PIGGY IN THE MIDDLE?

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS?
WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL EXHIBITS CONFUSION as they claim that, from their point of view and for the purposes of planning, the Cemex Rugby plant is only a cement plant, and not a co-incinerator. This is in spite of the fact that WCC Regulatory Committee granted a retrospective planning permission in January 2003 for £1,000,000 of unauthorised tyre burning equipment, the construction of which turned the plant into a co-incinerator, months before it gained its "dubious and much disputed" IPPC Permit in August 2003.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION PERMITTING AGENCY meanwhile has said it IS a co-incinerator governed under the Waste Incinerator Directive, apparently because WCC made it an existing co-incinerator before the Agency gave it the IPPC permit to become one? Not surprising neither WCC or the EA wishes to shoulder the blame, and to admit responsibility for the destruction of the built environment, amenity, roads, whole town's atmosphere, quality of life and air quality in Rugby! The cement/co-incinerator and/or its massive plume can be viewed and enjoyed from most streets in the Borough, casting a pall over the entire town - and no-one is responsible apparently - unless we blame the dead who, according to the House of Lords, built "a cement plant" there in the time of Dr Arnold.

GOVERNMENT FAILINGS EU DIRECTIVES
All this "confusion" at the expense of Rugby residents seems to be attributable to the failure of the UK Government to implement the various European Directives correctly, which are designed to protect the AIR, improve the Environment and the health of the EU citizens, as well as to give them the right to access to information, full and fair consultation, and access to justice when all this goes wrong. One needs look no further than Rugby to find all the evidence one needs of abuse of process and environmental detriment. It is common knowledge that formal letters have been written and infraction proceedings are taking place over various issues the EU has with the UK. This might serve to focus their minds a little! Though judging by their lamentable performance so far it may take a little time to get things put right and give the British people the same rights as in other European countries!

MYSTERY OVER COATED CARS
In the meantime they play ball over our heads as Cemex tops up the air with "pollen"? Yes that's right - pollen - according to the Rugby Observer 24 April.
"Mystery surrounds the discovery of an ash-type substance which blew over a number of parked cars in Bilton on Tuesday morning. Some residents immediately though Cemex was to blame, although Cemex bosses say the cause could be pollen! A local resident said "It looked like an ash tray had been tipped on top of my car.I looked at other cars on the street and they all had light dust specks on them too."

Later on at 1.30 on the same day workers had tried to put an isolation valve on a tanker during maintenance to silos, but dropped cement powder on the floor creating a giant cloud of dust which engulfed the building. Witnesses said "You couldn't even see any of the cement works because of this massive grey cloud. It then started drifting off over Lawford." Cemex said there was no evidence of dust being sprayed anywhere outside the plant and no complaints had been received. Meanwhile the EA had lots of complaints which are being investigated."

HOUSE OF LORDS
in their "truly amazing judgement" were right on one thing, at least, when they said "there was already so much dust in the air of Rugby!" Meanwhile the Jury's out - pollen or dust?


TXI RIVERSIDE CEMENT CALIFORNIA
Check out the The Los Angeles Times April 15 2008 : "Local residents fear nearby cement factory is making them sick!" They have just found out that their cement plant "dust" contains very high levels of the highly toxic carcinogen Hexavalent Chromium which causes cancer, rashes and other ailments. Residents meetings have been heated and some are asking if their cancers have been caused by this "dust". Cement bags carry labels warning of these dangers to those who work with the product, being mainly healthy young males, but what effect does it have on the vulnerable, already infirm or elderly, babies, children, or pregnant women?


ENVIRONMENT AGENCY WEB SITE
Go to www.environment-agency.gov.uk and put your postcode in to the "What's in my backyard" pollution inventory to find out what the MAIN stack is emitting, and the Cemex landfill. This does not include the so-called "dust" which blows all over from the mills, and from the other various LOW LEVEL POINT SOURCES which have no monitors at all. One recent bi-annual sample taken at the plant has a mill running at 57,000 micrograms/m3 of particulate - after taking off the 30% uncertainty confidence level ! (And dioxin over the permitted level) As for the FUGITIVE "dust" - this is obviously unmeasured and largely unmeasurable. Eye witness accounts mean nothing! Pollen indeed!

"OPINIONS" OF THE LORDS ON APPEAL

"LOCAL RUGBY PEOPLE WERE SKEPTICAL AND RELUCTANT TO BE EXPERIMENTED UPON!"

"CEMENT HAS BEEN MADE AT RUGBY SINCE THE TIME OF DR ARNOLD."
" After all the inhabitants of Rugby had been living with A cement works for a long time, and although it seems to have had SOME teething troubles the new state-of-the-art plant was, in principle more environmentally friendly than the old one."

DOWNLOAD JUDGEMENT AT: www.richardbuxton.co.uk
The FIVE LAW LORDS divided judgement has far-reaching implications for the environment; air quality; health; public consultation procedures;lack of access to information; necessity to reveal the truth about the main environmental impacts; implementation of Freedom of Information regulations; requirement to properly inform; the fairness of withholding crucial information; etc.


RESIDENTS SOLICITORS DUTY TO POINT OUT FACTS!
See www.solicitorsjournal.com
"One of England's leading solicitors has been castigated by two Law Lords for abusing the procedure of the House of Lords." (see details Lord Hoffmann point 66 and Lord Hope 73) Richard Buxton said that he could quite understand the House of Lords not wanting the case to be re-argued at the eleventh hour - after he took the opportunity to comment on the "in confidence" draft judgement which asked for "errors and ambiguities" to be pointed out.
* "We took the view that European law is so clear that the Supreme Court has to "get it right" - including rectifying a situation where an Environmental Impact Assessment Directive has not been properly applied. We felt it was our duty to the court to point out these facts. We are quite frankly taken aback to have received such scathing comments, but had we not done what we did, we would have been open to criticism."

GOVERNMENT LAWYERS COMMENT:
Fiona Banks, who works with Kassie Smith (www.monckton.com) who opposed Rugby residents, has written a disturbing commentary:
* FIONA says: "Fairness does not require the internal workings of a decision-maker to be disclosed as part of a public consultation"
* "Lord Hoffmann's statement that 'when the whole question of public involvement has been considered and dealt with in detail by the legislature, I do not think it is for the courts to impose a broader duty' is bound to have repercussions well beyond the facts of this particular case."

* "Similarly Lord Hoffmann's comment that 'the AQMAU documents were part of the decision-making process, prepared after a lengthy period of public consultation.If the Agency has to disclose its internal working documents for further public consultation, there is no reason why the process should ever have come to an end' opens a POTENTIALLY FRUITFUL DEFENCE FOR PUBLIC BODIES WHO HAVE FAILED TO BE WHOLLY TRANSPARENT IN THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS."

FIONA says: "Lord Hoffmann however considered that because the present case did not INVOLVE the CONSTRUCTION of ANYTHING, it fell outside of the EIA Directive." LORD MANCE: " Second the plan to change to tyre burning DID IN ANY EVENT involve NOT INCONSIDERABLE PHYSICAL ADAPTATION of the company's site and plant. This is described in part 4.1 of its detailed application to allow burning of tyres. They were to be discharged into a covered reception area, from which they were to be transferred by crane or mechanical conveyors into a storage area (holding up to 300 tonnes) fitted with smoke detectors linked with an alarm and with a water spray system. From that they were to be extracted mechanically and conveyed to a metering system inside the pre-heater tower, and then fed to the combustion chamber via an airlock system. All this, including the vital combustion chamber, was NEW!!"


FEW FACTS OF THE CASE:
* QUOTE "For the most part the activities were those of the IPC Permit." Not so, and in any case the IPC was completely hidden and was an unlawful "under-the-IPPC-wire" Permit granted in secret in Sept.1999!
* After all the inhabitants of Rugby had been living with A cement works for a long time." true, a small cement works - not a two million tonner built with no EIA and no planning permission in the 21st century!
* "It seems to have had SOME TEETHING troubles" and after FIVE years of "commissioning" it still has problems and frequent outages.
* "Although the company explained that burning tyres at every high temperatures would NOT produce 'unpleasant smoke', 'smells' or OTHER POLLUTION (??) the local people were "SCEPTICAL AND RELUCTANT TO BE EXPERIMENTED UPON!"
* "the ONLY breach of domestic law was the failure to disclose information about the predicted effect of the LOW LEVEL POINT SOURCE emissions of PM10 on the air quality."

Lots of things were hidden!

RBC SPENDS PUBLIC MONEY ON MONITORS TO HELP! BUT TO HELP WHO, AND BY WHAT PROCESS?
LORDS 64: "Rugby Borough Council commissioned consultants FABER MAUNSELL to make a detailed assessment of particulate emissions around the works. They produced a report in 2005." "BOTH REPORTS OF CEMEX and RBC/FABER MAUNSELL - CONFIRMED that the EQS (environmental quality standard as in regulation para 4 regulation 12 (7))) was not being exceeded."


"Faber Maunsell recommended that RBC should NOT designate an air quality management area around the works for PM10.The COUNCIL has accepted this advice." This is without any PUBLIC CONSULTATION and data was not made available, and no mention is made their EARLIER recommendation to declare a PM10 AQMA round the plant - before the instruments were recalibrated!


RUGBY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA :
RBC POLLUTION " In November 2007 RBC published an An Air Quality Action Plan which designates RUGBY as an AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA in respect of nitrogen dioxide, mainly caused by road traffic (800+ daily RUGBY CEMENT LORRIES?) but not in respect of PM10. The Plan says : "studies have shown no exceedences "AS A RESULT OF THE CEMEX PLANT OR THEIR OPERATIONS OF THE PM10 NATIONAL AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES."


AIR QUALITY DATA HIDDEN!
UNDER THICK LAYER OF DUST PERHAPS?
NO reference is made to the lack air quality data, or late disclosure, and refusal to allow timely access to "adjusted" data; to the installing of the monitors in dubious locations; to the recalibration of monitors; to the non-equivalence to the European reference standards; to the wrongful use of equipment; to the removal of all and every RUGBY CEMENT/CO-INCINERATOR FORUM MEMBER from the AIR Quality group; etc
Just another example of the "public bodies failing to be wholly transparent
in their decision-making process?" As in the secret co-operation between RBC, the EA and Rugby Cement when they colluded behind closed doors to grant the secret IPC Permit in 1999, and then colluded and mislead again during the IPPC process in 2001?

* A CASE OF BATS, NOT BAT!

Press release

Rugby Cement - House of Lords judgement

*Residents of Rugby have lost their appeal about the way a permit which allows the Rugby Cement Works to operate was granted. They have claimed that information was wrongly withheld by the Environment Agency, that the permit-granting process did not comply with EU pollution control rules, and that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) was required - in circumstances where the works had never had one at all in relation to pollution control and was now operating as a waste disposal facility for waste tyres and is about to be used for incinerating household waste.

The Law Lords decided that although EIA might have been necessary (they were not sure) for the works becoming a waste disposal installation for old tyres, and some Law Lords thought that information withheld about the extent of particulate pollution should have been publicised, they agreed that there was in fact sufficient information in the public domain such that any requirement for EIA was fulfilled. Overall it was wrong, in their discretion, for the permit to be quashed and have to be reconsidered by the Environment Agency.

"This is a bad day for the people of Rugby" said Lilian Pallikaropoulos, who has been leading the campaign against the way Cemex, who now own Rugby Cement, obtained permission to operate the plant, and several other permissions dependant on it. "I have only just seen the judgement so it is hard to comment further, but it seems the House of Lords has ignored the very real concerns of local people living in the shadow of this huge plant and all the dust and other air pollution it causes and sided with the Environment Agency, which even the other courts agreed acted unfairly. I will be consulting with our legal team about what can be done."

Richard Buxton, the solicitor representing the residents, said that this judgement was a setback both for residents of Rugby and environmental law generally. "The House of Lords did, fortunately, recognise that they were possibly dealing with a waste disposal installation. Burning waste tyres cannot, as our opponents have claimed, be explained away as just a change in fuel. But otherwise it's a real shame. This could have been a signal to the world from the highest court in the land that environmental rules and procedures have to be followed. Instead the judgement is a step back from the strict approach to environmental law enforcement that the EU requires. The judgement reflects the old-fashioned slippery slope of British discretion which we thought the courts had realised was just not appropriate in these types of case. EU law demands you abide by the rules and it is surprising that the Law Lords decided to excuse what we (and the High Court and Court of Appeal) regarded as wholly unfair conduct by the Environment Agency in this case. Fortunately, even though this was a decision of the House of Lords, EU law offers ways forward on various fronts and we will be considering options carefully with our long-suffering clients".
01223-328933


THE THINGS WE WOULD RATHER YOU DID NOT KNOW!
On 15 April a shocked community member reported to the RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM subgroup how she had just discovered the surprising news, that had not been revealed to them before, (despite several opportunities for Cemex at RCCF meetings), nor apparently revealed to WCC officers/Regulatory Committee , that the "Climafuel" trials had actually started on 28th February - a month before the unconstitutional site visit (held with no witnesses) took place to inspect the unauthorised building. Apparently Officers and Councillors saw Climafuel stored there in the "unauthorised" building on 25th March but were not told, and but did not think to ask, if the Climafuel was being burnt already, and if not when would it start, apparently preferring to concentrate instead on the vitally important and pertinent question concerning where the objectors lived!

RUGBY PLANT DESCRIBED AS " LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN CEMENT MAKING"!
Oh dear - I don't think so - how wrong can you get? All wet and semi-wet pants are being closed down in Europe, but not in the UK, and there is a climate of suspicion, fear and distrust in Rugby - which has certainly not been helped by the events of the last two days! Rugby residents are suffering ever more from the presence of the monstrous plume which hovers ominously over the town as the chalk slurry is dried out above our heads, from the energy-hungry inefficient semi-wet process plant, which never was and never could be Best Available Technique! It is a case more of BATS than of BAT!

REVOCATION OR DISCONTINUANCE?

WCC TO TAKE ACTION AS PLANNING PERMISSION NOW INVALID -
DUE TO MALADMINISTRATION; IMPROPER CONDUCT AND INACCURATE APPLICATION.

WCC ARE IN A RIGHT MESS NOW!
WCC are to be investigated; a formal complaint about the Conduct of the Councillors and Officers; breached its own Constitution; unseemly haste to rush through a Cemex planning permission without due process; wasted public time and money; carried out sham consultation; used improper procedures; Secret Site visit was improper, taking over an hour, when they were only supposed to inspect "one small building"; Councillors asked inappropriate questions - like where do the objectors live! WCC should have checked the accuracy, or otherwise, of the application
as we pointed out "irregularities" and "misinformation" to them.

Council officers made such misleading risible claims as "there had been a history of 'occasional concerns' raised by residents close to the plant"; strayed off the subject of their visit; refused to listen to our complaints about misinformation and misrepresentation of the facts, and inaccuracies in the application; refused to listen to requests for EIA, and proper Public Participation; ignored requests to consider the RESIDENTS AMENITY and the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.



CEMEX ATTENDED THE REGULATORY MEETING IN A GROUP!
WCC told Cemex (8 February) to "cease work to allow your submitted planning application (4 January) to be considered by the Regulatory Committee on 1st April.
CEMEX (26 February) said of the unauthorised building "how can the public see it as it is low level"? "It is extremely unlikely that permission will be recommended to be refused", as they to built, (unauthorised) a 400 tonne waste storage building because they claim they had an open ended 1996 planning permission for a cement plant and that there is no difference! We are only going to store and burn 130,000 mixed household, commercial and industrial wastes. Oh yes and 100,000 tonnes of tyres - all stored outside in a pile ready. Its all the same to us.

CART BEFORE THE HORSE
WCC have put the cart before the horse, as Councillor Ian Smith (Conservative Caldecott) requested a site visit BEFORE the application had been heard as scheduled for 1st April. This is in contravention of the Constitution. Site visits can only take place after the application has been discussed, and only then if the paperwork is not adequate to make a judgement.
The secret site visit should never have been made, and once Cemex refused access to any witnesses, the Councillors should have postponed the visit until after the Agenda item.
The Officers report came out very late - and then only after the site visit - causing chaos at the Regulatory meeting as the Councillors said they had not had time to read the late reports.
At the Regulatory Committee some members left the room after the Agenda item began to be discussed. Those members were then illegible to vote - but they voted anyway!

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY AND INEFFICIENT WET PROCESS KILNS.
Meanwhile the Cemex Community Matters newsletter, distributed to only a few areas of Rugby, contained an Environment Agency propaganda update extolling the virtues of Cemex. This is no substitute for any discussions in Rugby. Most unfortunately for the Agency the ENDS magazine had a four page spread on Cement plants, commenting that Cemex had the worst gross emissions in 2006, and that they refused to be interviewed. This is because the Cemex plants are old-fashioned energy-intensive inefficient wet process, and in Rugby semi-wet process, and because they are built in places with no raw materials - so cannot be BAT. Cemex stated that "the plants were using BAT Best Available Techniques.... at the time of the investment." - so no comfort there. In Rugby there is a massive plume as the chalk slurry is dried out over our heads as they drive off the 40% water content. Recently the monstrous plume has been even bigger, menacingly hanging over the town, - could it be the 15 tonnes an hour of RDF -waste that also has a 15-20% moisture content - is adding to the residents problems, and damaging the town's present and future?

RUGBY RESIDENTS ARE BEING BULLIED YET AGAIN!
Why do we pay the Councillors?
Who are they working for?

ALL FOOLS DAY

LIVES UP TO ITS NAME !
WHAT COULD WE EXPECT AT WCC ON ALL FOOLS DAY? NOT A LOT! AT WCC IT WAS "BUSINESS AS USUAL" AS OFFICERS TOLD THE REGULATORY COUNCILLORS TO NOD THROUGH THE RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE CEMEX UNAUTHORISED "CLIMAFUEL" BUILDING AND CONVEYORS: "OUR POLICY IS TO BUILD FIRST AND THEN INFORM YOU!"

SO THAT CEMEX CAN ADD TO THE UK WASTE MOUNTAIN AND IMPORT COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND HOUSEHOLD WASTE REGARDLESS OF THE IMPACT ON RUGBY RESIDENTS.

HEAR NO TRUTH; SEE NO TRUTH; SPEAK NO TRUTH?

Following on from the Councillors SECRET SITE VISIT to view the unauthorised building officers and councillors failed to answer questions from objectors, nor to listen to the facts. The officer's report and the application contained misleading and inaccurate information. But what could we do? There are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear!

A ROW ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY broke out - as is usual - about who is responsible for this mess - yet again? How were they to separate out the USE of the building from the PLAN for the building? WCC officers wrote a "persuasive encouraging report" to help gain permission. But then Councillors said the use of the building was nothing to do with them - so why did the officer major on the "benefits", and even deny that the plant is a co-incinerator governed under the WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE?


ADDRESS TO COUNCILLORS AND PUBLIC:
I am sorry that I am not with you today but I hope you are considerably more aware of what this Regulatory Committee is being asked to do by the officers than you were a few days ago when you attended the secret site visit, which has only served to jeopardise your position and standing within the community. You are instructed by the officers to grant a retrospective planning permission for a building at the RUGBY CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR to enable the burning of 360 tonnes a day, 130,000 tonnes of a refuse derived waste called CLIMAFUEL, consisting of mixed household, commercial and industrial waste, as a 100% replacement for 10 tonnes of COAL. This building has been constructed without any authorisation, and without any public consultation, any Environmental Impact Assessment, and without any Public Participation - which is a flagrant breach of the European Directives and as such in unlawful in terms of the EU Law , and under the UK Law.

WCC officers also state that the conveyors have no need of any kind of authorisation a they are merely General Permitted Development under the 1995 Town and Country Planning Act, but we challenge this as this Act has been superseded by the EIA Directive and the Public Participation Directives, and must comply with them, and cannot over ride the broad and far reaching European Directives that are designed to protect the public from unauthorised developments that impact on out environment, air quality, health and amenity. WCC appears to have a PECUNIARY interest in this development, according to the Cemex and WCC web sites and various other sites on the web which refer to the purpose of this planned building being to burn approximately 250,000 tonnes a year of Warwickshire's household wastes.

CEMEX have previously given very different information about this Climafuel to the Rugby Councillors, residents, Rugby Cement Community Forum, RBC officers and the consultant employed by RBC to assess the application than appears to be the case now. The full facts are available on the RBC web Task and Finish Group Committee papers , and in the RCCF Minutes. Cemex said:
* household waste only - not the mixed household, commercial and industrial waste it is now declared to be.
* is to be only a 30% replacement - not the 100% replacement it is now.
* that the waste is sourced from Biffa Leicester and Shanks Dagenham to help get rid of the UK waste, - but now it is IMPORTED waste to make money for Cemex and for other countries' benefits.
* that they were to burn 15 tonnes of this "UK Climafuel household waste" as a replacement for 30% of South African coal - but the truth is that they are to burn 15 tonnes IMPORTED household, commercial and industrial waste (they have signed a three year contract to import it through Grimsby) as a 100% replacement for 10 tonnes of WELSH coal. They had the TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON emission limits MASSIVELY increased in late 2005 from 10 milligrams per cubic metre (there are about one million cubic metres of gas emitted every hour from the main stack) to a daily average of 50 mg/m3 and an hourly average of 75 mg/m3 - that is a 400% and 650% increase - because they said they were burning WELSH COAL> This limit remains now in place regardless of the fact that the coal is not, so they say, from Wales, and also when 100% has been replaced by IMPORTED WASTES.
* consulted the public in 2006 ONLY on household waste, produced by the MBT process, and then another category was added , IN SECRET , of wastes treated by the " physico/chemical process of dechromatation, decyanidation and neutralisation. "
* They will not say what these wastes are nor where they come from - see EA web site for more details.


RBC COUNCILLORS asked for information on the trials at the other Cemex South Ferriby and Barrington plants to be made available - but this has not been done.
RBC asked for confirmation that this was ONLY the UK's household waste that was to be burnt - as opposed to IMPORTED commercial and industrial waste - which has not been done.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY has refused to answer any questions from the public or to attend any meetings of the Rugby Cement Community Forum since July 2007. This CO-INCINERATOR plant is governed under the WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE.

The EA has refused to say why the waste burning emissions and PRODUCTS OF INCOMPLETE COMBUSTION are so much worse for the local air quality and environment and our HEALTH than the PICs from Coal? In the PPC permit Cemex have to stop burning tyres and wastes when things go wrong (start up/shut down/under 200 tonnes an hour raw feed, emission limits breached etc) and to start burning coal. Cemex have to pay £60 a tonne for coal instead of being paid about £30 a tonnes to burn the waste tyres and Climafuel... so they are about £90 a tonne worse off!! The EA refuse to answer any questions about why they have now permitted industrial and commercial wastes (imported) to be burnt , and not what they originally consulted the public on. The EA have refused to answer questions about why they increased DANGEROUS emission limits by 400-650% on the "pretext" of WELSH coal being burnt.

WE CALL UPON YOU TO DEFER THIS APPLICATION:
WE REGARD THE DEVELOPMENTS AT THIS PLANT AS UNLAWFUL IN TERMS OF BOTH THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND UK LAWS:

1) for a full investigation of the FACTS and ALL THE REPORTS related to the application.
2) for a full consideration by Rugby Councillors and Rugby residents and the RCCF - to comply with the PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DIRECTIVE.
3) for a full investigation of the WCC pecuniary interest.
4) for a full ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - or at least the submission
of a scoping report.
5) for a DISPERSION MODEL TO BE SUBMITTED as clearly the buildings/conveyors etc will IMPACT on the dispersion and INCREASE pollution and HEALTH IMPACT locally. This has NOT been considered.
6) for a FULL DESCRIPTION of ALL THE WASTES - the QUANTITIES and EU WASTE CODES and CHEMICAL ANALYSIS and STORAGE being used at the CO-INCINERATOR are revealed and the necessary permissions applied for.
7) for a consideration of why Cemex is so opposed to the public seeing what is happening at the plant and only wishes to hold "secret" meetings with Councillors .
8) for a full investigation into how this plant has had SO MANY RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPLICATIONS with no EIA; no Public Participation; no proper procedures; with the truth being hidden from the Regulatory Councillors; and how has changed from being a "one million tonne a year capacity cement plant" as applied for in 1996, into a "two million tonne a year capacity CO-INCINERATOR burning 100% waste tyres and other imported non-domestic wastes".
9) for a full investigation into the allegations of the WCC's maladministration , and failure to follow the UK and EU Law has been concluded.
10) for the secret Duty of Care and Waste Transfer notes to be revealed for public scrutiny.

Thank you for your attention or is that inattention?
NO ONE IS LISTENING - ABOUT RUGBY! - THE WASTE DUMP!

OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB

THEY WEAVE, WHEN FIRST THEY BEGIN TO DECEIVE!

CEMEX : PUBLIC NOT PERMITTED AT "SECRET" SITE VISIT TO VIEW UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION OF EQUIPMENT FOR 100% WASTE BURNING!

Only WCC Regulatory Councillors are welcome to see CLIMAFUEL plant - see Peter Barnes; Brian Moss; Jose Compton; Michael Doody; Pat Henry; Nina Knapman; Joan Lea; Barry Longden; Sue Main; Ray Sweet; Ian Smith; to attend Cemex site at 11.00 on 25th March. We have pointed out that this Cemex REFUSAL to allow any of the public on the site visit, that is now to be held in "secret", is "not fair", is unethical, and flies in the face of the need for transparency, openness, community engagement, public participation and Cemex's own stated position as being open to visitors.

WCC CONSTITUTION SAYS:
"Applicants and objectors will accompany the Committee only in order to facilitate access, point out physical features and answer factual questions. A site visit may exceptionally be followed by a factual presentation on behalf of the applicant (see section 26). At least one representative of any objectors should be invited to observe the presentation."
But DIVIDE the community and RULE is how Cemex always play it! WHY COULD IT POSSIBLY BE - that the meeting MUST be HELD IN SECRET?

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY PERMIT OVER 100% WASTE! as they issue a permit variation to burn over 100% waste at Cemex co-incinerator. The public were told in the public consultation CARRIED OUT BY CEMEX IN THE SUMMER OF 2006 that the "Climafuel" was to be a substitute for 30% of the coal, and was to be "household waste - your black bag rubbish". But afterwards they find out the permit has allowed various industrial and commercial wastes to be incorporated, with a 50% increase in chlorine - to name but one "difference". The copy of the application and consultation document version 1 June 2006 as carried out by Cemex during 2006 is, of course, not on the Environment Agency's Public Register. They have a new different version of the original application in which the new industrial wastes from dechromatation, decyanidation and neutralisation have been included.

And the public were told the 15 tonnes an hour would represent 30% of the thermal value. But given that the substitute fuel only goes into the combustion chamber, and not into the kiln, surely the replacement is ONLY in the calciner? It is difficult (to say the least!) to find out the "true facts" about what is being burn there, but it appears about 60% of the coal is burnt in the calciner, being approximately 18 tonnes an hour. This has been substituted by 6 tph of tyres, which have a higher calorific value, but leaving that aside - there are about 12 tph coal to replace. These are being replaced by 15tph of "climafuel", which has a calorific value between 15 and 23 MJ/kg. So there you are - over 100% replacement. What impact this will have no one knows, except there have been some increases in polluting emissions at Barrington and South Ferriby imported Dutch "climafuel" has been trialled, which is apparently "of a better more consistent quality than the RDF available in the UK". There is a three year contract to import it through Grimsby, where the bales are broken as it is unloaded into "walking floor" trailers for despatch for co-incineration at the cement plants. So much for A LOCAL SOLUTION TO A LOCAL PROBLEM!


PLANNING PERMISSION FOR 100% WASTE - WHO NEEDS IT?
Not Cemex anyway, who have built the "climafuel" docking and transfer equipment without bothering to wait for the planning application to be heard by the WARWICKSHIRE County Council Regulatory committee on ALL FOOLS DAY, as was planned. Instead Councillors, in an apparent breach of Protocol, are to go on a "site visit" on 25th March before the application has been even discussed at Committee. See Minutes Regulatory Committee WCC 4th March 2008. In response to a WCC letter 8th February advising Cemex that these "work are completely unauthorised" and that Cemex may "face enforcement action to secure their removal" and to "cease work to allow the submitted planning application to be considered" Cemex have his to say on 26th February:

* we are surprised complainants have seen it as it is low to the ground.
* we can erect the conveyor system under "permitted development".
* it is a relatively small building, area 745 square metres.
* it is extremely unlikely that the officers will recommend councillors to refuse it.
* the cement plant had planning permission in 1996, therefore no policy objection.
* there is very little likelihood of the operation causing harm by noise, dust, fumes or odour.
* once it was considered it was not permitted development we had already started building.
* the Government sees retrospective permission as an appropriate way to regularise "unauthorised development".

RUGBY AREA COMMITTEE 24 JANUARY:
complained that this Committee had an apparent lack of a meaningful role, and the members of the County Councillors were not being consulted on MAJOR planning applications. WCC lawyers said that these MAJOR applications went straight to the Regulatory Committee "who had the necessary officer support and resources and comprehensive reports and training." The Committee resolved to write to the Strategic Director of Performance and Development requesting the Area Committee be consulted, in particular on applications for planning permission in respect of significant developments affecting the Area." The $100 question: Does the "unlawful" erection of equipment and "retrospective" planning application to burn 100% waste at the Rugby Cemex plant constitute "significant development?"


HAZARDOUS WASTE FLY TIPPING AT SOUTHAM?
LACK OF PPC PERMIT AND PLANNING PERMISSION OF NO CONCERN TO ANYONE as the Regulatory Committee of WCC 4th March got themselves into even more hot water! The officers advised them to renew a "further extension to an old, already expired several times, 'temporary' planning permission for non-hazardous waste CKD which had been granted temporarily in 2000 just until all the waste CKD could be dumped in CLOSED LANDFILL in Parkfield Road Rugby. The Cement Kiln Dust from a coal burning cement plant could be dumped at Southam. After we intervened and explained EU Law and hazardous waste they became even more "mixed up" and admitted they could not understand what is the difference between the previously expired permitted CKD from the coal burning process, and the HAZARDOUS WASTE BYPASS DUST from a co-incinerating cement plant. "The EA had been asked to clarify the issue" which "had lead to even more confusion." They said that "The unauthorised depositing was not a fundamental problem as the EA and Stratford Council did not appear to be overly concerned." GREAT! So no need to COMPLY WITH THE LAW, and no need to have the LEGALLY REQUIRED PPC PERMIT or any legally required planning permission? Bob Stevens asked "whether the applicants (Cemex) would continue depositing at the site" that has no planning permission, and Ian Grace said " this was likely, and that it would be difficult to take action against the company to make them halt in view of the uncertainty surrounding the issue." The initial 2004 PPC application is still the subject of an appeal before the Planning Inspector Kevin Gordon, and yet a further abeyance till mid 2008 has been granted. One reason why the PPC application had been REFUSED by the EA was BECAUSE the site has NO PLANNING PERMISSION. It has no PPC operating permission either, and by October 2007 this became a legal requirement.

MP JEREMY WRIGHT ; ROCK AND HARD PLACE!
The very unfortunate and "shady" re-organisation of the parliamentary boundaries has taken the "Kenilworth" out of Rugby, and placed it in with Southam instead. This leaves ex MP Andy King, Labour, (lost seat to Jeremy in 2005) to slug it out in Rugby with the Jeremy replacement - Mark Pawsey Conservative. Meanwhile , as Jeremy sails away into the sunset at Southam and Kenilworth, this has coincided with Cemex's submitting two EIA SCOPING ASSESSMENTS for MBT/IHT at Southam - or at Rugby - or at both? Jeremy appears to be between a rock and a hard place. If he supports Rugby residents in their rejection of this application he will not do very well in Southam.

SQUANDERING PUBLIC MONEY AND WASTING OUR TIME IN SECRET MEETINGS:
At Southam and Warwick and Rugby secret meetings have been going on between various WCC officers, and Councillors, and Cemex, and local parish representatives (NIMBYS) who are apparently only interested in themselves, and "their little area", and are unable to "think outside of their box", and who "ONLY worried about the increase in lorries in their villages". They also insist on "keeping all the groups separate" so that there will be no joined-up thinking and holistic approach, and so that the COMMUNITY/IES will be REMAIN DIVIDED and SEGREGATED! So many "secret meetings" going on all the time , a massive waste of public time and funds, where officers of the EA, RBC and WCC are concerned - no Agenda, no minutes, no public, no notice, venues are hidden etc. This is a neat little ACTION PLAN, and in this way you can "tell'em what you want and no one will know any different!"

LIST OF VARIOUS COMMITTEES AND MEMBERS TO BE COMPILED.
We are tabulating a list of all these committees and groups and will be publishing a full list of who is involved and how to contact them.

WATCH THIS SPACE!

U-Turn

"NO EXTENSION!" now becomes "YES!"
PUBLIC PRESSURE FORCES BACK-TRACK
"It was clear that members were anxious to have more time to consider the MALPASS SCOPING DOCUMENTS. The problems in distribution have obviously exacerbated the situation and in order to provide community organisations, and individuals, with sufficient time to comment, I have agreed with WCC that the consultation period be extended by four weeks from February 29th to March 27th."

COMPETITION: WINNER TAKES ALL!
NOW PARITY IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE "TWO GROUPS" as SOUTHAM locals fight with RUGBY residents for the :
* PRIVILEGE and PLEASURE and
* HUGE ENVIRONMENTAL and FINANCIAL BENEFIT * that WINNING the PLANNING PERMISSION
* for the HALF A MILLION TONNES a year WASTE PLANT will bring to their homes, roads and area.

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL last week:
" The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 require Local Planning Authorities to adopt a scoping opinion within five weeks... In the case of Southam Long Itchington the initial circulation list was extended mid way through the consultation exercise following discussions at a local liaison meeting. Given that these additional consultees would have had little time to respond a request was made to extend the consultation period, which Cemex were agreeable to. The consultation period ended up being six to seven weeks. In respect of Malpass Farm there has been no change with the consultation thus I am not convinced that is necessary to increase the consultation period. I have discussed this with Cemex who are not minded to agree to an extension of time. However, any comments/ observations received after the 29th February will not be ignored and will be considered by WCC and forwarded to Cemex for consideration and incorporation within the preparation of the Environmental Statement."

HOW MUCH IS IT ALL WORTH?
BOTTOM LINE! COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE!
OUCH! They burn about 30 tonnes of coal an hour at about £60 a tonne - £1,800 hour.
COST: COAL 24 X £1,800 = £43,200 A DAY depending on coal price/quality. They can SUBSTITUTE 6 tph tyres that attract a "gate fee" of about £35 tonne, so £210 an hour - plus coal saved £360 = £570 an hour SAVED £13,680 a day.
£43,200 fuel bill reduced by £13,680 = daily FUEL COST £29,520

ADD IN TONNES OF RUBBISH
Household waste RDF attracts a gate fee of about £30 tonne(?) They can burn 15 tph "climafuel" for the trials, but according to the web they will be able to double the substitution when the "sham trials" are over. The co-incinerator can achieve "over a 100% substitution" this way, but because the RDF is of variable and lower calorific value it can be substituted at a ratio of about 2 parts to 1 of coal. Could be another £450/£900 an hour income to offset against the coal?

CIVIL WAR IN WARWICKSHIRE OVER WASTE PLANT.
We have called for an INTEGRATED HOLISTIC APPROACH, with OPEN INFORMED PUBLIC meetings and TRANSPARENCY! For the SAKE of EVERYONE we need to get the "LEAST WORST OPTION". But obviously those with a "vested interest" in all this, and those who have their "little power bases", prefer to divide the community, and to pit "each community" against another for the benefit of Cemex! POLICY TO SEPARATE COMMUNITY: DIVIDED WE FALL!
Rugby Cement have set up various little "powerless" groups, such as the Southam Quarry Liaison Group - a group so "un-knowing" that they are not even aware that there is hazardous waste BYPASS DUST from the CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR being dumped in the quarry, with no lawful planning permission and no lawful operating permit.

QUARRY SPOKESMAN HAS HEAD IN THE SAND!
They say that the meetings have "enabled Cemex to project a responsible caring image with local people." "The interests of communities local to Southam do not neatly coincide with this expanding Vehicle Routing Group, which is a CONTENTIOUS ONE with no obvious straightforward solution that will meet everyone's wishes. It NEEDS TO BE KEPT SEPARATE!" The RCCF is also to be kept in the dark, and to be kept away from meeting with those at Southam, (Stratford District, a whole kilometre away from the Rugby Borough boundary!) who are soon to be afflicted!

CEMEX CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT
Geoff Yates of Lawford in the Observer "I was interested to read about the planned further expansion of the cement works or is it an incinerator plant? The thing that really amazes me was that the expansion of the Southam works was shelved because of the extra traffic movements that would have occurred. It would appear that the increase to a minimum of 1,000 truck movements per day that occurred at the Rugby works was OK, even though it is smack in the middle of a residential area! In the light of the above with regard to this new extension of activities and with the potential for even more pollution in the area I feel sure the local residents will get the 'usual protection from our local representatives and the department of the environment.'

It would seem that when Cemex say "JUMP" the only question they get asked is "HOW HIGH?""

TOWN CENTRE VIEW FOR ALL TO ENJOY!

CEMENT PLANT TO BE LISTED BUILDING!

RUGBY CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR FORUM UPDATE:

CEMEX DENIES ALL KNOWLEDGE OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES to be burnt in the Cemex co-incinerator. It seems the Environment Agency are to blame, as they just put an EWC waste code for industrial waste into the PPC Permit, along with the stated/consulted household RDF application, without being asked? Believe it or not? And, in any case, EW waste codes are meaningless - apparently!

CEMEX SAID NO! TO REQUESTS FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME IN RUGBY where they are "testing the water" for a possible HALF a MILLION tonne a year waste plant: 1,000 tonnes a day in;360 tonnes burnt; 640 tonnes OUT AGAIN in another form. You know it makes sense! IMPORT Up to 240,000 tpa of MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, or COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL waste materials, Plus about 125,000 tpa of imported SRF or Climafuel ready made: to produce 240,000 tpa of Climafuel. Of this 130,000 tonnes can burnt in the Rugby Co-incinerator - and the balance 235,000 tpa to be re-exported? Unless of course they decide to double the burn rate? When asked this they said they would do whatever the AGENCY allow them to do!

MALPASS WASTE PROCESSING PLANT PROPOSAL Out of 1,000 tonnes a day to be imported to Rugby apparently about 30% will be "steam with dust" to be emitted from a chimney, of indeterminate height, or from vents. When questioned about this proposed dumping of 300 tonnes waste a day onto us, they said it might not be as much as 30% as they need to keep some moisture.


WHY DID CEMEX AND WCC PLANNERS NOT TELL US ABOUT MALPASS? The debate became confrontational and acrimonious, as usual, because the forum members and the public realised we had been DUPED yet again! Despite two WCC planning officers attending the 29th January RCCF meeting, organised and controlled by CEMEX, neither they, nor Cemex itself thought to inform the Forum that this new application was "in" and the public consultation was to start on 31st January. Then bungled emails of gobbledygook were sent out on 6th February to a few selected people. What a deliberate mess!

SECRET MEETINGS!

CEMEX: PUNCHES BELOW BELT!

CEMEX : BENEVOLENT SOCIETY "COMMUNITY DONATIONS"
"PERSUADE BENEFICIARIES TO LOOK AWAY" - AS RUGBY ROTS!

ROUND ONE - RING SIDE SEATS ST OSWALD'S CHURCH HALL NEW BILTON WEDNESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 6;30 PM

SOUTHAM PEASANTS ARE REVOLTING AGAINST CEMEX'S LATEST PLANS FOR A 360,000 TONNE WASTE PROCESSING SITE!

So the NIMBYs told them "TO STUFF IT" and re-locate in the urban area of Rugby, in an area already polluted by industrial emissions from the Cemex co-incinerator, where an Air Quality Management Area is in place, and where thousands more residents, homes, schools, listed buildings, can be affected - on the grounds that Rugby is already ruined, blighted, destroyed, by Rugby Cement , and because we are already polluted, we are used to it, and to suffering 1,000 juggernauts night and day, so it won't make much difference to us! Will it?

RUGBY MP JEREMY WRIGHT HAS BEEN ASKED TO VENTURE BACK FROM KENNILWORTH, to intervene, and to arrange PUBLIC meetings, with all County, Borough and District/Town councillors, officers, and ALL the residents of Southam, the parishes, and Rugby who are soon to be affected to a GREATER of LESSER extent depending on WHO WINS? All fights to be held under the Queensbury rules!


BNP and TORIES SHARE COMMON OVERSIGHT IN RUGBY?
In the meantime there are gripping County elections going on for the seat of the Lawfords and New Bilton where the monstrosityis to be built, next to the co-incinerator. All the candidates cite, as a main concern, the significant damaging cement plant - except the BNP and Tory Lawford candidate who apparently have not EVEN noticed a giant co-incinerator sitting there! But could this "oversight" be due to the latest "benevolent donation" of £150,000 for Church Lawford's village hall?

MUSHROOM SYNDROME AT LONG LAWFORD PARISH COUNCIL! CHAIR MR DRAPER also seems to have a plank in his eye as he refused to let Parish Councillors even discuss the "proposed Climafuel plant", despite it being on the Agenda for discussion. Sally Bragg, Borough Councillor left the meeting just before the item, while Claire Watson, Borough Councillor, and the Tory hopeful for the County, did not show up. A member of the public who had waited for two hours to speak on this very urgent topic, was shouted down, and bawled out by the Chair who was laying down the law, presumably in the "interests of Cemex, and of having no democratic due process and no community engagement in Lawford".
Apparently "it's not their problem," despite the fact Lawford is only 200 yards from the site. Not surprisingly minutes from the "secret meetings" were nit distributed. LAWFORD councillors and residents alike have been treated like mushrooms, yet again, kept in the dark and bucket loads of pollution tipped on their heads at frequent intervals. But that is nothing compared to what is going to come next!


RUGBY UPDATE - WHAT GOES UP MUST COME DOWN.
CEMEX consulted the public on what they described as "Climafuel" to be manufactured from household waste: category EU Waste Code 19 12 10, "combustible waste, refuse derived fuel," with a maximum chlorine content of 0.8%, but when the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY issued the PERMIT it contained a 50% increase in Chlorine content, and a new EW category of 10 02 10 "combustible waste from the Physico/chemical treatment of waste including dechromatation, dcyanidation and neutralisation". Working in conjunction with the so-called Environment Agency they changed the specification to Industrial wastes. Having finished the public charade, laughingly called consultation, they altered the chemical contents.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS heard, in a full and fair hearing, held in the House of Commons over 3 days 21-23 January, how the people of Rugby have been cheated by the "authorities and Rugby Cement". The issues:
(1) Whether a PPC permit derived from EU law can be lawfully granted where (a) there has been a failure to provide the public with key environmental information and (b) where/whether such a grant may be a breach of EU Directives relating to the EIA and IPPC regime;
(2) the nature of the court's discretion to decline relief in JUDICIAL REVIEW after having found a breach of domestic (but not EU) law.



** READ THE RUGBY TIMES TODAY **
RUGBY IN PLUME IS LAUNCHING "A PETITION TO RE-OPEN THE RAILWAY" AT THE 27TH FEBRUARY RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM MEETING! the railway route between Southam and Rugby Cemen has ONLY been "safeguarded" because Rugby Cement and WCC wished to spend an extra £28 million of public money to preserve the rail route for use by Rugby Cement. Cemex are not amused about our PETITION and it is reported in today's Rugby Times that they will not even consider it because "its not commercially viable for them". BUT RIP have the backing of the village parish councils and Rugby residents,and also I am sure all the British people who have paid an extra £28 million towards subsidising Rugby Cement and its operations.

SOME LORRIES - LORRY TRAINS PERHAPS?
The Rugby Times "ANGER AT RUBBISH PLANT PROPOSAL" also reveals that Cemex says, of its plans to build a factory to turn 360,000 tonnes of waste a year, 1,000 tonnes a day into fuel: "would mean more lorries accessing the site, with about 11 extra loads a day!" WOW! LOOK OUT FOR THE 100 TONNE TRUCKS!

Western Relief?

The proposed route for the Western Relief road has to be seen to be believed. So I thought I would show you..

MICRO-CLIMATES.

WIND DIRECTION changes at different heights, as is clearly shown in this picture. See the massive plume from the main stack - about 3,000 tonnes a day of gas, laden with pollutants - about 1,000,000 cubic metres each hour. Then notice the streaming plumes from the cement mills, now known as emissions of particulate, "in pure air" (??) from these polluting Low Level Point Sources. When local people complain about "dust" they are invariably scathingly told by the authorities that their "case is not proven - the wind was in wrong direction". But where do these "experts" take their readings? Even the recent air quality assessments which monitored wind speed and direction at four points in the Rugby Borough had four different direction and speeds on the same graph! And do not mention re-suspended dust what ever you do!


WHAT'S NEW?
Since the Rugby Council with drew their support for the Rugby Cement Community Forum in July 2007 there has been only one meeting held in public, in December, in a freezing cold village hall in Bilton. There are plans afoot to change the name of the RCCF, to Rugby Community Cement Forum, which seems in appropriate when the plant has, over Christmas, increased its co-incineration to 220,000 tonnes a year. The household waste (Climafuel) that the public were consulted on in 2007, has now morphed into a permission for 15 tph - 360 tpd, 131,400 per annum of EWC 190210 and 191210, These are apparently residues from household waste and from "wastes from physico/ chemical treatment of waste including dechromatation, decyanidation and neutralisation! Due to the low calorific value 15tph makes only a 30% substitution, while the 87,600 tonnes tyres constitute a 40% substitution being 10 tph.


OTHER WASTES used and stored are listed without waste codes, or quantities, or storage/planning permissions, and the bypass dust is still being trucked in sheeted lorries to be landfilled at Southam, where the "temporary non-hazardous planning permission", such as it was, expired on 31st December. Apparently hazardous waste is not supposed to be allowed to escape, and must be contained, but WCC have agreed to allow them to use returning clay lorries under a Section 106 agreement in 2001. WCC do not seem to know what BYPASS dust is and how polluting.
The old planning permission was for CKD from a coal-burning cement works and this expired in 2001. The Environment Agency seems to have forgotten the Landfill Directive and PPC Regulations, seemingly allowing the dumping under the old expired Waste Management Licence. Every year good old Warwickshire County Council, seemingly in ignorance, gives the operator another temporary extension, even though the landfill has no permission as a hazardous waste site. The bypass dust from the co-incineration of waste is trucked in sheeted returning clay lorries - often streaming out as the lorries travel through the Rugby Town Centre - as witnessed again this week.

MOBILE DUST-CATCHERS ON THE STREETS.
Even the RBC EHO,who have often tried to downplay the air quality problems and contributions from the whole INSTALLATION,and who are slow to bother about such matters as hazardous dust spilling over the residents, have now saida mobile air quality monitor must follow the lorries to try to "catch the dust". Mind you I expect they will warn them first as usual!
Watch this space!!

RUGBY CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR

(click on image to enlarge)
UNACCEPTABLE, UNSUITABLE, UNLAWFUL, SITE OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE DUMP, ENCOMPASSING OPEN AIR WASTE STORAGE, CO-INCINERATION, BLENDING, AND DISCRETE (SECRET) INCORPORATION OF ALL MANNER AND QUANTITIES OF WASTES INTO CEMENT.

WHY OH WHY? IT MAKES NO SENSE!
We Rugby Residents are now in our fourth year of TYRE TRIALS,
with a further one year trial starting to see "how they can manage
to get to 6 tonnes per hour over the course of a year". With a
little bit of luck, and some 15tph of household/commercial/industrial waste
thrown in for good measure. The public were told in the "tyre trials application and non technical summary" that the trials to 10tph would be over within 6 months by 2004, but they are still struggling on with all manner of excuses why they have failed to succeed.
Apparently all this effort just to prove that the 0.15% of particulate emissions emitted from the main stack comes exclusively from the burning of the fuel, which is "not adversely affected by the substitution involved in tyre burning", while the other 99.85% of emissions comes from the raw material "cooking". Believe it - or not! Meanwhile they change the raw materials (responsible for 99.85% emissions) to substitutes/wastes - without any trial, consultation or comment? And Cemex fitted £6 million pounds of bag filters to meet the Waste Incinerator Directive - for the reduction of the particulate emissions from fuel burning emissions from 50mg/NM3 to 30mg/NM3 - except all the emissions are now said to be from the raw materials, and not the fuel at all. Under the WID they are supposed to meet the limits for VOC/TOC (Volatile Organic Carbons) and Sulphur Dioxide, but they claim "a derogation", and actually increased the emission limits fivefold from those existing before the tyre trials from 10mg/Nm3 to 50 mg/NM3.

ALL THIS PUBLIC MONEY WASTED FOR WHAT?
Years of trials - for 0.15% of particulate stack emissions?
EIGHT YEARS of sham consultations; dubious data; withheld reports; pointless public meetings; question and no-answers sessions; misleading and false information distributed; RCCF meetings where questions are asked but not answered - see RBC web site which has suddenly been transformed!; An Agency, which had helped Rugby Cement to build the plant and had just given it an (unlawful) IPC permit in 1999, but that still in 2003 could not tell the public which emissions were permitted and which were not - nor where the emissions came from! The AEAT report into "some" of the differences between tyre burning emissions and coal emissions at four cement plants; The May 2006 EA survey of what people "think" about the cement plant emissions; and now £15,000 largely from the existing health protection budget in order to choose a new Rugby Cemex Co-incinerator Forum;
An Agency which said publicly if the 60,000 people of Rugby came to the meetings and protested, they would take no notice - and which now crows that the protest has somewhat diminished.

WASTES SUBSTITUTED and MATERIALS: TYRES - 600 tonnes stored in open; CLIMAFUEL - household/commercial/industrial wastes; PETCOKE - waste from oil industry; and coal that requires emission limits to increase from TOC 10 to 50mg/Nm3.

PFA; MINESTONE; BAUXITE; OIL CRACKING SPENT CATALYST; ALUMINIUM DROSS; FOUNDRY SAND; GLASS WASTE; SILT;C EMENT BOARD SANDINGS; IRON STONE; STEEL SLAG; IRON PYRITES; TIOXIDE; FLUE GAS DE-SULPHURISATION MATERIAL; POTTERY MOLDS; AND additives such as AMMONIA and SYNTHETIC SURFACTANTS; ALKANOLAMINES; POLYALCOHOLS; SILICA DIOXIDE AND ORGANIC SURFACTANTS and SLURRY THINNERS etc etc

ONE MILLION POUNDS AIR QUALITY MONITORING?
£1 million pounds Rugby Council tax payers money squandered on poorly/wrongly sited ineffective monitoring, in order to "catch" the tyre trials' pollution

- except the trials never properly got going, and the monitoring is over; A
million pounds of ambient air monitoring "hindered" by the Environment Agency which refused to disclose pertinent pollution Dispersion models to help with the locations, and hindered by Rugby Cement which refused to give stack emissions data to the consultants Faber Maunsell and to RBC.

An Agency that does not know which way the wind blows - first in late 1999 before the plant was opened they identified a monitoring site one mile due South of the plant as the "location as close as predictable to the place where emissions from the site were predicted to be a maximum." Rugby people were forced to pay up for two years monitoring - uselessly located due south, too far away, next to a large building, and under a tree.

Then the Agency, after more (secret) dispersion modelling, decided in 2003 that this was NOT the correct location after all, and they then put a monitor one mile due north of the plant, but it appears the data is still not in the public domain; RBC paid thousands of our cash to various consultants who advised the installation of boundary site monitors; properly spaced pollution monitors and the installation of an infra-red stack camera, but all this "good advice" was paid for and simply then ignored.


PEOPLE POWER AT PADESWOOD CASTLE CEMENT:
At Padeswood a straight forward civil law process as a Group Action is underway, on behalf of local residents, who have been blighted by the newly commissioned cement/co-incinerator plant. They will be seeking a) Compensation for Loss of Amenity and b) An injunction on Castle Cement to abate the nuisances caused by their industrial activities. The injunction would have the power of the court behind it and if not complied with, would result in Castle Cement being back in court for that failure. In this action the defence of "operating within permit" is not a valid defence. A Public Nuisance offence is not available as the industry is exempt apparently - as we have found out in Rugby. But, as in Rugby, there is a clear indication of continuing blight upon their lives, properties and possessions caused by emissions of dust, noise, the giant falling plume, and odour, emanating from the cement works, over the preceeding six years.

The cement industry has been left to "Self Regulation" seemingly by dictat of DEFRA. "A lighter touch of the regulations" was a phrase allegedly wielded by government a few years ago. Then, to facilitate the cement company activities further, the 2005 revision of the Substitute Fuels Protocol for Cement and Lime Kilns was so abrasively bullied through by DEFRA and the Environment Agency, after a farce of a "public consultation", that it became clear that as far as Government was concerned, sustaining cement/industrial activity had precedence over the quality of life of local residents. Allied to that, the cement companies, probably through having an eye towards profitablity, have done absolutely as little as they feel they need to do in order control the ill effects of their industrial activities, firmly believing, it would appear, that all and any public complaints via the Environment Agency would be "smothered" in regulation and red tape, and never be anything other than "another entry on the public register of complaints." This current action is "People Power" fighting back against that unjust and improper scenario. And, the inevitable banning from corresponding and from the cement forum has also been tried at Padeswood, with a motion to expel the properly-elected member involved in the legal action - as at Rugby. Only "friends" of the cement company, and those who agree with and endorse both the Agency and the industry are welcome on the Liaison groups and Cement Community Forum!!

DETACHED PLUME?

AT CEMEX RUGBY BLl7248IH

POLLUTION INVENTORY - CARBON DIOXIDE DOUBLES!
On the Agency WIMBY web site you can see various "actual measurements", "calculations", and "estimations", of the "main" pollutants emitted from the MAIN STACK at Cemex Rugby, presumably discounting the main health damaging pollutant of PARTICULATE PM10, which has been of much concern to Rugby residents and to health professionals. The "Cement and Lime Activities Guidance Note PI-CEML-yv071" has been issued to the industry to help them to fill in the forms, as required by the EU, in the correct manner. However there exists much "uncertainty" as to how these figures have been arrived at - and we are left wondering as to the purpose, accuracy and reliability of these figures. Meanwhile the British Cement Association is protesting against the 67% increase in charges to be imposed by the Environment Agency as it gains about £3 million from the EU ETS, with presumably 60 EA staff working full time on this issue alone. See Charges Consultation 2007/08.

CARBON DIOXIDE has more than doubled, (quadrupled since 1999), and in 2006 has been split into two parts - 471,000 tonnes of "thermal" and 604,000 tonnes "chemical" - whereas in 2000 they state they have emitted only 500,000 tonnes - double that of the old plant! But other pollutants do not appear to have increased by the same ratio - suggesting something is possibly "wrong" with the reporting? They have evolved a new method of reporting the pollutants in a "random order" instead of by alphabetical listings. Carbon monoxide seems to have disappeared all together! The old plant can be traced under AH8697. AMMONIA appears steady at about 6 tonnes.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY TO ANSWER CONCERNS:
about increased number and duration of apparently "detached plumes", which by nature form after they are released from the stack, which is very worrying? We have requested information about the time and duration of any trials, tests and changes that have been carried out at the plant during December 2007 as permitted by the Agency such as the use of AMMONIA to reduce nitrogen dioxide, and clay-substitute trials.

ON DETACHED PLUMES: RAPCA:
"For condensable PM and detached plumes - which by nature form after they are released from the stack, BLDS and PM CEMS are meaningless. Measuring precursors (SO2, NOx, THC) would probably be more sensitive and certainly VEs would be more cost effective. Although reading detached plumes (especially since they are usually combined with steam plumes) is EVEN MORE SUBJECTIVE than reading an attached plume."

HEIDELBERG CEMENT California:
"Cement plants, are sometime afflicted with a "detached plume" meaning that detectable emissions do not form until after exhaust leaves the smoke stack.
Chemicals in the plume don't combine to create a problem until after leaving the stack, so sensors inside the stack can't detect the problem.
This often occurs due to changes in the ore and other raw materials used to make cement. The ultimate cause can only be determined through exhaustive and expensive testing. Testing of the plume by the company so far shows the plume contains ammonia, sulfates, chlorides, all potentially harmful to the public under the wrong conditions."

HEIDELBERG CEMENT 1 JUNE 2006:
"With an SNCR control NOX is reacted with ammonia or urea in an environment with a specific temperature range and for a sufficient residence time. The effective temperature range for SNCR is approximately 100-2000F. For a preheater/calciner system this would occur in a zone near the lowest stage of the preheater tower.
Below the effective temperature ammonia present in the gas stream does not react and "AMMONIA SLI " occurs. Likewise if excessive quantities of ammonia/urea are injected some pass through un-reacted and cause ammonia slip. Either case will result in a release of ammonia from the stack that could result in producing a detached plume, causing an opacity compliance issue. If injection occurs at temperatures above the effective range, ammonia present in the gas stream will react to form additional NOX, and NOx emissions may increase."

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Are stuck between a rock and a hard place, yet again! They are disputing with Cemex over various issue including the Western Relief Road, which we recall was prevented from being built in 2000 by the intervention of Rugby Cement and ex MP Andy King who said they wanted to re-open the rail link to the Southam clay quarries, (because they have NO RAW MATERIAL in Rugby) removing about 70 HGVs a day from the villages - about 10% of the TOTAL LORRIES!

Now it is a question of whether the new SILO for the EXPORT/IMPORT of clinker needs a planning application under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1995 - or not? And also what about the new conveyors, docking station, etc for the burning of household waste? And also what about the STORAGE of the large quantities of INDUSTRIAL WASTE which have been substituted for raw materials, on the site, without any European Waste Codes or publicly available information about the nature, quantity, and likely/possible impact of these wastes on local air quality and health?
The Environment Agency will not answer any questions about these wastes - so who is responsible for the turning of Rugby into a WASTE DUMP without apparently any planning permission or IPPC Permit? And not to mention the words PUBLIC CONSULTATION!

CEMEX SET FOR TILBURY PORT MILL:
This new 1.2 million tonne per annum facility, (opening summer 2008) according to Paul Fletcher UK Environment Manager: "is ideally positioned for shipping in the half a million tonnes of SLAG it will require per year for the production of CEM3." The CEM3 blended cement product uses 50% clinker - compared to 95% (??) used in the previous blends, which will reduce its CO2 emissions by 50% for each tonne of cement produced.

GREAT ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT?
"The 600,000 TONNES CLINKER will be transported by ROAD from the RUGBY CO-INCINERATOR plant." Is that extra clinker - or instead of that they make into cement at Rugby?

Sensitive lorry miles - what are they?

ONE DARK SATANIC MILL

MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR RUGBY!

CEMENT WORKS PREVENTS INVESTMENT IN RUGBY:
Rugby Councillors have thrown out a planning application for a BUTCHERS PET CARE factory and a one hundred foot chimney, in the COTON PARK DEVELOPMENT - because of the experience gained (suffered!!) with the Rugby Cement plant! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH IS ENOUGH - or too much even!!

Various people commented:

* "We already have one dark satanic mill in the shape of the cement works, we don't want another one!"
* "The people have won the battle against the planners!"
* "Thousands of people have protested against it - they thought it was a done-deal but we gave them a bloody nose!"
* "They say that it is safe but that is what they said about the cement factory - and everyone knows that is simply not true!"
* "This goes against all the town's plans to improve itself!"

The Warwickshire Telegraph reported that it boiled down to protection of amenities, and a 700 strong petition - the RUGBY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE did not want it - RUGBY SCHOOL did not want it - surrounding businesses did not want it, and thousands of residents did not want to live near the factory in the shadow of a 100 foot chimney, which would generate smelly emissions, create extra traffic, and impact badly on house prices!

Cynics might ask then why have these same Councillors done absolutely nothing to protect the residents against the increasing impact of the CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR? They have ignored an 8,000 strong petition, passing planning applications one after another to convert the old cement plant from a 300,000 tonne environmental disaster into a 2,000,000 tonne a year waste co-incinerator, allowing the emissions of 3,000 tonnes a day of polluted gas from the main 115 metre chimney and much other pollution from the low level sources, and not to mention the occasional eight tonnes of pulverised fuel (etc!) on our heads, and 800 or so lorries a day!

Could it be that the nearest residents to that industrial behemoth are in deprived wards with Councillors who do nothing, while the middle classes at Coton Park have more influence and clout? But maybe this is a turning point and Councillors are now prepared to fight back against these planning officers who they are, after all, supposed to instruct? Rugby residents need a champion within the Rugby and Warwick Councils - which COUNCILLOR will step forward, and rise to the challenge to HELP RUGBY IMPROVE ITSELF?

UPDATE ON REDROW AND NEW BILTON RAIL SIDING:
RBC Environmental Health Office have said that Cemex and EWS only need a Permit (LA-PPC) for the unloading of coal at the site. For the loading/unloading of "ALL OTHER MATERIALS INCLUDING ANY MANNER OR QUANTITIES OF WASTES" they will not need any application or permission. So the Cemex conveyor/s, due to be put in the £330,000 tunnel under Parkfield Road, thoughtfully provided by the tax payers as part of the Western Relief Road scheme, will carry what exactly?

Meanwhile the cost of the Relief Road Scheme has soared from £11 million in 2000 to £37 million due to the interference of Rugby Cement (RMC) who "claimed" they wished to re-open the railway - when in truth they would only do so if the great British public paid for it for them. Now there seems to be some areas of contention between WCC and Cemex about the WRR route, and the ownership of the land over which it will pass. PLANNING CONSULTANTS have advised REDROW residents to take legal action against the developers and against Rugby Council for "misinforming them" about the status of the railway siding which has actually been in use since the late 1990's. Rugby Cement did not use the railway siding as it was CHEAPER FOR THEM to run 20,000 coal-laden juggernauts in Rugby town centre - regardless of the environmental and health impact! RBC seem set to face yet another OMBUDSMAN inquiry.

INCOMPETENCE AND THE TANGLED WEB OF LIES AND DECEIT: has lead to the cement/co-incinerator installation falling foul of all the various planning and environmental laws, including the EIA Directive, Public Participation Directive and the Aarhus Convention - not to mention HUMAN RIGHTS! Have a look at the paper "Environmental Law and Planning Update" given at the Planning Law and Practice Conference by David Elvin QC on 29 March 2007 for more information. Between 25 June 2005 and 15 January 2007 the UK was in breach of the Directive and during this time Warwickshire County Council was busy rushing through the installation of bag filters to permit the burning of wastes, and various other permissions without complying with the relevant Law - which may lead to further court action against them. So far WCC have declined to answer questions about the storage of hundreds of tonnes of various unquantified and unqualified industrial wastes at the site, and about their consideration at the planning application stage of the impact of the massive plume, which loops, and falls, and hangs over the whole town of Rugby and beyond. Watch this space!

SPILLING THE BEANS

ABOUT THE RUGBY MALPASS : BEING THE PREFERRED LOCATION FOR A 400,000 TONNES MBT/RDF PLANT!

The "spilling of the beans" has not been greeted with great joy by CEMEX, and by Warwickshire County Council, as plans now focus on Rugby as a Rubbish Dump, even though the Scoping Plan has been issued for the disused Southam Cemex cement works. No planning application has yet been made, for either site, but residents are being asked for an opinion on what the Environmental Impact Assessment should contain. However, as all the burnable waste - aka Climafuel - has to be transported by road to Rugby then maybe it would be better to bring all 400,000 tonnes of household, commercial and industrial waste here in the first place, rather than destroying yet another area of Warwickshire? At least that would save "juggernaut-miles", and public money in exposing the county roads to more destruction. Or would it - as Rugby is hardly the centre of Warwickshire it is? Of course some wastes would still have to be exported from Rugby again.

The Scoping assessment says "The facility will be designed to produce 240,000 tonnes of Climafuel, from 240,000 tonnes per annum of Municipal Solid Waste, and from 125,000 tpa imported SRF type materials or Climafuel from other MBT facilities - sourced locally, or nationally. There will be a Blending House and a Reception and Process Building, containing MBT and MHT equipment.

TRAFFIC.
Strangely this is the smallest section of the scoping report! "An assessment should only be undertaken if the development causes a greater than 10% increase in the two way traffic flow, adjacent to the site access, during the typical weekday AM and PM road network peak hours." "This is in line with the IHT guidelines for Transport Impact Assessment." So that is easily controlled - they can hide outside, or inside, the works, till the rush hour is over! And what ever you do, make no mention of the "SENSITIVE LORRY MILES" required to get to the site! Never having had any environmental assessment at Rugby, nor any lawful planning permission, nor lawful operating permit,nor any proper public consultation they now intend to "build on that foundation". Look out RUGBY!

RAILWAY NEW BILTON SIDING.
The jury is still out. Who knew what, and when? Who told who what, and why ,and when? RBC remain in "denial" as the local plan and searches had, they claim, not revealed the presence of a fully operational railway - that has been working since last century - from Rugby station to New Bilton. But their committee reports, and those of WCC tell a different tale. As does their correspondence with Network Rail and Railtrack. The REDROW land was highly contaminated landfill and for that reason is sold for a pittance: 4.5 hectares for £1,250,000 so the story goes, due to the very high costs of site remedy! Were the houses and flats able to sell at a higher price without the potential purchasers knowing there was an active freight line under their very windows? Who was responsible for telling them?

RCCF: REFRESHED!
Protesters are to be "controlled and marginalised, and even excluded" by an army of Cemex placard-waving supporters, who wish to get relations back onto a more friendly and "constructive footing". This may have the "welcome effect" of attracting the Agency back to the table in Rugby, where it has abandoned the residents to their fate. In 2008 a new Constitution, a new Mission Statement, a Fresh Start, and Positive Community Engagement with new, not-so-disgruntled members at the RUGBY CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR FORUM?

Sounds too good to be true? Rugby residents would also love a fresh start, a clean sheet, a new beginning, fresh air, and a town without the ominous plume and giant industrial behemoth looming over us all! Come on Santa we know you can do it!

SHARE THE GAIN?

The County Council has been "invited" to "share the gain" of having the fortunate siting of a huge CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR in Rugby town's smoke control area, (and also an Air Quality Management Area) and to sign a contract with Cemex to burn the County's household and commercial waste. Otherwise WCC will have to "export" its waste while Cemex imports waste from elsewhere - possibly Holland as they do at their South Ferriby plant, because "British made RDF is not as good as imported waste for burning", so we are told, and causes all manner of problems.

The Environment Agency has recently given Cemex permission to burn up to 30 tonnes an hour of RDF, known as CLIMAFUEL, and also to double the tyres to 6 tonnes an hour. And to increase the 600-800 juggernauts each day that smash our streets to bits and poison us with emissions.

GAGGING AND OPENNESS CONCERNS?
At a meeting, from which I was unceremoniously ejected by the renowned county councillor Gordon Collett for simply making a few notes, it was revealed that they have secret plans and clever tricks that they did not wish to see "splashed over the newspapers." This has caused great consternation in Rugby where the Editor of the Advertiser has remarked on the attitude of arrogance and superiority displayed by those who are employed to serve the best interests of the Rugby and County residents, and not simply to serve themselves. "I think councillors should remember that they are ultimately there to represent their constituents, not to gain power and lord it over everyone!"

CASH FOR COMMUNITY YET AGAIN.
Looking back through our articles you will see that Gordon Collett recently received the keys to a £22,500 minibus from Cemex - a charitable donation to help elderly villagers do their shopping?
Also when the first meeting about the burning of household waste was held in June 2006 it fell to Councillor Collett to "warmly" thank Cemex for their wonderful presentation and to make the infamous closing remark - "if we don't get hysterical we can get this through!"

WESTERN RELIEF ROAD UPDATE.
Now he says that he doesn't want any lorries through his village of Dunchurch before 9.00 am on Saturday mornings. And the Parish Councillors at the meeting do not want 140 daily through their villages of Long Itchington, Marton and Princethorpe. They suggest they leave them all in Rugby where the residents are used to it! So much for the Western Relief Road - planners do not seem to have considered what would happen at the Potsford Dam end of it.

CEMEX IN WIN-WIN SITUATION.
A row is going on now as the public have finally woken up to the fact that the WRR is being built in a circuitous route merely to get the Cement plant lorries in and out, and to open up the MALPASS reclaimed Cemex land for industrial development. WCC sold out the people of Rugby in 1996 for a promised £660,000, the interest on which has been paid to Rugby Cement for ten years before that cash had to be given back in February 2006 - SECTION 106 EXPIRED! But due to the "friendly relations" between Cemex and WCC they renegotiated it and got the princely sum of £660,000 back again. BUT then WCC have had to build a new tunnel under the new road solely for Cemex to access its old disused quarry, because the "existing tunnel is not strong enough to take the new road." And no prizes for guessing who will pay £330,000 for that! Well done the great British Public - as Rugby residents face a LOSE-LOSE situation.

RUGBY CEMENT COMMUNITY FORUM UPDATE. Rugby Borough Council, Cemex and the Environment Agency all got together behind the backs of the Forum members and decided RBC would not fund the secretariat for the meetings, basically in effect shutting down the lines of communication in July 2007.
Since then there have been no meetings to discuss all the planning applications, LAPPC applications, doubling of tyre burning, household waste burning, changing of raw materials to waste, increase in lorries etc etc. Plans are afoot to "engage with the community in a positive transparent and open way, and to move forward together!" It is not certain that the community wishes to move where Cemex is taking us! In the meantime it was a clever idea to keep the RCCF initials, but call it the RUGBY COMMUNITY CEMENT FORUM.

However the way things are going on a more appropriate name would be: RCCCF:
RUGBY CEMEX COVERT CO-INCINERATOR FORUM!!

SIMPSONS TO TAKE OVER RUGBY

"HOW IS IT THAT ALL THE SMART PEOPLE HAVE NO POWER AND ALL THE STUPID PEOPLE RUN THE TOWN?"

..asks L Simpson in a letter to the Advertiser about Rugby.

"Forget Evreux, forget Russelheim - surely by the control Cemex seems to have over the Council, and in particular the planning office, isn't it now time for us to be brought into the 21st century and be twinned with Sprigfield USA - home of the Simpsons?! I returned to Rugby after nine years in the north west to be alarmed to see there was a huge "nuclear power plant" at the site where the little old chimney for Rugby Cement used to be. In fact that little old chimney had metamorphosed into that monstrosity that is seen for miles and miles around - a true blot on the landscape. Who allowed planning for that, and how could Rugby Council sell us out and let it happen?"

"It seems to me that over the years it has been a case that what the cement works wants the cement works gets, and as quickly as our local representatives and the Department of the Environment can make it happen, irrespective of local opinion and the population in general" writes Geoff, Long Lawford resident.

NEW BILTON SIDING IS OPEN SPACE: according to Rugby's Local Plan, 2006, which shows it clearly marked as disused and in green! But Network Rail say they have been using it for 8+ years so why did they not put the coal trains on it to Rugby Cement, and save 30,000 lorry miles each year in Rugby town centre? They seem to want it all ways!

WALKER SUPPORT SERVICES are involved and CONSTRUCTION is going on with no consultation nor planning application. Local residents have NOT even been informed despite the Public Register claim by EWS/ Walker to have carried out:
"Significant Interaction with external organisations:
* Cemex plant and personnel;
* also home-owners on opposite side of proposed works."

RBC: we do not know if it needs planing permission. We think it is open space and disused.

WCC: we do not know if it needs planning permission. There are so many lorries on the roads going to the cement works it would be better to put them on the railway. "Air quality problems in Rugby are directly related to the large number of peak hour vehicles and HGVs travelling through the town centre." And no we do not know why we put them there!

WESTERN RELIEF ROAD: we do not know how 400 lorries a week are going to cross the road from the new New Bilton Sidings to the cement works.

EWS: we have submitted out of date maps. We do not need any planning permission, or to tell any local residents who will be affected by noise and pollution.

CEMEX DEADLINE:
Last coal delivery Rugby station 21st December. First coal delivery New Bilton 3rd January.. If coal supply is to be stockpiled it will need to be 5,600 tonnes - 700 tonnes for 8 days!

OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS TO SHUT WORKS: LATEST for RBC EHO to grant LICENCE 21st Dec. "If the New Bilton Environmental Licence application response is negative there will be not be sufficient time to implement alternative arrangements." Shame!


This was all being "sneaked" through nicely, as they shut down the Rugby Cement Community Forum, concealed the information, and applications, and endeavoured to prevent all meetings and discussions, refusing to meet or talk with the community, and pretended the Environment Council was negotiating with the public in an "open honest transparent" manner, and trying to "move forward together." But move forward to where? The battle to wrest control of OUR Town, OUR environment, OUR air quality, and OUR health from CEMEX IS A TUG OF WAR MORE LIKE!