as a "confidence level" they would have initially had a reading of 75 mg/m3 at mill 4. If you add the "uncertainty" instead of taking it away it gives a reading of 98 milligrams per cubic metre on mill 4. That is 98 THOUSAND MICROGRAMS in each cubic metre - to drift across Rugby, and to be resuspended in our air! Cemex say: "INVESTIGATIONS CONTINUING WITH CONTRACTOR INTO REASONS FOR HIGH RESULTS"

CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORS FAILED during tyre burning at 21:01 on 15th June. They did NOT stop the tyre feed until 21:50 which contravenes the Permit.

NO CONFIDENCE IN THE AGENCY TO REGULATE!
NOR IN CEMEX' OVER READING, OR UNDER READING?
There is no reason why the instruments might not be under-reading. Why should they assume they are over reading - merely to facilitate the company, and make the results look better - or rather to "look less bad"?

THE IPPC PERMIT OF AUGUST 2001
Included a permanent permission to burn 40% tyres so why are they again bothering us with yet another SHAM CONSULTATION?

Cat out of the bag.

IS THIS FRAUD?
Cemex case for tyre burning NOT PROVEN! Of course while the Jury was out both Cemex and the Agency refused to give the public any emissions data.

Now why could that possibly be?

Because the Agency Emissions Report of 4th April 2006 now at last finally revealed, to a very suspicious public, actually shows what we said all along - there is no proof that tyre burning improves emissions. In fact there is more proof to the contrary! It makes some emissions worse!

ALcontrol Laboratories were contracted, number 11812, to take the periodic samples of coal and tyre burning emissions for the Agency.
These were supposed to be the proof of the tyre trials much heralded "environmental improvement"!

In fact coal burning seems cleaner.

COAL BURNING (BASELINE)
Nitrogen dioxide 841and 472Mg/m3

TYRE BURNING TRIAL
Nitrogen dioxide 459 and 540mg/m3

COAL - particulate 12.6; 18.8; 18.1; 16.5 mg/m3
TYRES - particulate 30.0; 43.4; 26.0; 30.0 mg/m3.

COAL - TOC as carbon 5.0; and 2.7;
TYRES - TOC as carbon 13.5 and 13.1;

COAL - TOC as toluene 5.48 and 2.9;
TYRES - TOC as toluene 14.8 and 14.4;

COAL - benzene 32.1; 0.1; 157; 43;
TYRES - benzene 88.2; 220; 110 ; 56;

In particular they claimed that the nitrogen dioxide was reduced by 25%. A funny calculator they used? Now they use the "claimed success" of the 2005 tyre trials to increase by 100% the burn rate, to 6 tonnes an hour, with the possibility of two further increments. And also to burn household and commercial waste - possibly to be
sourced from Holland as their waste is of a higher quality - suitable for getting good "trial" results.

Cemex' letter to the Agency 28 June 2007 says that they still cannot meet the Improvement Condition to reduce NOX from 800 to 500 mg/m3 which was required in the original Permit - by August 2005.
They ask for another extension to August 2008. They grumble about the low allocation of CO2 in Phase 2 of the EUETS, and cite that as a reason to burn increasing amounts of biomass. They claim the monthly NOX without tyres averaged 779mg/m3, with tyres April-June 2007 averaged 611mg/m3 - a 21.6% reduction.
But their own monthly emissions reports appear not to concur with this claim. "We anticipate a further reduction in oxides of nitrogen, although it cannot be guaranteed to be on a scale as seen previously."

PUBLIC GET BLAME FOR SHOWING INTEREST IN ENVIRONMENT
"Due to insufficient supply of tyres 10 tonnes an hour could not be reached. It was envisaged at that time that perhaps 6 tonnes an hour would be achieved, and authorisation would be requested at that level. As it turns out, due to high levels of public interest, delays in permitting, and delays in undertaking the trial, only 3 tonnes an hour was achieved within the time constraints facing Cemex due to the Waste Incinerator Directive compliance date of December 2005. This issue was never foreseen in the original application due to the early date of that application."

RUBBISH!
It was only too well foreseen, and widely discussed at meetings, and the Primary Care Trust, RBC and consultees requested that Bag Filters be fitted as soon as possible to meet the criteria - ahead of their being "forced to fit them". And to reduce particulate emissions by hundreds of tonnes.
But Rugby Cement and the Agency argued strongly that bag filters would not work on this plant, would make emissions even worse, and that the ESPs were BAT (Best Available Technique) - that is until they were forced to meet the WID legislation, and to fit Bag Filters!

INTENTION TO BURN WASTE 100% OF TIME "subject to restrictions imposed by the WID which dictates periods when waste derived alternative fuels may not be used. Standby continuous emissions monitors will now be fitted to allow immediate switch over in the event of failure of any of the primary units.

This will minimise potential periods when waste derived fuels cannot be used and the feed has to be shut down, to periods covering start-up, shut-down, periods of feed less than 200 tonnes an hour, periods of malfunction and if emission limits are exceeded."

In short all the time when no emission limits apply! And what will happen to the nitrogen dioxide limits then? Nothing as they will not apply!

DIRECT LINE TO GOD PAYS OFF.

ENFORCEMENT NOTICE: has been issued, as the Agency considers another prosecution, regarding the latest large scale incident of 10th March, when 8 tonnes of pulverised fuel were dumped on sleeping Rugby residents up to 3 miles away - apparently out of an over filled silo - at the time the kiln was being shut down.
Cemex are required to review their maintenance and management systems (yet again!),and to stop repeatedly cancelling critical maintenance items, in contravention of condition 2.1.2.
Also the storage capacity of each of the fuel storage silos as specified in section 2.3 (C) of your IPPC application, is different to the actual capacity. This is in contravention to condition 2.3.1.

In the meantime they now ask to burn imported wastes, as well as doubling the tyres to 6 tonnes an hour, despite all these ongoing problems and the unconvincing tyre trials, when they could hardly burn 3 tonnes an hour.

JUDGES TAKE PITY AS CEMEX SPEND BILLIONS ON RINKER TAKE OVER.
"In our judgement, a fine of £400,000 was disproportionate. The sentence imposed by the Recorder will be quashed and a fine of £50,000 substituted." Court 4 July 18.
Cemex claimed that much of the tonnes of dust LAWFULLY came out of the stack, and not out of the open door - unlawful. Therefore, as no emission limits apply during any start up to a fed rate of 200 tonnes an hour raw meal, any amount of dust emitted out of the stack at the time of the instability was not a criminal offence, and is in fact "permitted pollution".
Why and how the "start up" was set at 200 tonnes an hour raw meal has of course never been discussed!

TRUTH CONCEALED BY CEMEX AND AGENCY.
£20,000 worth of Intercessions at St Andrews seem to have reaped a rich reward.
Cemex were today delighted to have the £400,000 fine, for dumping tonnes of toxic dust over sleeping Lawford residents on October 14th 2005, slashed to a paltry £50,000.


How did this case get through four hearings without the truth ever being told? The Judges kept on asking why the kiln went into melt down and became unstable, and out of control, and neither the prosecuting Agency, nor the defending industrialists, could bring themselves to admit (tell the TRUTH even) that changes in the chemical reactions caused by such as TYRE BURNING causes upset conditions and kiln instability. One Judge even described the cement plant as an "accident of history" and seemed to believe that the same kiln had been there since 1860. Presumably he would have great difficulty in understanding why the original single horse and cart should now have been replaced by 1,000 heavy lorries?

OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS FOR CEMEX?
Maybe with this £350,000 windfall they can fund the RCCF for a few more years?
And pay back some of what they have taken from Rugby residents?
The RCCF is "due for the chop" tonight at Rugby Town Hall 5.30 pm, as the Council can no longer fund the antics of Cemex and the Agency out of our Council taxes.
But it seems more likely they will swell their coffers?

IMPORT WASTE:
EUROPEAN CLIMAFUEL HAS LESS POTENTIAL TO CONTAIN ANY TOXIC ELEMENTS THAN THE UK WASTE SUPPLY FROM SHANKS AND BIFFA WHICH ARE INADEQUATE FOR CEMEX.

BARRINGTON: and SOUTH FERRIBY CLIMAFUEL TRIALS:
Quote:

"Unfortunately the trials have not progressed as smoothly as Cemex had anticipated due to various reasons, such as supply, and logistical constraints, and elevated emissions of HCl due to higher chlorine in the clay material, burner difficulties and kiln cooling. And also due to high moisture in the climafuel, and significant chunks of over-size material. most notably of a metallic nature, causing equipment to break down and frequent stops"

- during which of course no EMISSION LIMITS APPLY - so that's all right then?

Although emission limits appear to have been broken Cemex carefully worded its CSF (Critical Success Factor):
CSF 1: "The current specified emission limit values will not be exceeded for any reason DIRECTLY attributable to the use of CLIMAFUEL"
"The initial review of the South Ferriby CEM data from the trial period showed no breaches in emission limits that can be attributed DIRECTLY to the use of Climafuel."
So what causes all this upset and increased emissions then?

CEMEX MAKE GENEROUS PROMISE TO RUGBY RESIDENTS:
CEMEX SAY THINK YOURSELVES LUCKY!
CEMEX WARN IT COULD BE WORSE!
"As a participant of the Cement Sustainability Initiative Cemex is committed to the "guidelines" which specifically state that in relation to exclusions in use of wastes:

"CSI member companies will not use any of the following in our kilns as fuel or raw material, as a constituent of cement, or in waste recovery and disposal operations:

# NUCLEAR WASTE
# INFECTIOUS MEDICAL WASTE
# CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS DESTINED FOR DESTRUCTION
# UNKNOWN OR UNSPECIFIED WASTE.

CEMEX UK Cement also feels that this commitment to the CSI provides a level of understanding which should provide a level of reassurance to external stakeholders that operations are undertaken in an ethical and responsible manner!"

By the by - who are we dealing with?
CEMEX UK CEMENT LTD?
RUGBY LIMITED?
RUGBY CEMENT?

CEMEX in new takeover bid

Cement giant Cemex has now branched out into Religion! 20,000 pounds have been invested in GOD. Having failed to convince Rugby residents of the success of its tyre trials - after the emissions data was hidden for more than a year - the latest strategy involves getting God on their side as they invest in St Andrews Church Rugby - unless they are paying for forgiveness of their sins?

This piffling donation co-incides with their insistence on burning more tyres and wastes to "address the number of environmental pressures" placed on them by the Environment Agency, which is "pushing them to use a larger quantity of substitute fuels" - presumably regardless of the impact on Rugby residents and the extra emissions of pollutants such as ammonia and cadmium and thallium.

Meanwhile the hapless Agency struggles to define the "plant stability" on which it bases its Permits, and the officers still refuse to supply the RCCF with the AMESA dioxin tests that show emissions of dioxin of up to eight times higher than admitted by the Cauldon Cement plant where it was trialled - after a previous typical Agency "promise" to trial the equipment at Rugby Cement was broken.

Don't believe one word they say!

SMOKING BAN?.. NOT US!

According to the Rugby Advertiser :
PEOPLE IN NEW BILTON, LIVING NEXT TO THE CEMENT WORKS, in the first of NEW LABOUR'S MUCH HERALDED, and PRESCOTT'S PERSONALLY PROMOTED AFFORDABLE SOCIAL HOUSING ARE :

"FED UP OF BEING SWAMPED - as residents kick up a stink!"

"Investigating the smelly problem are non other than (the usually invisible) RBC LABOUR councillors: Ish Mistry and Don Williams. Long-suffering New Bilton residents are kicking up a stink over claims that inadequate piping in the area of the cement works has caused them to be regularly swamped with sewage" - amongst many other unsavoury and unhealthy pollutants.

Home owners in AVENUE ROAD say "toilet paper and other waste, and a slurry-like stench", and frequent dust clouds, and odours, "have blighted the area after REDROW homes started building their nearby housing development".

Some residents also blame ongoing pollution from Rugby Cement and its increasing emissions and waste-burning trials. "You don't always notice it - but at times there is an awful smell. It is frustrating - we feel like we are banging our heads against a brick wall."

RBC officers and the CABINET were refusing to answer questions as we went to press. They said that they do not have to talk to anyone, or to answer any emails;
do not have to answer any questions; and steadfastly refuse point-blank to answer anything!

Some Councillors noted that the people who "did this" to Rugby residents are either dead; or living on a fat pension paid for by the council tax payers.

Interesting Link

The dust is yet to settle..

(Yesterday at the Royal Courts of Justice)

Cemex claim the £400,000 fine for having a door in the reject silo hanging on its hinges, and then jammed in with a scaffolding pole was manifestly unfair, and that the courts should think again.

Not enough people complained about being covered in "dust" on the night of 14th to 15th October 2005- only a limited number in fact - so that's all right then!
No one mentioned that once it was on radio people did not bother to complain - knowing it was known.

That no one's health was damaged - as far as anyone knows - or bothered to try to find out.

That they cleaned up the area, and are a good company and this is not going to happen again, until next time.

The experts for both the defense (Dr Amanda Gair) and prosecution (Professor Roy Harrison), who had agreed the material facts about the dust in the case, (and that had not been protested about in the previous cases), are now said to have: "overplayed it"; and what was agreed was a "worst case scenario" ; that was irrelevant!

Bottom line is that (NOW) the dust came out of the stack; not the door!
So this is permitted and NO CRIMINAL OFFENCE occurred because they have NO EMISSION LIMIT VALUES on start up : or when the kiln is running, but with no kiln feed going in. There is, they said , much confusion among people who fail to understand that when they say "kiln stop" they actually mean "kiln feed stop", but the kiln goes on running to avoid buckling, cracking and catastrophic failure. So during this time (no one though to mention up to 200 tonnes an hour feed rate) no emissions count, so the Agency agree to this, that any amount of dust comes out. And it is "permitted" and "acknowledged as inevitable", that there will be dust and many spikes well off the scale.


There was a period, and in fact a night of instability, and a fire in the cooler, and kiln flush and 600 tonnes reject clinker, and tonnes of dust and smaller particles.. and and and....all this and during the afternoon of 14th tyres were being tried in the kiln - but no one thought to mention it.

Tyres and wastes are not to be burnt during instability and under 200 tonnes an hour feed rate.

But as pointed out previously no one seems to know when the kiln is stable or unstable.

The Rugby Cement Community Forum has now been abolished (yesterday by RBC) for daring to ask the Agency for a definition of stability, and for costing too much as they try to protect Rugby Residents - from the POLLUTER who does NOT PAY ANYTHING!!

LAST WORD
All this comes back to the fact that you cannot take what in essence is THREE MILLION TONNES of dust and mix it and cook it in a town's smokeless zone and turn it into TWO MILLION TONNES of other dust - called CEMENT without dust FREQUENTLY visibly going all over people, and invisibly going over them EVERY DAY. I do have a certain sympathy with Cemex as they bought this plant in good faith - not knowing is has no lawful planning permission or operating Permit.

The appeal courts heard that the cement plant makes 1.3 million tonnes cement (creative accounting) and that the plant has been here since 1865, first with Portland Cement, then RMC, and now finally by Cemex.

Apparently its location is "an accident of history"!

Presumably they are judging it by 1865 environmental standards; and 1865 environmental law as well; and the 1865 planning permission?

WASTED - Whole town going to pot?

RUGBY RESIDENTS SOON TO BE HAPPIER AS IMPORTED WEED MAKES AIR SWEETER

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL ADVERT.. RUGBY ADVERTISER
"Each year in Rugby we throw away enough Rubbish to fill the Ken Marriot swimming pool 129 times, or to put it another way, fill enough lorries to stretch nose to tail from the Clock Tower Rugby to the NEC Birmingham. It's a fact that more than 32,000 tonnes of rubbish gets thrown away each year."

CEMEX HAZARDOUS WASTE
Hazardous waste production increases when burning wastes, as we saw in the recent inadequate tyre trials at Cemex Rugby, where both bypass dust and reject clinker increased. Funnily enough the hazardous waste bypass dust produced in Rugby Cement is about the same daily tonnage of household waste produced by Rugby residents. Now we are to have one bin every two weeks, to SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT! Household waste is only a fraction of the industrial waste!

APPLICATION TO ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
Cemex Rugby now wish to burn CLIMAFUEL : London's household and Commercial Waste at 15 tonnes an hour, 360 tonnes a day, = 132,000 tonnes a year, to be trucked up the M1 by lorry. Enough waste to fill 530 swimming pools, and to fill enough lorries to stretch nose to tail from Rugby Clock Tower to the NEC over FOUR times.

WHICH VERSION DO YOU BELIEVE?

CLIMAFUEL TRIAL GOING WELL:
Cemex South Ferriby Liaison Committee: "The Climafuel trial is ongoing and going well."

CLIMAFUEL TRIAL NOT GOING WELL
South Ferriby Parish Council Minutes: "The Climafuel trial has been suspended due to excess levels of some metals being detected."

HOUSEHOLD WASTE TO BE SHIPPED IN - TO RUGBY?
AS APPARENTLY NOT ENOUGH HOUSEHOLD WASTE IS GENERATED IN THE UK!

CEMEX South Ferriby Liaison Committee: " The only disappointment has been with the supply chain for Climafuel. Shanks have not been able to provide sufficient Climafuel. At the moment we are in discussions to find alternative UK supplies. We are also talking to a DUTCH supplier of Climafuel, which will be shipped in by boat into a local port".

Councillor England pointed out that there is a new incinerator being installed at HULL; (i.e. adjoining South Ferriby) and he felt it was a shame that more people were not aware of Cemex on the south bank of the Humber being able to dispose of waste materials. Councillor Berry added that it was regrettable that we have to import waste materials."

What DOPE thought this up?!

The Outlaws

RUGBY RESIDENTS ON WARPATH
As polluter refuses to pay.
Rugby Cement rips off Rugby residents, yet again, as sorry saga goes on, and on, and on......

RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM to be disbanded because the polluter does not pay, and Rugby people can no longer provide the approximate £10,000 each quarterly meeting costs in order to try to protect themselves.

HOW IT ALL BEGAN
Imagine this - Rugby people sitting quietly at home minding their own business, and along comes Rugby Cement who claim they wish ONLY to "improve" the environment and air quality in Rugby by "upgrading" their old stinking, polluting, 300,000 tonne a year cement plant, which cannot meet the new IPC regulations. So they hatch a plan to tell people it will only be three times bigger; submit an application to Warwickshire County Council, without any environmental impact assessment, and gain a planning permission, without appropriate and honest public consultation in February 1996. Then they go on and on increasing the planned size of the plant to 2 million tonnes - in secret.

SECRET IPC PERMIT
Meanwhile the arch enemy of the environment is secretly involved in a "staged" IPC application which was never DULY MADE and for which not one penny for the "application" changed hands - so we are told - as being "staged" Rugby Cement put on each "stage", of which there are many from 1995 to 1999, that "no money need to be paid for this application until the application is finished, because it is staged". So on June 16th 1999 Rugby Cement finally finished the last of all stages, and then a decision was made by the Agency to keep the application secret and to tell only a few trusted statutory consultees, and to tell them NOT to put any of this on the Public Register. Warwickshire County Council, having been involved all along in this trickery, were suddenly denoted as "NOT" consultees.

Rugby Cement decided NOT to advertise the IPC application in the London Gazette and local press - as required by Law. Rugby Borough Council officer/s/councillor/s (?) decided in secret, and in grave dereliction of duty, with no records, minutes, or consultation with anyone, simply "not to reply" to the IPC application. That was the sum total of this Council's considered opinion and care for the community - NO WE HAVE NO OPINION! They decided to make no effort whatsoever to try to limit the damage that was about to be inflicted on Rugby people and environment in February 2000 when the new plant was to start up.

The secret IPC permit was issued in September 1999, by which time the IPPC regime had been brought into Law and the plant SHOULD have made an IPPC application straight away BEFORE operating at all. Then by stealth the IPPC application was made in September 2001, but the public were told by all the conspirators that this was ONLY a tyre burning application. Only data and reports about tyre burning were given out, and the IPPC application was never revealed - except to RBC EHO who yet again chose to ignore a PPC application, and to make no response!

SECRET IPPC APPLICATION
This then collapsed into farce as the Agency wasted thousands of pounds of public money in the sham and false consultation, and ably aided by RBC, they then allowed Rugby Cement to put its hand into Rugby tax council tax payers pockets for the long-term suppression of Rugby people. They set up a Rugby Cement Community Forum to be funded by Rugby residents, and later on a tyre Burning Review group was suggested by the Agency as a means of assessing the impending tyre trial. So Rugby volunteers, and councillors, worked night and day for the community studying cement plant issues, while the Rugby tax payer funded the officers and administration to the apparent tune of about £10,000 each meeting. Plus many hundreds of thousands of pounds on consultants and reports, legal opinions. large public meetings, etc.

RBC SAYS TYRE TRIALS NOT SUCCESS
Rugby Borough Council, COUNCILLORS, wrote to the Agency saying that the Tyre Trials had NOT been a success, that there were major concerns about plant instability, efficiency, abnormal operations, lack of data and that the SEVEN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS had most definitely NOT been met. The Agency took not a blind bit of notice as usual, and it was left up to the public to issue JUDICIAL REVIEW proceedings against the Agency as RBC wasted yet more of our money and FAILED to follow through. RBC looked ever weaker and more pathetic as the cement company and Agency continued to refuse to respond to the Council's concerns. RBC should be LIVID!

RBC GIVE IN TO DEMANDS
But instead they have meekly given in to the Agency and Cemex. Now as a final straw you can read about how RBC has suddenly decided to back-track, after all this time that Rugby people have been ripped off, SEVEN YEARS of banditry, that the POLLUTER must now PAY for the meetings, and for the liaison committee. The people can no longer afford to PAY to PROTECT OURSELVES. After years of Rugby Cement's filching off us, and demanding that we have meetings at their every beck and call, when they wish to increase pollution, increase wastes, increase emissions, increase capacity, increase hazardous waste to landfills, etc, now they are going to be in charge of the liaison committee. As they were previously when it was a closed shop, held at the works, with the cement plant controlling the members, agenda, minutes, and prohibiting the public and press.

RCCF TO BE DISBANDED BECAUSE WE:
# ask too many questions
# understand only too well what is going on
# refuse to be fobbed off by the non-answers
# follow through
# punch above our weight
# write reports Cemex and the Agency do not like
# tell the truth about the forum and how it "operates"
# realised that RBC officers have also been with holding crucial information


OFFICERS REPORT makes interesting reading:
# "RBC took over the responsibility for the forum from Rugby Cement as a short-term measure when the initial tyre burning application was made". Oh really? And now they have got it all "through", and brought in full scale co-incineration we are of no further use and are to be discarded - is that it?

# "A community/industry liaison group has a valuable role to play in education and informing the local community about the activities and developments at the Rugby cement Plant. It is also a mechanism for community issues and concerns to be raised and discussed, and addressed in a constructive and positive manner. The Current RCCF does not realistically achieve this as it can be adversarial in nature which is probably due to the history of hostility, abuse , and ongoing litigation between participants." Oh really? The problems have arisen because the authorities and Rugby Cement refuse to answer questions, reveal information, discuss openly and honestly, to engage with the community, because fundamentally what has happened is unlawful, and the RCCF was set up in order to blind and confuse the community, and to "out wit us".

LEOPARDS ABOUT TO CHANGE THEIR SPOTS?
# "The Environment Agency has advised they do not facilitate any such group anywhere else in the country and would consider it inappropriate as the Regulator to do so. Therefore this only leaves CEMEX as a credible future facilitator. This is entirely appropriate for a variety or reasons:

1. This is the normal industry model across the country.
2. It reinforces the principal of the "polluter pays" and,
3. It is in the company's interests to ensure that they have an open and honest relationship with local communities." Oh really? In their interests? Well we have just been through years of consultation with them and it appears that even the Councillors were able to understand that it was NOT in the company's interests to have ANY open and honest dialogue at all, and that is why they have REFUSED point blank to have any "open honest relationship with local communities" - backed up by the Agency who also refuse to have any open and honest dialogue.

# "Initial discussions with CEMEX have confirmed that they would be prepared to take over the role of facilitator of a "refreshed" RCCF at their own expense." Oh really?
How very big, and generous, and thoughtful, and kind, and caring, and compassionate of them. They are even going to contribute towards a £15,000 "stakeholder analysis" report, to be commissioned by a "specialist company" that would go out and carefully choose the new members, so that the whole thing runs smoothly!

CLICK THIS LINK TO DOWNLOAD

ADVERT
Anyone know anyone who is wet behind the ears, and green, and enjoys being ripped off, having their time wasted, being dictated to, fooled, and bullied?

Please forward their names on a postcard for the new liaison committee.

ON THE WARPATH

As widely reported in the RUGBY TIMES, (Rugby's excellent new weekly) a Judicial Review has been commenced in a bid to the courts to put an end to costly, time wasting, sham consultations, as carried out by the Agency and cement company, as Rugby Borough Council endorses Rugby in Plume's view that the whole TYRE TRIAL was a scam. The Agency have acted perversely and unreasonably, and still after seven years of asking cannot define what they mean by the words "unstable" and "stable", and "significant" and "insignificant" - the words they use in their own IPPC permits for the control of the cement plant's emissions. If the Agency does not know what they mean - then who does? And why do they put them in? We were charged with deciding if the plant had become more "unstable", and if the increased emissions were "significant" etc etc.

These second Judicial Review proceedings have been issued against the Environment Agency, as the tyre trials are branded:

# inconclusive,
# case not proven,
# 7 Critical Success Factors not met,
# essential data with held,
# Tyres Protocol not adhered to,
# plant more inefficient during trials,
# net environmental detriment increased,
# 1,000 hours baseline produced 240,000 tonnes clinker,
# 1,000 hours tyre trial produced 190,000 tonnes clinker,
# hazardous waste bypass dust increased with tyres,
# reject clinker increased with tyres,
# public not informed as the trials went along,
# data given too late, in wrong format, and too little.
# no data provided at all until 10 months after trial started,
# no data provided at all until 5 months after trial finished,
# Tyres Protocol requires public to be informed as the trial proceeds!

The list is endless, and all this was UNANIMOUSLY agreed in a report by the Tyre Burning Review Group, set up by the Environment Agency specifically as a COMMUNITY GROUP to evaluate and review the tyre trials and the data, and to decide if the trials had met the seven critical success factors that the cement industry had proposed itself as the criteria for success - or failure - as in this case! It consisted of 12 people, facilitated by consultant Dr Mike Holland, who expertly guided the group as we studied the CEMEX DRAFT TYRE TRIAL REPORT. The representatives included the Rugby Primary Care Trust, the Health Protection Agency, Rugby Borough Councillors, Local Parish Councillors, Agenda 21, Rugby in Plume, the Rugby Cement Community Forum, New Bilton Community Association.

Now the Agency considers allowing Cemex to carry out a "pseudo trial " of tyres in combination with London's household and commercial waste - the RDF being disguised under the friendly name of "CLIMAFUEL".

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL:
Rugby Council fully backs the findings of the Tyre Burning Review Group, and endorses their findings.

See link to www.rugby.gov.uk Committee Papers of CABINET 8th January 2007.


SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF MUSHROOM SYNDROME : CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR NUMBER ONE : to be applied for new household waste "trial" as Rugby residents are to be kept in the dark, as usual, with bucket loads of manure tipped on their heads - along with tonnes of gaseous pollutants and toxic chemicals.

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.