Rugby Town.... (Much more than just cement.)

Environmental Vandalism!

2009-11-25T17:05:00.002Z

Listen!

RUGBY SURVIVAL KIT!

2009-11-20T12:20:00.001Z

CEMEX RUGBY 500,000 tpa WASTE PROCESSING PLANT -

NOISE; DUST; ODOUR; POLLUTION; LORRIES

ALL TO BE CONTROLLED BY HIGH TECH SOLUTION

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL SAYS DUMP IT IN RUGBY!

WITH A GRUMBLE HOT-LINE FOR COMPLAINTS - A PROBLEM SHARED IS A PROBLEM HALVED!

"WHAT IS BAD FOR SOUTHAM IS EQUALLY BAD FOR RUGBY!" said the thinking councillor. These two applications were described by WCC officers as "IDENTICAL IN EVERY WAY" and there was "NO MEANS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THEM!" We cannot make ANY comparison because they are EXACTLY THE SAME - except for - the differences.

DESPITE THE CEMEX OFFER OF £1,700,000 SECTION 106 TO UPGRADE ROADS IT WAS THROWN OUT AT SOUTHAM ON GROUNDS OF: ODOUR; NOISE FROM FANS;

HEAVY LORRIES, NOISE, VIBRATION, LACK OF SLEEP; HOUSES FALLING DOWN; CANNOT CROSS ROADS; CHILDREN ENDANGERED; SCHOOLS INACCESSIBLE; ROAD DAMAGE, ACCIDENTS CAUSED; VERMIN; FLIES; AND POLLUTION, ESPECIALLY NITROGEN DIOXIDE LIKE THEY HAVE IN RUGBY IN THE AQMA - FROM LORRIES!! CEMEX HAS 800+ LORRIES IN RUGBY ALREADY SO A FEW MORE HUNDRED EACH DAY WILL REALLY HELP IMPROVE AIR QUALITY THERE!! SOUTHAM IS NOT TO BE A WASTE DUMP AND WE MUST PROTECT THE VILLAGES!

RUGBY COUNCILLORS FAILED TO SHOW UP

One WCC councillor said he could have had more concern for the people of Rugby if their Councillors had turned up. A planning officer CRITICISED RBC EHO's air quality report against the proposal for contradicting themselves. Councillors should NOT consider air quality and the AQMA for nitrogen dioxide from HGVs as an issue.

The Environment Agency would/could GUARANTEE the emissions in their forthcoming permit - no need to consider POLLUTION as the Agency would take care AFTER IT WAS BUILT! Just as they do with

the Cemex Cement co-incinerator? WCC thought that the "proximity principle" ONLY applied to building the waste plant NEXT to the Cemex plant, and did NOT apply to the proximity to the WASTE ARISINGS. Waste from ends of earth is fine - for Rugby.

LOCATION is very "nice and convenient" on a CKD landfill, next to the historic River Avon and cement plant that had always been there all their 70 years, and was so good to see and and had a lovely view from the tower. "Goose or dove wing grey" would match existing plant, and not show cement dust all over it. One lady councillor hoped the re-opening of the

landfill would not have a "CORBY" effect.

SO CONVENIENT FOR WASTE - a lovely new Western Relief Road right up to it and a beautiful roundabout. And they would have a lovely conveyor IF they could get it passed after FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT

over the West Coast mainline. That is RICHARD BRANSON'S PROBLEM!

EMISSIONS: HEALTH EFFECTS?

As long as we can say that "ground level pollution is less than the objective" we can do what we want, and also get £1,700,000 highways money.

Short term pollution incidents were not considered nor were any cumulative effects. Health?

HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU?

2009-11-04T22:16:00.002Z

INCREASE IN TOXIC EMISSIONS

YEAR ON YEAR - PERMITTED IN SECRET BY ENVIRONMENT AGENCY!

HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU?
DEFRA DOES NOT KNOW WHAT ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ARE UP TO IN DEFRA'S NAME!

DEFRA 15 October 2009: "The annual releases of the plant remain well below the MAXIMUM LEVELS allowed by the Permit. The Environment Agency assessed these maximum levels as environmentally acceptable when the ORIGINAL Permit application was determined." Actually, Defra is TOTALLY WRONG! The original IPC Permit was granted IN SECRET contrary to EU and UK Law in September 1999 , before the plant was built, and operated in February 2000. Quite simply there was NO public consultation of any kind, and NO Environment Agency assessment , as it was all carried out in July 1999 IN the GREATEST SECRECY and no MAXIMUM LEVELS were set!!

IPPC APPLICATION in 2001 : (granted August 2003) again there were no maximum levels, and no-one was told that 'year on year' they could WILFULLY INCREASE the pollution year on year "up to the (secret?) maximum level "!! The EA naturally cannot provide any paperwork of 'maximum levels' or of 'any of the public response to that'. Imagine the scene : "We at the Agency reserve the right to increase and increase toxic pollution onto you for ever, increasing and increasing up to a set maximum that we have decided, in secret and we refuse to tell you anything about it." Would have gone down a bomb?!

DEFRA GLOATING:
"The suggestion that an appropriate ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT for the plant has never been carried out has been thoroughly tested and dismissed. This was concluded from a Judicial Review of the Environment Agency's 2003 decision to grant a Permit under the PPC Regulations 2000. This has been repeatedly upheld by the Courts up to the House of Lords, who dismissed the final appeal in April 2008 and awarded the Environment Agency costs." "The Court of Appeal recognised that the EIA Directive is not absolutely clear in respect of the use of waste-based substitute fuels, but were unanimous that IF an EIA was required by the Directive, then the environmental assessment which formed part of the application for the PPC permit had met that requirement." ER no SORRY - once again this is all untrue.

MISINFORMATION and MISDIRECTION RESULTS: The House of Lords gave no reasons for their bizarre decision, but we can only assume they were wrongly persuaded by the "supposedly trustworthy" Agency lawyers? Result - Mrs P now has to pay over £100,000 because the EA, acting on Defra's behalf, has not told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and has MISDIRECTED the courts both on the substance of the case, and about the Rugby residents and about me personally. The EA has made sworn witness statements claiming such: No-one has any concern in Rugby, or elsewhere, about the ongoing (INCREASES) emissions at the plant; this is of no public interest; she is one wealthy individual, who is all alone, with her own private campaign; there is no interest in Rugby or elsewhere (except of course masses of interest to the UK government and European Courts!) and no one else is prepared to speak up about this injustice - and more such drivel! When asked to provide any PROOF for such ridiculous claims the EA has been unable to supply one bit of evidence - for the very obvious reasons.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:

"Mrs P repeatedly conflates quite discrete issues, explains complex issues inaccurately, and approaches scientific issues in a simplistic and unscientific manner. She attempts to equate absence of scientific uncertainty with certainty of harm, which is a profoundly incorrect approach. Fundamentally Mrs P fails to acknowledge - but she does not and cannot contradict - a plethora of evidence now showing that (a) the 'normal' operation of the Rugby Cement works does not cause and never caused a significant environmental impact and (b) that the introduction of wastes as fuel has produced significant environmental improvements in performance."

i.e YEAR ON YEAR MASSIVE INCREASES IN TOXIC POLLUTANTS out of all proportion to any claimed increase in production!!

And Defra say the Environment Agency told us this? Pull the other leg!

ACCESS TO JUSTICE?
Not in the UK.
Not for anyone who tells the truth.

HUMAN RIGHTS?
Not applicable to Rugby!

RUGBY FIRE STATION - CEMEX BLAZING

2009-10-19T11:52:00.002+01:00

photo by kind permission of geograph.org.uk
© Copyright Ian Rob <http://www.geograph.org.uk/profile/1208>

RUGBY ADVERTISER reports on "anger of protesters as fire service review plans are shot down in flames" - fire stations are cut from 19 to 12 in Warwickshire.
What does the Fire Service know about the highly flammable tonnes of waste and tyres stockpiled outside at the Cemex co-incinerator? Not a lot!
No-one seems to know who is responsible for the storage of so many tonnes of waste in this town?

WASTE OF SPACE!
CEMEX and ENVIRONMENT AGENCY require EVER MORE WASTE to fire up hungry co-incinerator. They apply for 65% replacement by RDF, of ever increased toxicity and hazards. Cemex require as much waste as they can get - where ever it comes from!! They are "in competition with the planned Coventry Incinerator" to get 300,000 tonnes a year of waste as cheaply as possible - actually be paid as much as possible to burn it. Where is the benefit to the community?

RUGBY'S WASTE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!
Cemex require 300,000 tpa commercial, industrial, and a bit of household waste residue (15,000 tpa in Rugby) to make into 150,000 tpa of RDF. BUT this waste is not of a required specification - and needs another 125,000 tpa of already made RDF to BLEND IN to obtain the required specification.

RUGBY'S RUBBISH IS SIMPLY RUBBISH!
NOT a "local solution to a local problem", after all BUT MORE LIKE a "local Rugby problem caused by other peoples faraway solutions!"
Remember Gordon Collett and the Cemex keys to a £23,000 minibus to "help the aged in his village"?

EVER BEEN CONNED?

CEMEX LATEST

SOLD CHEAP to Holcim $1.7 billion in Australian assets - to help get out of mess. Shares re-issued 1.495 billion so prices down 3.3%, running about $12 each.

EU COMMISSION AND NATIONAL ANTI-TRUST BODIES investigate CEMEX in Spain and raid its offices, along with offices of Holcim and other cement companies.
On suspicion of violating anti-trust legislation! Price fixing still being investigated in the UK from November 2008 raid.

MOCK THE WEAK?

2009-10-03T20:42:00.002+01:00

RUGBY CELEBRATES ITS HERITAGE!
Rugby Observer 17 Sept front page photo showed a beaming Cemex employee, seemingly looking down his nose on the 60,000 residents. As Cemex proudly celebrated Rugby's HERITAGE with a view of Rugby from the nine-year old Rugby Cement HERITAGE pre-heater tower, the rest of Rugby shut its doors and windows to keep out the toxic fumes! The Daventry plastics fire, on 1 October, caused all schools in the area to be closed by the Health Protection Agency, due to the toxic emissions, even as far away as Weedon.

CEMEX CO-INCINERATE 1,000 T WASTE DAILY
The Environment Agency, "consulting" Rugby residents, asks if it is of "great environmental and health benefit to Rugby residents" if Cemex up the WASTE BURN RATE to 720 + tonnes a day of increased toxicity RDF (along with 240 tones of tyres) in the low-temperature combustion chamber, in the HERITAGE TOWER? No details of the potential emissions are given in this GUESSTIMATE application. The previous 15 tph RDF Trial, (started in unlawful equipment 28 Feb 2008), STILL has not been determined. The decision on those "very extended trials due to the test results SHOWING GREAT INCREASES in METAL and DIOXIN emissions, and thus NOT being what they wanted to see " is on hold," while they increase the CHLORINE content of RDF by 150%; Sulphur by 100%; Fluorine, iodine and bromine by 50%, and lead by 50%. How much extra dioxin and lead is good for you, and can be said to be a "health improvement"?

INCREASED PRODUCTION - INCREASED POLLUTION
Access to the requested CHECK MONITORING, pitot, temperature and gas flows has been denied, and is available ONLY (in secret as usual) to the Environment Agency. CEMEX say: "Diagrams showing plant layout, sampling points and gas flows are not required for the determination of CLIMAFUEL as a fuel." The trials, were a year longer than permitted, due to "issues in obtaining adequate RDF supplies which delayed our ability to obtain sufficient trial hours, and because a test result showed exceedence of the metal and dioxin ELV. " SO WHY then do they want to burn increased toxic RDF at over 30 tph - if they cannot get enough lower toxic RDF to burn 15 tph? Inspection of the POLLUTION INVENTORY shows a year on year INCREASE in the recorded emissions - so goodness knows what the true total is? "We had to undertake a retest" - yes because the results of the "odd sampling test" showed very high readings, which Cemex described as spurious. Normally the plant is only SAMPLED twice a year.

HOW MUCH CONFIDENCE can the public have in this whole charade? NONE!! 4,000 + tonnes a day main stack polluted gases, and the emissions are "averaged out over the day". Plant is "shut down" when emission limits are in danger of being breached, and therefore NO EMISSION LIMITS COUNT AT ALL, as in "start-ups" to 200 tonnes an hour raw meal. Nice move! Job done! As for the short-term Ground Level Concentration - who knows? Who cares about our health? And as for the Environment Agency and its H1 assessment for the dispersion of these TOXIC GASES, Cemex says: " the Agency H1 method software tool would give a less accurate assessment which then requires accurate dispersion modelling." They use a DISPERSION FACTOR of 714,286 main stack. And all sorts of other funny figures! Without the gas flow rate no-one knows what the emissions are - so we are denied the information we need. The AGENCY and CEMEX refer only to the "milligrams in each cubic metre" but they REFUSE to advise us HOW MANY cubic meters there are - so how can anyone predict the LEVEL of POLLUTANTS BEING DEPOSITED ON RUGBY RESIDENTS? Much less the health effects!

RUGBY IN PLUME OBJECT!
ASK FOR UK AND EU LAW TO BE IMPLEMENTED!

THE CEMEX CEMENT RUGBY CO-INCINERATOR IS OPERATING WITHOUT A VALID PLANNING PERMISSION, AND VALID PERMIT
AND IS IN BREACH OF THE :
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DIRECTIVE
* IPPC DIRECTIVE
* PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DIRECTIVE

HILARY BENN SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT has been informed, and Rugby Borough Council has called FOUR times for a PUBLIC INQUIRY.

Rugby in Plume have again asked for a PI, but the government seems determined to incur
millions of EURO fines due to the UK's admitted failing to implement the EU LAWS.
INFRINGEMENT proceedings will soon begin and more of our money will be down the drain,
thanks to the NEW LABOUR and BLAIR and BROWN!

AARHUS CONVENTION?

2009-09-17T16:09:00.006+01:00

COMING SOON IN UK - ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE?
AT LAST!!

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

RULES ON COST OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE:
An ECJ decision (C147/07 16 July 2009) related to Ireland has implications for the UK with respect to the provisions of the AARHUS CONVENTION. Pressure on the UK government to deal with the questions on the cost of environmental litigation will be increased by the infringement proceedings being brought against the Republic of Ireland

FAIR EQUITABLE TIMELY:
NOT PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE:
The so-called third pillar of Aarhus requires parties to allow members of the public and environmental organisations access to the courts to challenge the legality of many environmental decisions and other environmental law breaches.

UK/IRISH COURTS GIVEN DIRECTION how to award costs in Judicial Review proceedings, and generally follow the 'costs in the cause' principle, meaning the losing party MUST PAY the winning side's costs. Court principles allow costs to be fixed at their discretion at the start of cases involving SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INTEREST, but the 2008 Sullivan Report concluded that unless more was done the UK risked breaching Aarhus rules. The concerned Court Of Appeal again could not give a definitive ruling because of Lord Justice Jackson's ongoing fundamental review of civil costs.

EIA and IPPC:
The 1985 Directives on Environmental Assessment and 1996 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control were amended to include provisions on access to justice which reflect the Aarhus Convention, thus the obligation of providing independent JR procedures that are NOT PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE has now entered the language of substantive European Commission Law.

Irish and UK Law concerning cost and judicial discretion are similar, but are not proper transposition, which require a more definitive and binding form,
such as a court procedural role. The Commission succeeded on costs and access to justice, and although the Irish Judges had 'DISCRETION' not to awards costs against an unsuccessful party, this was not sufficient to implement the directive's requirements. 'Mere practise which cannot by definition be certain' could not be regarded as valid implementation of the obligations under the two directives.

UK GOVERNMENT'S COLD SHOULDER The UK government has an unrealistic narrow view, arguing that Aarhus costs refer only to minimal £130 fees payable in JR rather than to the HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS costs payable to the other party.
This year the Sullivan Review and Court of appeal rejected the government's unnecessarily narrow interpretation, and the advocate general's opinion was clear that the ban on prohibitively expensive costs extended to all legal costs incurred by the parties involved, and to all 'costs arising from participation' in the court procedures.

EU INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST UK:
concerning the Environmental Assessment directive and the issue of access to justice costs. No formal government response to May 2008 Sullivan Report, and the JACKSON REVIEW, (final due Xmas), noted the challenge of complying with Aarhus, and suggested possible mechanisms of reform.

WILL COMMISSION TOLERATE UK INTRANSIGENCE?
Its patience with UK prevarifications may be stretched to the limit and due to the Irish case the commission may feel confident to move on to the reasoned opinion stage of proceedings, almost inevitably leading to action before the ECJ unless the government concedes.

PAY BACK TIME?!
Is it too late for Mrs P?

DEPUTY JUDGE DAVID ELVIN QC ON HUMAN RIGHTS?

2009-09-08T23:46:00.002+01:00

NOT APPLICABLE TO RUGBY RESIDENTS! NOR TO MRS P!
"TRANNIE RAPIST WINS MOVE TO FEMALE JAIL"
..screams the Sun, as deputy judge David Elvin QC decides that a transgender murderer and rapist should have her/his human rights protected, regardless of any public costs involved, so that he/she can wear skirts and make up in prison, and feel better about life. Great isn't it!

HUMAN RIGHTS?
DUAL STANDARDS: And how much does David Elvin care about the human rights of Rugby residents, and our right to a good built environment, amenity, decent air quality and health? And to the human rights enshrined in the AARHUS CONVENTION, and the right to ACCESS TO JUSTICE for all EU citizens, without its being "prohibitively expensive"? Not a jot!

DAVID ELVIN , acting under instruction, was the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY'S barrister who "persuaded" the five Law Lords that Rugby residents were making too much fuss when they asked for a ruling against the Agency, for its part in protecting and permitting the unlawfully built and operated RUGBY CEMENT CO-INCINERATOR. Built and operated by STEALTH and COMPLICITY, by the consortium of Rugby Cement/RMC/Cemex, Warwickshire County Council, Rugby Borough Council, and worst of all by the Environment Agency - all without any public consultation, without any mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment, and by deception, and by concealment of the environmental and health impacts. Secret meetings, secret documents and "ignore, misinform, and mislead" was how the "big four" treated everyone, including even our Member of Parliament. The human rights of the thousands of vulnerable receptors who live in the areas of multiple deprivation and poor air quality round the Cemex co-incinerator count for nothing.

PUBLIC INTEREST NOT SERVED
According to Mr Elvin NO public interest is served by any person acting altruistically to prevent 60,000 residents from being increasingly polluted by the increased quantity of, and increased toxicity of, the thousands of tonnes a day of particle laden acid gas poured out in our SMOKELESS ZONE. It seems that Rugby residents not only do not mind being polluted - but ask for more toxic pollution! Apparently, says Mr Elvin, no-one in Rugby, or elsewhere, except MRS P, has any concerns about the ongoing emissions at the Cemex co-incinerator, and so she must pay £100,000 for speaking up, as it is her own private vendetta, and of NO PUBLIC INTEREST! Human Rights? BLAH!

RUGBY COUNCIL SAYS :

MAKE MORE WASTE!!
Well not exactly - but they do say that the good people of Rugby are reducing, recycling and reusing so that their black bin waste is only about 15,000 tonnes a year, which would only supply about a week's Refuse Derived Fuel for the Cemex co-incinerator. So we need another 50 small market towns to send us their waste - bring it on, from all corners of the world.

SAVE US £30,000 A DAY!
500,000 T WASTE REQUIRED FOR THRIFTY CO-INCINERATOR

500,000 tonnes Waste wanted in Rugby for the processing and manufacture of Refuse Derived Fuel to be co-incinerated in the area of multiple deprivation and poor air quality in Rugby's western smokeless zone. Distance, BPEO, Proximity Principal, Pollution, and Human rights not an issue! Help the cement industry to save 500 tonnes coal - about £30,000 a day!! Commission paid!

2009-08-15T17:56:00.003+01:00

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL CEMEX RUGBY WAR RAGES ON

RBC PREDICTS ENVIRONMENTAL CALAMITY

SOUTHAM AND RUGBY BATTLE IT OUT!

WHICH will draw the CEMEX short straw, and have the 500,000 tonne a year WASTE PLANT and all its EMISSIONS and LORRIES dumped on them. Cemex has made two applications, at Rugby and at Southam, in a bid to turn 500,000 tpa household, commercial and industrial waste into 250,000 tpa into CHEAP Refuse Derived Fuel - friendly name "CLIMAFUEL." Meanwhile the WARWICKSHIRE WASTE PARTNERSHIP enters into agreements to burn most of Warwickshire's waste in Coventry's enlarged incinerator, leaving bemused bystanders to wonder where ALL this waste will come from? Rugby has beaten its 50% re-cycling target, so why are we being penalised for that?

SAFETY FEARS OVER WASTE PLANT!

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT UNREALISTIC!

PROTECTION OF RUGBY RESIDENTS IS NOT GUARANTEED! as Rugby Advertiser front page 13 August says : Rugby Councillors "hotly contest" and "DAMN the controversial Cemex plans" and tell WCC that "THIS SITE IS NOT SUITABLE" and that Rugby residents are already suffering air quality and pollution problems, and the town is blighted more than enough with the BLOT! The local residents, who live down wind of the monstrous CO-INCINERATOR, in deprived wards, and in areas of MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION, fear a repetition of the CORBY CALAMITY, and now understand that the so-called by the Environment Agency's "ONLY nuisance dust", is actually toxic, and hazardous, and causes health effects.

CEMEX SAYS:

"In addition to the original 2,000 pages of text, analysis, diagrams, and maps we have just submitted a further 500 pages of information as requested. This covered the chimney height, now having reduced the dispersion from 91 metres high to 35 metres - only 14 metres above the building - and information on air quality, groundwater and traffic, and we find it difficult to understand why the Rugby Council feels it needs more information."

12 August the RBC Planning Committee threw it out and dared WCC to go ahead with it in Rugby now!

WARWICKSHIRE TELEGRAPH:

VILLAGE FURY AT WASTE DECISION.
CEMEX WASTE PLANT NOT TO BE BUILT!
14 August Mary Griffins reports : "Villagers feel like second class citizens after RBC opposed the waste plant in Rugby but approved it in the countryside. Long Itchington, Marton and Princethorpe residents fear being bombarded with lorries." (Rugby already has about 1,000 Cemex HGVs each day in the AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREA caused by Nitrogen dioxide emissions from lorries and from Cemex co-incinerator.) Traffic will come from all directions, and although we appreciate it is far too close to homes in Rugby, leading to pollution, air quality, odour, amenity and other environmental disasters and FUNDAMENTALLY IT SHOULD NOT BE BUILT AT ALL!

STEWART DAVIES SERCO :

SERCO is to lead the LONDON 6,000 BIKE HIRE as the mayor grants the contract to Serco, with no room for OYSTER.
The 6,000 bikes will be based in nine London Boroughs. Stewart Davies makes good again as Corby and Rugby lick their wounds.

RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSIONS
Warwickshire County Council breaks all records for the most number of unlawful planning permissions granted to a company! RUGBY CEMENT virtually always builds first, without applying, knowing that the tame planners and Councillors at WCC will simply nod it through as usual - without any proper public consultation, any environmental impact assessment, and in breach of the EU and UK laws on EIA and Public Participation.

Indeed this is how the cement plant was built - unlawfully!
And operated by the Environment Agency - unlawfully! And became a CO-INCINERATOR - unlawfully!
THANKS are due to WCC!!

Often the councillors break their own constitution, and attend site visits "in secret" BEFORE the application is even heard in Committee in a blatant effort to outwit the public who are affected. WCC have dug themselves into a fine corner this time. The government position on this is apparently in PPG 18, issued in 1991 and long outdated and superseded by other laws. PPG says they can go on building and building and getting retrospective permissions as much as they want - an the worst thing that may happen to them IF the Local Planning Authority were to pluck up courage and to tell them to "STOP! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" would be a maximum slap-on-the-wrist £20,000 fine. Peanuts!

CEMEX TOLD "NO!"

2009-08-09T23:34:00.003+01:00

RUGBY COUNCIL SAYS..

"ENOUGH! CO-INCINERATOR IS ALREADY TOO MUCH!"

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL recognises the increase in toxic air pollution in Rugby and the very real threat now facing local residents, and dedicates about 50 pages on the www.rugby.gov.uk web site in the Committee report to the the planning committee on Wednesday 12 August. It says to turn down the Cemex application for a 500,000 tpa waste plant to manufacture RDF to feed the monster CO-INCINERATOR.
RBC cite many reasons, including the EXISTING POLLUTION FROM THE CEMEX CO-INCINERATOR, and the LACK of any proper air quality assessment (PM2.5 particles ignored) and the FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE HEALTH IMPACT
of the CURRENT OPERATIONS and CUMULATIVE IMPACT.
Seems RBC have been reading my many emails on the subject after all!

DUST FALL OUT NOT OUR FAULT! says CEMEX CEMENT in Rugby Advertiser 6 August. " The overnight dust fall out was not our fault!" as dust rains down, yet again, on Long Lawford,. Townsend Lane residents contacted the Advertiser (yet AGAIN!!!) to report a Monday morning fall-out. The Environment Agency is looking into it, and Cemex also takes samples for analysis. Apparently the co-incinerator's own (very limited, Mickey Mouse) monitoring, according to Cemex, "did not record any problems at that time, and we also had a report of a bonfire in the area, and we will know the outcome in about three days". And the wind, as ever, reported today on Radio Rugby, was blowing in completely the wrong direction!! In June 2009 Cemex was fined a paltry maximum £20,000 at the Stratford Magistrates Court, after the Environment Agency spent no less than TWENTY SEVEN MONTHS "thinking" about it". Then there were THREE very discrete/secret/unpublicised hearings in Rugby), before Judge Sanders, made a judgement, "under the impression" , as created by Cemex, its consultants AMANDA GAIR and the Environment Agency and its EXPERT Professor Roy Harrison of Birmingham University/ Health Protection Agency, that "that 8.67 tonnes of pulverised coal dust was not proven to be harmful to health of the Rugby residents up to three miles away who were covered in black oily dust and particles."

Some might even say 8 tonnes of coal dust is GOOD FOR US!! No weaklings in Rugby - we are the supermen!

RUGBY OBSERVER LETTER:
LONG LAWFORD: "Last week the citizens of CORBY won a landmark case against their local council. To the horror of the community they witnessed a rapid rise in the level of local birth defects, and after what would appear to be insurmountable odds finally managed to prove the negligence of the authorities in failing to protect them from high levels of fugitive metal particulates covering the town during the demolition of the local steel works.

Compare this outcome with the situation in RUGBY, and it is difficult not to believe that our town must now be at a moral crossroads. Do we continue to allow regular illegal clouds of fugitive, potentially dangerous levels of dust to cover our community, with all the obvious health concerns for the elderly, young and weak residents of the borough? Do we continue to stand aside and watch the ever expanding business interests of one company blight our skyline and change the surrounding area into a massive, polluted moonscape? In this modern world of environmental awareness, why do we allow our community to be slowly poisoned and destroyed by one company’s voracious appetite for profit?The people of Corby stood up to be counted, they questioned the ability of the very people who were elected to protect the community, and found them wanting.

In a well attended public speech to RUGBY residents at St Oswalds Church last week Professor Paul Connett criticised amongst many other practices, the lack of credible monitoring for Dioxins and Mercury, both known carcinogenics at this local plant, and the almost obscene level of ‘averaging out’ of all chemical release figures before publication. When combined with a bizarrely high safe limit level requested by the Environment Agency for these emissions (as if there is a safe level for this poisonous stew) one wonders why we have stood aside for so long already.

CORBY had the courage to react when their community was at threat; the people of Rugby need to reach the same level of concern before it is too late."

CORBY DUST IS BLAMED!
AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST MAGAZINE : " The High Court decided that toxic hazardous dust kicked up by disturbing contaminated hazardous landfills from the closed Corus Steel works could have caused birth defects." "The Judgement will have implications elsewhere - for instance protesters in Rugby claim the cement (CO-INCINERATOR) works and associated traffic leads to excess toxic dust in the town. Likewise waste management sites that are known to cause air quality problems because of deposited dust and windblown dust should NOW be REASSESSED, not just for "nuisance", but also for potential toxicological effects."

PLAY "I SPY!"

STEWART DAVIES stood in Peterborough council elections in 2002 for Lib Dems. This Cambridge graduate was at first in 1986 with ICI; then was MD at Corus Steel; then founder of Corby Urban Regeneration; then moved over to cause mayhem as MD of Rugby Cement; then CEMEX; then SERCO: and 2001 Climate Change Agreement; EU Trading; Sustainable Cement initiative, and now highly favoured Commissioner for the Environment - appointed by HILARY BENN for a second three year term.

SPOT CEMEX POLICE BIKE: word on the street has it that this "widely publicised and much acclaimed and world-wide well-reported generously donated bike" has been stolen and auctioned on ebay, for a fraction of the £1,000 Cemex paid to Warwickshire Police to purchase/sponsor this environmentally sound piece of kit. Environmental groups have asked under the FREEDOM of INFORMATION ACT how many other such "donations Warwicks Police have received from industry?"

Professor Paul Connett Talks in Rugby

2009-07-25T09:59:00.005+01:00

Last night as the rain came down across Rugby Town, renowned international health expert Professor Connett, chemist and toxicologist, gave a presentation to a busy church hall in Rugby.

The audience comprised of Councilors, Planning officers, Journalists and members of the public concerned for their health.

The talk was on the zero waste program, the CEMEX co-incinerator emissions and possible health effects from the plant's pollution.

A full write up will follow shortly but in the meantime listen to this recording that was made shortly before Professor Paul Connett gave his presentation:

Listen!

Recording used with the kind permission of Christian Payne

People left the talk educated and inspired.

Watch this space for more!

PROFESSOR PAUL CONNETT

2009-07-20T08:38:00.004+01:00

(24 JULY 7.00 PM ST OSWALD'S CHURCH RUGBY)We are delighted to welcome renowned international health expert Professor Connett, chemist and toxicologist, to give a presentation on the CEMEX co-incinerator emissions and possible health effects from the plant's pollution. This could not be more timely as the air quality in Rugby is deteriorating , and the Cemex admitted emissions increase greatly in 2007. Then of course there is the great controversy over the 8 tonnes of pulverised fuel that blew all over Rugby in March 2007. That does not appear on any pollution inventory, nor does the KILN FLUSH from the same day, which caused raised levels of particulate, as they battled to shut down the kiln.

PROFESSOR ROY HARRISON
was asked by the Environment Agency in May 2009 to write a report about the March 10 2007 pollution incident, and a second one after the 11 May meeting with DR AMANDA GAIR the CEMEX air quality "expert", who seems to be not quite as expert as she would try to make out? BARRY BERLIN acting for the EA and supposedly "prosecuting" seemed more inclined to help Cemex "get away with it", and the Judge remarked that there was indeed undue delay in this case from March 2007. The professor was unable to agree with the GAIR figures, but there was some agreement on four points, including that the coal dust leaving the site boundary was between 1.6 and 3.1 tonnes. But wind direction and speed were not agreed and Cemex did not make its data available so they went on too low a wind speed, at 1.6 metres per second from the RBC low level wind vanes, which were no use in this case, being at the wrong height (too low to ground at 3 metres) and in the wrong locations.

THE TWO AIR QUALITY EXPERTS argument ranged between 9 kilos and 8 tonnes of "dispersed" dust! They could NOT agree how much of the 8.67 tonnes of coal dust had actually travelled across Rugby up to 4 kilometres away leaving black sooty/oily coatings everywhere. Cemex and GAIR had refined it down to 1.6 tonne - but no explanation! NOR what the wind direction and speed was; NOR at what height the emissions were released - at the 46 metres actual silo - or as AG preferred at a random 20 metre height; NOR what the particle size distribution would be; AG estimated and calculated and guesstimated - most unconvincingly. JOHN SIVITER witness said there was "some coal dust left on the floor adjacent to the silo, so not all of the coal dust left the site." AG used the wrong air quality monitors - in Rugby Road , Clifton and in Murray Road, but finally they agreed that the Parkfield Road monitor and Avon Valley School were on the edge of the plume , and showed raised levels.

A PERMITTED KILN FLUSH had occurred earlier in the night and all the workers at Cemex were busy with trying to control the kiln and shut it down - so no ELV emission limits count! FABER MAUNSELL were in there too, and the wind direction from Cemex was claimed to be between 215 and 236 degrees at the time. Short lived peaks were noticed at T7 and T15. The AGENCY threw in some graphs for good measure.

CONCLUSION:
depends critically on the amount of pulverised fuel released into the atmosphere, but no-one was able to say if the estimates were reliable. The analysis of the monitoring data was not considered reliable, as the wind direction had not been taken from the cement works as it should have been at 40 metre high. The dust dispersed was possibly 3.1 tonnes, or possibly 9 kilos, and anywhere in between, and up to 8.67 tonnes. "These estimates depend critically upon the assumed settling distance of the coal dust, which is open to considerable uncertainty which consequently applies to these estimates also." "There was a poor knowledge of the amount of coal dust released and the height at which the PM10 particles separated from the bulk pulverised fuel and commenced their downwind transport."

HEALTH IMPACT:
It was unlikely that the recommended limit of 50 micrograms per cubic metre would have been exceeded. "However had the mass of fuel release been greater than 8 tonnes, then it is very likely that an exceedence of the health based standard would have occurred. It should also be pointed out that ANY EXPOSURE to airborne particulate is believed to be harmful to health and the air quality standards and guidelines are set to limit the magnitude of those adverse effects rather than as a no effects level. Consequently any additional exposure carries a RISK OF HARM, but the smaller the exposure the lower the level of harm."

WAS JUDGE SANDER CORRECT
and did he actually have any evidence to allow him to conclude that there were "no health effects and no health risks" and that is why he would keep it OUT OF THE COUNTY COURT and only at this very local MAGISTRATE level with its maximum fine of £20,000? I think not, not based on the two reports and evidence we have since obtained. There was only UNCERTAINTY and no certainty of anything at all!

"OUCH!"

2009-06-22T11:33:00.003+01:00

STRATFORD MAGISTRATES 16 JUNE
JUDGE SAID CEMENT PLANT SHOULD NOT BE THERE:
we all agree if we started again it should not be located there!!

AGENCY PROSECUTION FOR 10 MARCH 2007:
Cemex finally said they had to "take it on the chin" and say "SINCERELY SORRY " in a grovelling apology letter for dumping 3-5 tonnes pulverised coal dust from an over full silo, thickly and blackly deposited on Rugby residents up to 1.5 miles away years ago in March 2007.

BOTH THE AGENCY and CEMEX pleaded for this case NOT to go back to WARWICK CROWN COURT where they got a £400,000 fine in 2006, and asked the Judge Sander to "hit them to the maximum of £20,000" (plus costs) so they did NOT have to go to back Warwick; NOT back to Warwick; NOT back to Warwick!!!!!

THE AGENCY did admit there is great concern in Rugby about this plant and tried to convince the Judge that this was most unfortunate and that the giant 1.3 million tonne a year cement plant had always been there since the 19 Century.
NOT MENTIONED: The Financial Times article about the alarms all being "switched off and suppressed" to allow the plant to run and run without hindrance by alarms; and Cemex letter of December 2007 to EA saying they had now "removed the alarm suppression from all the equipment!" They were at pains to say this was a one off thing and that normally alarms worked. They did not mention the massive emissions increase in 2007 over and above those of 2006, nor that during all this the EA was allowing Cemex to experiment with a new bag filter and with burning tyres, which seem to have increased the emissions way above the "claimed" 18% increase in actual production.

The Environment Agency (Mr Burnham?) apologised to the Judge that the bundle had only been received this morning and said he thought they had been sent, but they must have been sent elsewhere; costs had been agreed at £13,469 and that most other things had been already been agreed before the two parties with a lot of correspondence over this weekend. Part two of the case was dropped - without explanation. Cemex pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to this serious breach of the operating Permit, by emitting between 3.1 and 3.6 tonnes pulverised coal dust, some of which blew up to 1.5 miles away over Rugby on March 10th 2007 from the pulverised coal silo that was overfilled by the workers. It was one of two - a petcoke silo next to it. There was disagreement between the two sides as to how much had crossed the boundary, they thought 5% to 22% of the total, but both agreed it was a severe breach. In mitigation Cemex had cleaned up and valeted and window cleaned.

A previous prosecution in 2007 earned a £50,000 fine at the Court of Appeal (no mention of the £400,000 awarded by the Warwick Crown Court!) for depositing health damaging clinker dust on local residents, but this coal dust (shows photographs) has no health damaging potential as far as they know. Professor Harrison of Birmingham University had done two reports and it was only nuisance dust and unpleasant, but no complaints of health effects had been received. There were some PM10 emissions but "there was no evidence that the PM10 levels were elevated and they were as expected in an area of this type", and there was "nothing to show there was any health damage.". Are there any monitors? No! So how do they conclude this?

There was no serious risk in this case, and my learned friend and I were just discussing the fine has to be substantial enough as to make them feel it and also the bad publicity this large company would get. This court can deal with it - away from Rugby and NOT NOT NOT at Crown Court!!

The Cemex lawyer Mr Green then said that he thanked the EA for giving such a fair and balanced account. They had prepared a statement of mitigation and prefer to keep this court case before this magistrates court. "Rugby Cement is a very sensitive site, as you can imagine, but built there historically in the 19th century, or maybe even before Rugby town was built. Cemex have to live together and the people living and working near the works do not wish to be troubled, not in their homes or businesses. Cemex holds a Community Forum that meets regularly to talk about these issues. This was a most unfortunate equipment failure, although we have to accept there were no functionality tests, and we cannot avoid this. A short cut was taken and lessons have been learned. The paper work was missing and there was no written record of the maintenance during shut down,
and no available paperwork, and no audit trail. It was supposed to work but the screen was blank due to a software update that was not checked. We admit it is closing the door after the horse has bolted. Mr Handcock put a full report into the EA and we have had to take it on the chin."

They comment that the EA did not issue the prosecution until late last year, but local people have shown and voiced much concern to Cemex, the EA and the RBC. They say it will not happen again. There was no attempt by Cemex to put profit before health and safety and they admit it was a serious lapse, one thing going wrong after another. Cemex employed a team of window cleaners, car cleaners and valets. There was one car sales business much affected. In the October 2005 incident health was put at risk, and they finally got a fine of £50,000 in 2007, but this March 2007 incident was only coal dust. Since the 2007 March incident there have been no issues at all between the EA and Cemex. HMMMM???

Cemex have to "co-exist with local residents and they want no further nuisances of this kind." They ask the court to retain this case within their jurisdiction and to fully deal with it and ask for leniency because of the delay in this case, and generally because they have been co-operative and generally responsible and keep the fine at the top end of the limit.

JUDGEMENT:
It was a breach of permit at a very large 1.4 million tonne a year cement works located close to Rugby. "If we were to start again no doubt everyone would all agree that it is not a good place to have it." Being located there gives additional responsibility to Cemex, as it has significant impacts on the community. 1.5 to 3 tonnes of coal dust is not insignificant and it was a nuisance, but no risk to health, but was unpleasant. Significant features for sentence are:
* failure of probe and failure to maintain it;
* poor records - no audit trail;
* 6 months with no equipment checks - particularly when failed earlier checks.

The failings were compounded by software failure and the alarm system was frankly inadequate, and the software had been upgraded so that the flashing screen did not work. There was no audible alarm and the workers relied on a back stop because they believed it would work and then silo would be shut down.

"One area of concern, I put it no stronger than that, is the implication that this was a series of individual mistakes that came together caused equally by individual failings but I find it rather more direct systemic failure by the company to ensure regular maintenance, regular checks and software checks. It would be easy to lay the blame on an individual in this case, but there were repeated failures. Cemex did react reasonable and speedily and complied promptly and in a timely fashion, and they did all they could do to put it right. The company regret the position they find themselves in as they have damaged the relationship with the community on which they put 'some' value.

Considering the penalty and sentencing guidelines and the previous conviction, and considering it would have gone to trial at the Crown Court if health had been at risk, I put a £30,000 fined reduced to £20,000 plus costs of £13,469, with 14 days in which to pay."

ON YER BIKE!

2009-06-07T22:07:00.003+01:00

"BOBBIES ON THEIR BIKES THANKS TO SPONSOR DEAL!"
BOBBIES on the beat will be patrolling the town on bikes thanks to a sponsorship deal from Cemex. Officers in the Rugby Town North Safer Neighbourhood Team will now be able to use their new specialist pedal bike, worth more than £1,000, to patrol their beat more extensively and respond to calls quicker. PCSO (now a PC biker as opposed to PC Plod) said: 'We are very grateful to Cemex for funding the bike. Travelling around by cycle is environmentally friendly, time efficient and keeps us visible to the public who can approach us." Rugby Advertiser 29 May. Any comments to: rtn.snt@warwickshire police.uk

RUGBY - FIRST CAR-FREE ZONE!
With cement plant boundary security now guaranteed, "sponsored" officers can speedily arrive at the scene of environmental crime, stick their spoke in, and reassure the victims that exposure to hazardous dust will not harm them! With the obvious added benefit for Cemex, of not incurring the expense of funding car washes for the hazardous sticky dust fall-outs. Not only that but "Cemex has recently been working on a cyclist safety programme", and it is rumoured that all Rugby residents will be forced to ride bicycles so that Cemex tankers and trucks can have all the roads to themselves. This will have the added advantage of removing air pollution caused by residents' cars in the AQMA for NOX - thus allowing Cemex more "headroom" to fill up the ambient air with their ever-increasing emissions from the installation and from the lorries. The sky's the limit!

EXCUSES.. EXCUSES
as Cemex struggle with statistics, sums, percentages, and the concept of increases/decreases or up/down, they rush through the unverified 2008 PI data, and write in May 2009: "definitely annual emissions were down during 2008 as production was less." And of 2007 : "the 35% increase in Nitrogen Oxides from 2006 was caused by just an 18% increase in production of clinker." Er? It gets worse : "To summarise, since the commencement of waste derived fuel use as shown in trial reports NOX emissions have been reduced in the order of just under 60%." Shall we send them a calculator?

METALS - UP, BUT NOT REALLY?
And why were metals and other pollutants so increased in 2007? "The periodic measurement CAN provide UNREPRESENTATIVE results" - metals, dioxins etc sampled ONLY twice a year. "However, as ALL these 'unrepresentative' results were nevertheless within the stringent limits set by the EA, retesting was therefore not deemed necessary." Novel response - not mentioned at all in public consultations in 2008, but only when we pointed out the increases on the Environment Agency's Pollution Inventory. And how do you calculate that PI? " We use Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMs) to collect some data for main pollutants - as in the Permit. Periodic monitoring (usually biannual) data is used to calculate the mass emissions figures by applying factors relating to the number of hours operated and the crucial GAS FLOW data." Can the Public see these - NO!

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL
and Faber Maunsell also seem to have a problem with sums! In the April Air Quality Updating and Screening Assessment (which pre-dates Cemex 2008 PI data), they state : "RBC have identified NO installations within the Borough where emissions have increased substantially - by 30%." Oh, so they failed to consider the 2007 figures from the Cemex/Agency Public Register they keep? Nitrogen dioxide is increasing in the ambient air every year, apparently "due to Rugby residents cars", and not from Cemex emissions and its hundreds of HGVs each day. Meanwhile the Council grants planning permission for a 37 bed hotel, four office blocks and a health club in the Conservation Area next to St Andrews Church, ripping out all trees in the process, and increasing pollution. The development requires at least 200 car parking spaces, but they are to get away with providing NONE, while 80 cycle spaces will be provided instead. Are these for the Cemex sponsored bikes?

PLANNING and PERMITTING
are also causing problems! Warwicks CC now have to admit that Cemex have not filled in correctly ANY application (out of 15?) made since 2005. WCC say this was "not deliberate" - which we take to mean "merely incompetent" then? There seems to have been confusion as to who claims ownership of the sites at Southam and Rugby. It now seems THE RUGBY GROUP LTD Company number 206971 says it owns them - and not all these others who have been claiming ownership for five years in the various applications. It is EVEN MORE ODD that the cement plant was run by The Rugby Group Limited using the "unlawful" IPC permit of 1999, which they "acquired in secret" from their mates at the Agency, and then in August 2001 they applied for the IPPC permit, So far so good - however after two years of argument the IPPC permit was granted NOT to the applicant, but to RUGBY LTD 475212 - who never ever applied for a permit.

TOXIC FUMES CLAIM

2009-04-28T22:17:00.004+01:00

...OVER BID TO MAKE RUGBY TRAFFIC FREE

Toxic fumes may reach dangerous levels in Rugby next year warn officials in the Rugby Advertiser on 23 April. New figures released this week already show that NITROGEN DIOXIDE levels have increased around the town possibly due to having more traffic. Proposals to close roads for pedestrianisation may clog up the town pushing up levels of nitrogen dioxide above the recommended national health guidance and leading to more congestion in narrow street canyons.

Despite all this RBC and the WCC Area Committee backed the scheme and WCC are to have the final say, but that, in a sanctimonious dismissal "it was too late to change the plans now!"

On 20 April the Rugby Community Cement Forum and the public were alarmed to discover the increase in the Cemex emissions from 2006 to 2007. Cemex said that the increase was "due to an increase in production", but this left many people scratching their heads as to why there was no correlation between the "increases in the different pollutants", as you can see for yourselves in the Environment Agency table (see blog 12 April) : i.e carbon dioxide up 25% ; nitrogen oxides up 50%; lead up 300% etc etc?? Many people think that the TYRE BURNING introduced at 3 tonne an hour, after the fitting of the BAG FILTER in March 2007, in order to "comply with the WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE" , may actually be the cause of the increase in pollution?

TAKE NOTICE OF WARNING! said the Editor of the Advertiser: "Whatever the normal safe levels of nitrous oxide and other chemicals there are in the area, Rugby has a DISADVANTAGE!! . It doesn't matter how safe and efficient the Cemex chimney is, something is coming out of it. Even if it were completely innocent chalk dust it can't exactly be good for you to be breathing it in. But I am not trying to criticise Cemex here - I believe it is a conscientious company with concern for the community - I also have no doubt that the new works is 'a whole lot safer' than the old works. So anyway the last thing we want to exacerbate the situation is by increasing the danger of chemicals in the air by choking the town with a pedestrianisation scheme. Councillor Sandison Chair of Sustainable Rugby warned that taking traffic out of the town centre would turn other streets into fume induced chemical canyons. If air quality is moving quickly towards dangerous levels, then the public has the right to know about the cause and what is going to be done about it - it's more important than spending money on a pedestrianisation scheme!"

POOR AIR QUALITY KILLING THOUSANDS IN LONDON!
Sunday Observer 26 April:

Pollution kills far more people every year in London than the previously accepted and estimated 1,000. The London Assembly said that at least 2,905 premature deaths each year, and probably "many thousands", were caused by dangerously high levels of substances such as NITROGEN DIOXIDE, fine particulates, and ground level ozone that lead to heart and lung diseases, and also affects those who are already ill with an unrelated condition, according to the report.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY RECRUITS:
quote 14042 on its job pages:

"for £60,000 a year, plus exceptional benefits, a National Trading and Regulatory Services Manager to adapt new approaches and to invent new systems and ways of working as carbon trading and producer responsibility become more powerful tools in "improving regulation." (???) This role will be at the forefront of regulation and comes with a £4 million budget. The BIGGER PICTURE is the chance to IMPACT on £35 billion of ECONOMIC GROWTH!"

Now there's an offer you can't refuse - and which give the opportunity to "lead us towards a cleaner, better environment!"

EASTER GIFT

2009-04-12T19:32:00.004+01:00

4,000 TONNES OF POLLUTED GAS DAILY

RUGBY CEMEX MASSIVE EMISSIONS INCREASE 2006 to 2007

(see table below)

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY TOLD HOUSE OF LORDS MANY "STRANGE/QUESTIONABLE" THINGS TO WIN CASE; TO SILENCE RUGBY PROTEST; AND TO EXTORT COSTS!!

13 (d) "No-one who lives near the works appears willing to continue the proceedings. In fact local residents other than Mrs Pallikaropoulos have failed to display any continuing interest in operations at the Rugby Cement Works."

13 (g) "In essence these proceedings constitute one relatively affluent and committed individual's own private campaign."

WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH?

AND WHO IS TELLING THE PORKY PIES?

(click table below to view larger)

COMIC RELIEF?

2009-03-24T20:56:00.004Z

FUNNY FOR MONEY?
"CEMEX: THE BIGGEST RED NOSE IN RUGBY!"
front page Rugby Advertiser 19 March.
RBC SAY 19 March "CEMEX CEMENT :
THE BIGGEST ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTER IN RUGBY!"

OH NO - NOT IN RUGBY!
LOCATION UNSUITABLE!
Cemex donated £5,000 to Comic Relief, by hanging a big red nose out of its Rugby town centre office block, but that did not help to "soften the blow". Cemex indeed got a bloodied red nose this week at the Rugby Borough Council planning meeting of 11 March when RBC councillors were advised to tell Warwickshire County Council and Cemex "where to stick it " - as regards the 500,000 tonne a year waste plant. NOT IN RUGBY! Southam is the best option - or the least worst of the two proposed.

RUGBY CAN TAKE NO MORE!
THERE IS ALREADY TOO MUCH POLLUTION!
ENVIRONMENTAL DETRIMENT!
AND HEALTH IMPACT!

AQMA - Air Quality Management Area; pollution existing near Cemex works and in town overall; pollution incidents; dust storms; lorries ; noise to already sensitised residents; MORE chimney stack/s!; site is contaminated landfill; proximity to River Avon; site is semi-wild with mature trees; site too small; 320 plus extra HGVs each day - and many more?; proximity to residential area; proximity to Avon Valley School; risk assessment not complete; risk under-estimated; re-opening of Southam railway not considered; air quality assessment incorrectly carried out - using wrong data - out of date!;no consideration of traffic capacity; failure to consider alternatives; failure to say where the WASTES will be arising etc etc. See RBC web site for all details R08/1499/CM MALPASS FARM.

PARTICULARLY PARTICULATE! and HEALTH IMPACT have all been left out of the application for obvious reasons. It's what you don't see that gets you! RBC " With the elevated levels of PM10 generally around the application site, next to the cement works, further significant increases because of CLIMAFUEL; WASTE or TRAFFIC is considered unacceptable in a high density housing area, especially as there is already a LARGE RISK of EXCCEEDENCE of a HEALTH-LINKED air quality objective!"

CEMEX TRIALS - IF AT FIRST you don't succeed trial and trial again and again! The Cemex trials (6 weeks!) were to have ended on 31 August 2008, but they were extended (in secret) by the Environment Agency to 31 December 2008. Then although the RCCF asked for data from the last-year's trials so we could provide a proper "informed" response to the latest IPPC Variation application for even more trials at a higher rate and INCREASED toxicity of the RDF, we were not given any data. BUT to our surprise the trials have again been extended - in secret - by the Agency to 30 April. WHY?

CEMEX BREACHES PERMIT ELVS again - that is why. The extractive tests for metals in the October TRIALS revealed the TRIALS FAILED: emissions at SEVEN times those permitted: 16 October 12:50 to 13.57 (after removal of uncertainty - so could well be even higher) the readings were 3.43 mg/NM3 against a permitted IPPC PERMIT(safe??) level of 0.5mg/Nm3. Cemex say: "We request an extension to the 6 month trial deadline of 31 August 2008" - as in the IPPC PERMIT. "Due to RE-TESTING being required and our annual shut down being extended as a result of market demand this has delayed our ability to complete sufficient testing at maximum substitution rates for each fuel mix stated in the PERMIT VARIATION> Therefore this has delayed our overall schedule of testing and collation of data, and the additional extension will enable more time to complete the trial as stated in the variation CONDITION 1a."

VICTORVILLE CALIFORNIA $2,000,000 FINE!
In the largest settlement yet in the ongoing USA EPA cement kiln enforcement Cemex must pay a civil penalty of USD$ TWO MILLION - resulting in cleaner air for California. Victorville is a 3,000,000 tonne a year production Cement plant - one of the largest in the country.
In 1997 and 2000 Cemex violated the Clean Air Act, and now must install new equipment under the EPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

PRESS RELEASE

2009-03-19T11:08:00.002Z

Briefing for Press from the Rugby Cement Plant Stakeholder Engagement Workshop 10.03.09
1. BRIEFING for PRESS
RUGBY CEMENT PLANT STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP

On Tuesday 10 March, stakeholders met at the Benn Hall in Rugby to discuss the future public and stakeholder engagement process around the plant. The basis of this work being that all stakeholders are looking for an improved way forward to work together with respect to the cement plant in Rugby. The workshop was a further step towards achieving this.

The context for this workshop is that following The Environment Council’s May 2008 review of stakeholder and community relations around the Rugby Cement Plant (RCP) and production of the report with recommendations for constructive ways forward, it was recognised that face-to-face engagement was necessary. You can access this report from our website: http://www.the-environment-council.org.uk/rugby-cement-plant- stakeholder-engagement-review.html), or contact us for a copy (contact details overleaf).

At an earlier stakeholder meeting in September 2008 it was agreed that a small group of stakeholders (a “Task Group”) would develop more detailed, community owned, proposals for a future engagement process. These proposals were brought back to the wider stakeholder group on 10 March for consideration.

The 10 March meeting considered and finalised many of the Task Group’s proposals on:

> The purpose of a future engagement process
> What activities will take place in a future engagement process
> Ways of working.
And it agreed how things would be taken forward from now.

Agreements arising from the workshop included:

> Confirmation by stakeholders of three key components for future engagement:
• The scope and purpose of the future engagement. This provides a statement and definition about what the process seeks to do, so that everyone is clear about what it can and cannot consider. A summary of the scope and purpose is set out on page 3.
• Ways of working for the future engagement. These express the way and spirit in which people will be expected to behave and work at meetings and between meetings. It aims to make the process more constructive, accessible and practical.
• The future engagement process. This comprises the activities that (together) will form the future engagement process around the Rugby Cement Plant.

> A Steering Group should be formed (to be selected by The Environment Council; with guiding criteria provided by the stakeholder group on 10 March) to oversee the establishment of the new stakeholder engagement process and to ensure it happens in a reasonable timeframe. The intention is that this group may be dissolved once these objectives are achieved. It expected that this group will be established before Easter.

> An independent secretariat and chair would be utilised for the new engagement process.

> The Rugby Community Cement Forum (RCCF) will continue to meet while the new stakeholder engagement process is being set up.

Briefing for Press from the Rugby Cement Plant Stakeholder Engagement Workshop
10.03.09
2. There were some issues that it was acknowledged still need to be resolved, but there was a shared understanding that it was constructive to acknowledge this. They are:

> The future engagement process is still a work in progress. Further development based on the above, agreed components will be undertaken by the Steering Group, which will be accountable to the larger stakeholder group.

The review of the stakeholder and community relations around the Rugby Cement Plant (RCP) process has been funded to date by the Cemex, the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council. Commitment has been made by Cemex and the Environment Agency to fund work into improving future engagement for a further twelve months, to help ensure a constructive and productive way forward.

For further information please contact Winsome MacLaurin at The Environment Council, 020 7632 0108 winsome@envcouncil.org.uk

Briefing for Press from the Rugby Cement Plant Stakeholder Engagement Workshop
10.03.09
3. A summary of the scope and purpose of the engagement:

Scope

> The scope of the engagement has been defined within the following two boundaries:
1) The current state of relations between stakeholders cannot continue; and,
2) Closure of the cement plant is not on the agenda

Purpose

The purpose of the engagement includes the following aspects (in no particular order):
> To establish and maintain a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship between CEMEX, the Regulatory Agencies and the Rugby Community
> An aspiration to generate trust between stakeholders and around issues
> Facilitate the provision to the Rugby Community of timely, clear, full and transparent information and explanations from CEMEX and other agencies regarding current issues, and future plans for changes, relating to the Rugby plant. Information provided to the community should be understandable.
> A way to proactively feed in information about plant incidents and how they will be dealt with
> To enable the Rugby Community to ask questions, raise concerns and seek clarification regarding matters relating to the Rugby plant.
> To give the Rugby Community the opportunity to influence decision-making.
> Mitigation of environmental, transport and other impacts of the plant
> Generation of a clear picture from the engagement about what the view of the community is (and to be able to hand this on to councillors, to the Environment Agency, etc)
> To be able to generate a common view on an issue when this is sought.

There were some issues that it was acknowledged still need to be resolved, but there was a shared understanding that it was constructive to acknowledge this. They are:

> The future engagement process is still a work in progress. Further development based on the above, agreed components will be undertaken by the Steering Group, which will be accountable to the larger stakeholder group.

The review of the stakeholder and community relations around the Rugby Cement Plant (RCP) process has been funded to date by the Cemex, the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council. Commitment has been made by Cemex and the Environment Agency to fund work into improving future engagement for a further twelve months, to help ensure a constructive and productive way forward.

For further information please contact Winsome MacLaurin at The Environment Council, 020 7632 0108 winsome@envcouncil.org.uk

A summary of the scope and purpose of the engagement:

Scope

> The scope of the engagement has been defined within the following two boundaries:
1) The current state of relations between stakeholders cannot continue; and,
2) Closure of the cement plant is not on the agenda

Purpose

The purpose of the engagement includes the following aspects (in no particular order):
> To establish and maintain a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship between CEMEX, the Regulatory Agencies and the Rugby Community
> An aspiration to generate trust between stakeholders and around issues
> Facilitate the provision to the Rugby Community of timely, clear, full and transparent information and explanations from CEMEX and other agencies regarding current issues, and future plans for changes, relating to the Rugby plant. Information provided to the community should be understandable.
> A way to proactively feed in information about plant incidents and how they will be dealt with
> To enable the Rugby Community to ask questions, raise concerns and seek clarification regarding matters relating to the Rugby plant.
> To give the Rugby Community the opportunity to influence decision-making.
> Mitigation of environmental, transport and other impacts of the plant
> Generation of a clear picture from the engagement about what the view of the community is (and to be able to hand this on to councillors, to the Environment Agency, etc)
> To be able to generate a common view on an issue when this is sought.

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE!

2009-03-10T23:10:00.004Z

CAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY LEOPARD CHANGE ITS SPOTS?

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY has pledged to "start" sharing information with the public of Rugby and the Rugby Community Cement Forum, but so far it is just not happening. In October 2007 the process of "renewing engagement with the local stakeholders, and becoming open, honest, and transparent and to "start" (after 8 years!!) to share information with the Rugby residents in a timely manner" was begun under the auspices of the ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL. For more details see their web site. As "expert facilitators" they have been called in to renew community engagement.

AGENCY LITTLE GEMS: Officer : "there was no such thing as hazardous waste in the UK before July 2005." "Bypass dust is the same as cement kiln dust."
Er.. no it is actually dust taken from the bypass, that is to say dust taken from the bypass that bypasses the cement kiln, and never goes into it. A bypass may be?

CEMEX IN TROUBLE - AGAIN!
$528,000 fine at Lyons Colorado - too much mercury in the CKD (cement kilns dust) found in the houses of local residents.

PINNOCCHIOS STAR IN PANTOMIME

2009-03-04T08:44:00.004Z

NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
The dead parrot obviously touched a raw nerve, and prompted Cemex (later same day 26) to circulate Draft Minutes of the 17 February Forum. These included SURPRISE SURPRISE an account of a discussion that NEVER happened! Section 4 e) was referring to the "Cemex Application for a Variation to the Permit (same permit EA have no copy of!) to trial 10 tph tyres", but included plenty of other sneaky changes to the plant operations, and increases in pollutants in Refuse to be burnt there, as previously explained. After a discussion about the chlorine content - that increases dioxins and risk of dioxin formation - this mysterious addition:

RE-WRITING HISTORY quote:

"The Environment Agency HAD withdrawn from the tyres variation application the section relating to the Climafuel specification change. This latter section was designed to bring about consistency across the industry and WOULD apply to ALL cement plants, but would not NOW be considered as part of this 10 tph tyres application."

Err... sorry who said so, and when, and where, and how? No-one told us and certainly not at the Forum.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE UNEXPECTED!
Cemex finally on 10 Feb provided RCCF with the "September 2008 duly made Application to burn 10 tph tyres etc" which had closed for consultation on 31 January! Now the Minutes seem to say that the application provided 10 Feb was incorrect. Meanwhile Agency's report of 10 Feb made NO mention of any changes to be made. Cemex notes of 12 Feb claimed "the EA will be deciding in week COMMENCING 16 February on the application for 10 tph tyres". OH - so no mention there of any changes! What suddenly happened?

MINISTER FAILS TO ANSWER LETTER ABOUT PERMIT. The draft minutes quote MP Jeremy Wright as saying "it was difficult for anyone to be able to comment on a variation due to the nature of the (non-existent) permit, and it must even be difficult for the Agency to know what they were determining."
Could we have a PERMIT to look at FIRST instead of a list of 6 years of pages of long variations, and also the data and the results of the last whole years RDF trials - as promised in the application? The Minister had simply passed the letter on to the Agency saying it is ONLY a Rugby operational matter.

OH NO I DIDN'T!
OH YES YOU DID!!
In typical panto style we are told by Cemex "Please find attached the draft meeting notes which have been APPROVED by the CHAIR for circulation." But the Chair throws a custard pie : "I queried 4e). He sent an email explanation. He did amend the notes to include some, but not all of the explanation. As a result it still did not make enough sense. He is now having 'another go'."

OH YES! THE AGENCY DID IT!
CEMEX has another go March 2: "As you know the application also contained information seeking to amend (INCREASE pollutants HUGELY!!) the climafuel (RDF) specification. This is SOMETHING that is BEING DONE across the industry following a programme of work led by the EA to produce standard waste derived fuel specifications for the cement industry. The cement industry was advised by the EA at the CENTRAL LEVEL to CHANGE (and thus to secretly increase with no consultation??) the specification the next time a variation was submitted. The EA decided that this was better undertaken separately from the tyres variation and informed us of this. The Variation applies therefore only to tyres. This is SIMPLY a decision by the Agency to deal with these matters as separate items, as opposed to dealing with them in a single application as they had originally advised." But this still does not explain why the Minutes were being subjected to "creative writing".

AS PINNOCCHIO'S NOSE simply grows and grows one "wonders" why the Agency has just WASTED OUR TIME over and over again in more sham consultations. This time Cemex and the Agency never even let us see the correct application - IF there is one? Why did they not "simply" provide information about what has been withdrawn and when and why, instead of us learning of it second hand from Cemex?
After all this was supposed to be a duly made application - now it seems it is not! It strengthens and further evidences the complaint to the Minister that the Agency fails to show any respect. There seems to be an agreement between the EA and cement industry to surreptitiously increase the chlorine, sulphur, lead etc without anyone realising. No doubt the "increases" will just be "written into the new EP permits" that are having NO applications, and no consultations and will be issued April to September."

HOW MANY PINNOCCHIOS STAR IN THIS PANTOMIME?

Dead Permit

2009-02-26T00:37:00.003Z

RUGBY COMMUNITY CEMENT FORUM
members declared the "Faulty Towers" IPPC operating Permit Dead, and were dismayed to find the Cemex co-incinerating cement plant has only a long series of Variations to the original 2003 IPPC Permit and nothing up to date. Apparently it would take the Agency a " long time " to write a Permit - so how do they expect the public to be able to follow this paper chase and to piece it all together from years of rambling files - that is IF the public could obtain all the pieces of this "jigsaw"? And how can we respond sensibly to this latest (sham) consultation for "yet another" variation to the "existing permit". They are taking the mickey here! Under the guise of an application for 10 tonnes an hour of tyre burning they are slipping in a few crucial other changes to the chemical content of the RDF (climafuel) which has suddenly morphed into a more contaminated waste. NOW the only difference between the hazardous waste SLF and the non-hazardous RDF seems to be the group III metals - 1800 as opposed to 800.

Then we won't mention the extension of the range of calorific value from the originally consulted 15-23 CV, as in the (invisible) PERMIT, and now "suddenly" to be 10-40CV - allowing "lots of scope!" And a few more hours with no emission limits, and a few more reasons to burn waste during instability. And not to mention the results and trials from last year - starting 28 February in "unauthorised equipment" and supposed to end on 31st August - but the old pals at the Agency then extended the trials for another 4 months. Thanks for telling us guys. And can we see the results of the 15 tph RDF trial - before we respond to the new consultation? In a word "NO!"

AGENCY FAILING IN DUTY CLAIM
according to the Rugby Advertiser, reporting on the RCCF complaint to the Minister for the Environment. This was down-graded (ignored?) as "only an operational matter" according to Director of the Agency and he soon passed it, like a hot potato, to the Midlands office, where three intrepid forum members will "discuss the issues." The complaint centred around a refusal to share/provide information, to answer questions and to attend any meetings in Rugby. "It is true to say there is resentment on both sides and now relationships have reached rock bottom."

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY STATEMENT
"said they were keen to improve existing engagement with the community and stakeholders, (another meeting 10 March) and is working closely with the Environment Council, Cemex and Rugby Borough Council to come up with a more effective way of sharing information". Thing scan hardly get worse than they are at present, the point blank refusing to give us any information, and not allowing us to see the Public Register when we twice drive 100 miles in a week to see it.

500,000 T CEMEX WASTE PLANT
was discussed - to be located either at Southam or Rugby. Southam residents after their PUBLIC MEETING had written 170 letters of objection, but Rugby sent only 7. When we suggested a PUBLIC MEETING should be called in Rugby to give the same equal opportunity, a very agitated Councillor Gordon Collett said that calling a public meeting was "SCARE MONGERING" and "RABBLE ROUSING". No the people of Rugby were not to be informed - and this Decision will NOT be taken until after the Local Elections in June - as it is potentially political! Meantime a full contaminated land survey has to be carried out on the MALPASS landfill to see what harmful effects there may be to local people during the construction, if it goes ahead there - never mind the harmful effects in an area of Multiple deprivation after construction.

RAILWAY TO BE RE-OPENED
After two very costly PUBLIC INQUIRIES the disused rail link between Rugby cement and its clay quarry and two hazardous bypass dust landfills, (CELL 3 and CELL 4) was "safeguarded for future re-opening" and the Western Relief Road that was supposed to run on it was re-aligned into the green belt at a cost of many millions, and of forcing unwilling farmers off their land. That is to be appraised again - would get 140 clay lorries off the roads, and possibly another 300 waste lorries everyday - as well as other lorries - save 13 X 500 = 6,500 miles a day (approximately). Then presumably the Southam and village residents would withdraw their objections which were based mainly on traffic concerns? In Rugby concern is pollution and air quality; health; lorry pollution; and more overall detrimental impact on an area of multiple deprivation where life expectancy is already less, and where so many more people would be affected by the pollution.

LOCATION, LOCATION...
Is this the very best location? What would they do on this "small site" with the mountains of waste and/or RDF in the urban smokeless zone during shut downs and/or break downs of either plant? They plan to bring in about 1,000 tonnes each day for processing, plus another 360 tonnes a day of ready made climafuel. 1,000 tonnes a day - that is 30,000 tonnes a month all PILED UP? And the RDF is highly flammable as the west Coast main line cannot have a "pipe or conveyor over it because of the fire risk". Not to mention a few hundred tonnes of tyre chips as well. Then there is the Highways charge that was agreed in 1997 - £975,000 Section 106 agreement to develop the site - that is now about £1.7 million. And the contaminated Malpass land, and river Avon, and green belt, and existing high pollution, and air quality management area, and vulnerable receptors, and railway - perhaps they ought to think the LOCATION over again?

SOUTHAM HAZARDOUS LANDFILL

2009-02-16T07:54:00.003Z

DIRTY BUSINESS!

PLANNING INSPECTORATE
FREEDOM INFORMATION
ACCESS APPEALS REGISTER.

ABEYANCES GALORE SINCE 2004! Authorised abeyance ended 31 December 2008 (AS I POINTED OUT!) Planning Inspectorate agree abeyance 13 MAY 2009 (from October 2004!!) Cemex say WCC have finally agreed Planning Permission of 3/4/07 and hazardous waste bypass lorry routing agreement, but not signed! EA cannot grant IPPC permit as CELL 4 has no planning permission - yet! Constant stream of abeyances since April 2005 "to get planning permission from WCC; to get IPPC permit from EA; to have time to build new landfill CELL 4; to submit closure notice for (unlawful?) CELL 3 - cannot legally submit CLOSURE NOTICE while CELL 3 is still under appeal!

INSULTATION SECRET PROCESS
FOR 4 YEARS BY EA AND PI UNTIL TODAY. EA PR STILL CONTAINS NO INFORMATION ON SOUTHAM EXISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL CELL 3! STATUTORY CONSULTEES -SOUTHAM/STRATFORD/RUGBY BC still left out of the so-called CONSULTATION for 2006 IPPC APPLICATION for CELL 4.
No-one been properly consulted as the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY HAS REFUSED ALL ACCESS to the PUBLIC REGISTER.
CELL 3 landfill "appears" to have no planning permission and no operating permission - so they HIDE all the information!

SUMMARY
18/04/05 EA to PI: "This appeal to the Secretary of State is against a decision of the EA to issue a landfill Permit no BV1666IX dated 14 October 2004 to carry on in respect of a Schedule 1 Section 5.2 A (1) (a) activity, disposal of waste in a landfill at Southam Long Itchington Warwicks. 21/04/05 start date. "The EA has agreed.
WHILST THEIR APPEAL IS LODGED THE APPELLANTS ARE ABLE TO OPERATE UNDER THEIR WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENSE. These PUBLIC REGISTER papers will be held at the EA office!" OH really?

ABEYANCE NOT ALLOWED INDEFINITELY!
21/02/06 How many years are they permitted to go on in ABEYANCE and working under WML - how many extensions? Does this WML include the dumping of hazardous waste? They have NO valid planning permission - infringing EU Law! QUOTE: "The PI DOES NOT AGREE TO INDEFINITE ABEYANCE, but if the EA is in agreement and the PI agrees that PROGRESS IS BEING MADE, and specifically in this case a second PPC application is being made the abeyance in the Inspectorates' opinion is appropriate. The Southam works landfill site would be able to accept waste in accordance with their WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENSE. (Check with EA public register for SPECIFIC TYPES) An IPPC Permit cannot be issued until an appropriate planning permission is in force. However IF the parties do not come up with sufficient reasons for abeyance for both sites we may point out to them that the appeals have to proceed as APPEALS CANNOT BE PLACED IN ABEYANCE INDEFINITELY."

CLOSURE OF EXISTING CELL 3 SOUTHAM HAZARDOUS WASTE?
" The EA discuss LONGER TERM CLOSURE of LANDFILL SITE that is subject to the appeal but CLOSURE NOTICE cannot be issued while under appeal but a closure report could be produced."
A review October 2007 of long term management to EA, following agreement of a CLOSURE REPORT for RUGBY LANDFILL. No feedback and as SOME OF THE OPTIONS IN THIS REPORT WILL IMPACT ON THE CLOSURE OF THE LANDFILL AT SOUTHAM therefore Cemex is not in a position to progress a CLOSURE REPORT for Southam at this stage". Where can anyone see this?

PUBLIC REGISTER REQUEST 29/01/08 access for this case. NO! This appeal not yet been decided - AND IF YOU WISH TO SEE THE PUBLIC REGISTER FOR THIS CASE I SUGGEST YOU CONTACT LOCAL EA OFFICE. All boxed up at Tewkesbury! Files left BY MISTAKE at the Tewkesbury office! Finally AT Lichfield on Friday 6 February 2008 - NOTHING on the EA files at all about this appeal.

Denied access to information.

SECRET PROCESS
03/03/08 Please can I see the files? EA have NO INFORMATION only a file years out of date! Despite repeated requests and another two visits to the EA office LICHFIELD they REFUSE to make any papers available.
PI: "To obtain information you have to make a request under the FOI requests scheme and you MAY BE ABLE TO OBTAIN INFORMATION"
Abeyance until 30 June 2008. 24/06/08 CEMEX: EA request extension to PPC application due to KNOCK ON EFFECT BY WCC - legal requirement not met - no planning permission!

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - WCC LATEST:
12 /02/09 "EA is minded to issue a PPC permit and has drafted a permit and decision document to that effect. However we are unable to issue a permit until planning permission is received so the application remains on hold. We would therefore request an extension to the abeyance period for a further THREE MONTHS."

POSITION REGARDING REPEATED ABEYANCE
"Abeyance periods for appeals is not unusual and reasons can differ, but most common is continuing dialogue between parties which could lead to the appeal being withdrawn. Often this dialogue can become protracted and takes time (in some cases years). PI are here to process appeals. Whilst there is the possibility that agreement can be reached between parties then we are able to keep a valid appeal (for which this is one) in abeyance for as long as both parties are in agreement to do so. It would not be beneficial to anyone for us to force both sides to come to a Hearing or Inquiry to be heard and a decision to be made, when neither currently wants to follow that course of action, and is therefore seeking positive dialogue. We can only continue as we are currently.

BYPASS DUST RAINS!

2009-02-08T21:38:00.001Z

SOUTHAM QUARRY - CONFUSION REIGNS!

CURRENTLY NOT AVAILABLE ANYWHERE:
1. WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENSE for CELL 3.
2. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF CEMENT KILN DUST, BYPASS DUST AND CLINKER DUST from old style coal burning cement plants only - such as the old Rugby works, and from the new waste co-incinerating cement works at Rugby. 3.EU WASTE CODES, which are MANDATORY for the CKD and/or BPD - as that should be on the planning permission, on any IPPC/WML permission for land filling and on the Waste Transfer notes that are supposed to accompany every delivery of waste and to kept for two years.
4. ANY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT for this cement plant and its whole impact.
5. ANY IPPC PERMIT for landfill CELL 3.
6. COPY at Stratford of (new) OCTOBER 2006 IPPC application (new) CELL 4.
7. ANY PLANNING PERMISSION of any kind for CELL 3.
8. RESTORATION PLAN FOR LODGE FARM RUGBY!

MARCH 4/2008 WCC REGULATORY COMMITTEE:
S965/06CM036 Waste Management and classification of waste? "There is a cross over here between the roles and responsibilities of the County Planning Authority and Environment Agency. The County Council are concerned with land use principles - is the development acceptable in this location, whilst the EA deals with matters of detail, such as pollution control through the Licensing and Permitting Regime.

Concern has been raised that the land filling of CKD at Southam Quarry is unauthorised as the time limited planning permission has expired." (on 31 DECEMBER 2007!)

MINUTES:
RUGBY CEMENT Originally sought temporary PP to deposit CKD and subsequently a series of renewals granted. Concern BYPASS DUST BPD being deposited but EA advice was BPD was "broadly the same" material as CKD. The temporary PP had lapsed but the deposit of material still continued. UNAUTHORISED DEPOSITING was NOT a FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM because neither the EA nor Stratford-on-Avon Environmental Health had any objection. They "did not appear to be overly concerned" about the application and the Committee had granted permission for BPD to be deposited at (CELL 4) Southam Quarry close to it,(03/04/07) but not overlapping the section (CELL 3) covered by the current application although this had not been implemented due to agreement not having been reached on lorry routing."

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY FAILURE:
EA failed to clarify the issue about the difference between CKD and BPD and UNFORTUNATELY the EA's email had been confusing - "the two materials were broadly the same and that permission for the depositing of CKD included BPD." BPD contained about 10% LIME (only??) which meant that it was classified as hazardous material. An application to the EA for an IPPC Permit 2004 for depositing hazardous waste had been rejected and was the subject of an appeal.

DECISION:
In view of CONFUSION engendered by EA email they DEFERRED the application to vary condition 1 of PP "S965/06CM036 to allow ONLY the importation and deposit of CKD Cement Kiln Dust, spillage materials, road sweepings, laboratory samples and kiln bricks at Southam for a further temporary period to 31/12/08", to enable clarification of the status of the CKD and BPD. EA refers to Southam WML as being amended and "in a transition stage between WML and IPPC and EPR permitting" - but no copy available.

TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE:
HGVs seem to be transporting (for 8 years 140,000 tonnes) hazardous waste with no hazardous markers on HGVs, nor any telephone numbers, and the BPD has been reported by many different people and statutory health bodies as escaping during transport. Calls have been made by various councillors, statutory bodies and the public for proper tankers to be used, with hazardous waste markers and telephone numbers on the sides.

PLANNING INSPECTORATE AND CEMEX APPEAL:
EA 2004 refused IPPC operating permit for CELL 3 landfill for various reasons, and as NO VALID PP for hazardous waste dumping. This appeal has VERY STRANGELY been held in ABEYANCE ever since (FOUR years!) at the Planning Inspectorate, while they make a new IPPC application for a new site - CELL 4.

CLASSIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE - BPD.
WCC made several references to bypass dust as "recently being re-classified as hazardous waste". Oh - When? BPD seems classified as Hazardous Waste category H4 irritant, and H8 corrosive.
KETTON Cement plant has a good description of retro-fitting bypass system to allow waste burning in old plant, and how to extract highly volatile pollutants at bypass, collected in BPD.

A Little Bird Told Me

2009-01-30T20:24:00.004Z

CHAOS AT COUNCIL AS CHANGE OF USE DEFERRED.
DOES SITE HAVE ANY PERMISSION AT ALL?
CLEVER IDEA: LET'S CALL IT: "CEMENT KILN BYPASS DUST!"

REGULATORY COMMITTEE : QUESTIONS
Ability of Environment Agency and planners queried on 20 January, as there is much confusion about:
* Which actual site they are permitting - co-ordinates?
* What is hazardous waste bypass dust?
* Why it has no PPC operating permit?
* What, if any, Waste Management License exists?
* Why Stratford on Avon has inadequate Agency copy files?
* Why the planning inspectorate says the " PPC appeal is in abeyance from 2004 refusal, and 2006 appeal?"

TEMPORARY EXTENSION (NOT CHANGE OF USE!!) 4 March 2008 - "No waste other than Cement Kiln Dust, spillage materials, road sweepings, laboratory test samples. and kiln bricks arising from the Rugby Cement works Lawford Road shall be imported to the site" TO 31/12/08.
Various grids 420.633 and 418.631.

QUESTIONS QUESTIONS?
HAZARDOUS WASTE to be labelled on the HGVs, and also an emergency telephone number, or not? Officers report 4.6 claims "an interchangeability of the terms CKD and BPD." ERR NO! Another question "this is not a one-off UK's only cement plant so how do others transport and dump the BPD?" Answer: Cement HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS are usually on site "in house" in RURAL areas where the raw material is NORMALLY dug out, not in town centres as in Rugby! Rugby Parkfield Road landfill was refused IPPC Permit, and application withdrawn in 2006.
It is a closed landfill as too dangerous near residents - cumulative impact! Does hazardous dust escape from lorries in the town and along the route?

Cemex say "NO!" RBC EHO express concern, and request monitoring to protect residents.

AGENCY PERMITS OBSCURED - BY DUST?
BUO244IE: BVI666IX: NIM641 granted 14/07/08 for one year only; AJO106 granted 21/07/08 for one year only?? No EU Waste Codes; description of the BPD; analysis of the dust; and also no explanation of the difference between CKD and BPD. Is it an "irritant and corrosive" see H4 and H8 substances which through immediate, prolonged, or repeated contact with the skin or mucous membranes can cause inflammation, burns and worse.

CEMEX:
As you are aware we have been dumping bypass dust for 8 years - you gave a permission in March 2008 for a new cell 4. This cell 3 is a fully engineered landfill (for CKD??) and subject to monitoring by the EA. We thought it was OK just to carry on. There is a degree of confusion and lack of info between the difference between the CKD and BPD - there is uncertainty - they are similar, only different because taken out of different parts of the plant. BBD is only classified as hazardous because it is high in calcium oxide and is an irritant. We re-cycle it back into the process. (in cement mills) We re-use as much of it as we can and only dump what we have to. It is nodulised so as not to be spread by the wind, and sheeted clay lorries bring it here. You have given a planning permission for hazardous BPD in cell 4 and that is not built yet. We want to fill this cell with 30,000t more and landscape it. We have given comprehensive ES on this with so much detail.

COUNCILLOR:
I am under the impression that since 2000 that it had a previous permission for CKD so what has been happening here - over a lengthy period of years - an unauthorised operation has been taking place.

WCC OFFICER:
We had given a planning permission for CKD but there were no planning conditions attached to it to say only CKD - if I remember - and then BPD got re-classified as hazardous waste. We overlooked the EIA and gave a series of temporary permissions for CKD. It seem they are valid unless the High Court strikes them down. It is a very grey area. Planning permission may well have been granted (for non-hazardous waste) but we failed to realise an EIA was necessary - as a result of BPD being dumped instead of CKD, and the BPD being given a "new classification" as hazardous waste.

CEMEX:
A Hazardous Waste Management License is monitoring it regularly and it is subject to regulations. It is an irritant - I am not a medical expert but it is classed as an irritant. We use returning clay lorries. To prevent it from becoming airborne we nodulise it and sheet it. No records of it ever coming out of lorries. Bypass Dust did escape from the cement plant on November 16/17 and it fell on people but the EA are taking no further action (Obviously CAN NOT as emitted on a "shut down" with no Emission Limits in place!! Rugby residents are furious - but they can get their cars cleaned free - with receipt!)

COUNCILLOR/S:
I am sure she said dust sometimes came from the lorries?
Hazardous waste is transported on many lorries and tankers on the motorways you see them with signs - but you say it is categorised recently as hazardous waste - what level of hazard is it? Dust and powder are bad for asthmatics - so are garden products - dust causes asthma.. there must be a hierarchy's of hazards about it? Where does it come in table of hazards - mid way? We need technical knowledge about it and we should defer for more information. But we have permission for cell 4 last year and we have been badly let down by the EA or WCC or both! A deliberate cloud has been placed over it to get these grants of PP. For 8 years stuff has been put in the ground and we did not know it - transported at risk to people - exposed for 8 years with no planning permission. We have a Duty of Care to stop it going on any more.

WCC
But the EA have been monitoring it and they are in a transition stage between Waste Management License and PPC permit. BUT said a councillor the EA NEVER came back and told us what we asked - NEVER - and we have asked. WCC officer: I cannot remember what we approved CKD or BPD.

THE JURY'S OUT!!
They DEFERRED voting six for, and five against. For more information: history of site; EA response; what is nature of dust, and health impact; can they just make it a Change of Use from non-hazardous to hazardous, and overlook the 8 years 140,000 tonnes and allow another 30,000 tonnes until the new cell 4 is ready? Next exciting instalment WCC Regulatory Committee 17 February. (see WCC web for committee papers and long history of the site.)

Photograph entitled 'Whisper' by Brian Scott

FLY-TIPPING?

2009-01-20T09:36:00.004Z

HAZARDOUS BYPASS DUST. EVERYWHERE!

HAZARDOUS WASTE
NO PROBLEM!
IT'S ONLY 140,000 TONNES!

POOR WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Their beleaguered Regulatory Committee have now got to face up tomorrow to the challenge of nodding through yet another in the long line of Rugby Cement/ Cemex applications for a yet another RETROSPECTIVE permission. This time for a "mere" CHANGE of USE for the unlawful use of the SOUTHAM landfill non-hazardous waste, which has been used for eight years for the dumping of 140,000 tonnes of hazardous waste BYPASS DUST from the Cemex Rugby Co-incinerating Cement plant. You will recall Hazardous Bypass dust was dumped on Lawford on 16/17 November - but the EA say they can do nothing about it - no emission limits count when things go wrong!

BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL.
"In recent years the description and classification of the waste disposed of (without the mandatory EU waste code!!) has not accorded with the planning permission in place, and with the authorised use of the site. The permission allowed the deposit of non-hazardous Cement Kiln Dust and not the hazardous waste BYPASS DUST." "It must be recognised that this planning application seeks retrospective planning permission to regularise what is in affect a LARGE LONG STANDING and ON GOING breach of planning control - the deposit of 140,000 tonnes bypass dust!" "In theory it would be possible to refuse the application and seek the removal of the BPD which has already been deposited. But the PPG 18 on planning enforcement advises : 'while it is clearly unsatisfactory for anyone to carry out development without first obtaining the required planning permission an enforcement notice should not be issued solely to 'regularise' developments which is acceptable on its planning merits but for which permission has not been sought.'

SOME KIND OF OVERSIGHT?
140,000 tonnes hazardous waste - errr sorry! WCC omit to say that they have readily and repeatedly given "unlawful extensions to the planning permission for non-hazardous waste" all the time knowing this to be unlawful. I have personally informed them on several occasions! As for the Environment Agency - they seem unsure if it has any permission at all, or even needs any permission, and simply say they have "no objection." The EA are probably still trying to find out what, if any, operating permit supposedly ontrols the Cemex Rugby co-incinerator - so what matter is 140,000 tonnes hazardous waste in Southam to them?

COMPLIANCE WITH EU LAWS?
The disposal of waste in a landfill requires an environmental permit and will be subject to the provisions of the Landfill Directive and the Integrated Pollution prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive as well. Landfills are categorised into three types - hazardous, non-hazardous and inert for the purposes of determining the applicability of the requirements of the Landfill Directive.

The recovery of waste in or on land (not landfill) is also subject either to the requirement for an environmental permit, or an exemption from the need for a permit. The exemptions are prescribed in the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007. There are currently exemptions for some land reclamation operations and the use of waste for construction. Defra has recently consulted on a review of the current exemptions from environmental permitting with a view to tightening up on large-scale exemptions involving the deposit of waste on land.

CLEARLY NO PERMIT TO DUMP?
Whether for disposal or recovery an environmental permit may be granted by the Environment Agency, in cases were planning permission is required, only where relevant planning is in place.

Top picture used courtacy of Skampy

PERMIT - WHAT PERMIT?

2009-01-14T00:13:00.003Z

THE PLOT THICKENS.......

AFTER WEEKS OF INVESTIGATION the AGENCY finally reveal that : THERE IS NO PERMIT!!

"IPPC OPERATING PERMIT BL7248 granted August 2003 to Rugby Cement, now CEMEX Rugby, has been subject to many additions, variations and derogations over the last SIX years. Would we be correct in assuming that the EA have a simple aide-memoire detailing the current permitted operations which cross refer to formal decision documents that have authorised the changes? It would be helpful for the RUGBY CEMEX COMMUNITY CEMENT FORUM if we could have a copy - particularly as we are now being consulted on yet another APPLICATION (closes 31/01/09) to VARY the "said/invisible" Permit? We have a meeting scheduled for 4th February and perhaps you could let us have that schedule with your updated report?"

NO WE CANNOT!
"We don't have such a document I'm afraid. However, I agree it needs to be "clearer" , so we will either produce such an informal document, or review the legal document to consolidate it all. I was proposing to do that as part of our "information sharing" proposals that the Environment Council is working with us on. However, it's not a trivial task so I won't be able to give you anything final by 4th Feb I'm afraid. I hope to be able to update you later this week on what we are doing." Clear as mud!

LATER ON NEXT WEEK:
"We have checked on the national review programme and now understand that all cement works permits will be reviewed from April to September. That will produce a NEW consolidated Permit, but in a different format and likely to review some permit conditions in line with current good practice." Great public consultation procedure that - is that really GOOD PRACTICE or INSULTATION and SHAM yet again?

UP THE CREEK WITHOUT A PADDLE : is how the RUGBY RESIDENTS and the RCCF now find themselves. How can we consulted on an application to VARY a PERMIT IF and AS we have NO copy of a PERMIT to VARY?

QUESTION: WHY IS DATA from the (dubious/much debated) continuous particulate cement mill monitors NOT made available to the public or even to the EA - since Cemex say they were fitted in 2004, and the EA say they were fitted in 2006?
ANSWER: THERE IS NO RECORDING OF ANY CEMENT MILL DATA.

QUESTION : WHY STOP BURNING WASTE and why revert to COAL ONLY during instability, start-ups and shut-downs to 80% capacity - 200 tph hour raw meal feed, and what PICs (products of incomplete combustion) come from the emissions during waste burning and cause concern, but not from coal?
ANSWER: "It is not for us to explain why the European WASTE INCINERATOR DIRECTIVE requires what it does. I suggest she goes and bothers Brussels. And actually the products of incomplete combustion from coal are likely to be AT LEAST AS BAD AS THOSE FROM NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE, IF NOT WORSE! Ask anyone who's had to clean up the site of an old gas or tar works."