Wednesday, February 28, 2007


NO you are not seeing double!
Rugby Cement said "one kiln not enough!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


"It is considered the operator has a 'degree of success' in meeting the Critical Success Factors. In determining whether or not Cemex has succeeded in this we have applied 'reasonableness and common sense'."


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

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

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

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

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


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

Sunday, February 25, 2007



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

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

It is now admitted that the plant was running "outside of its IPPC permit" for TOC and nitrogen dioxide during 2005, including during the TYRE TRIALS. Unbeknown to the Rugby residents, and more surprisingly unbeknown to the Rugby Cement Community Forum/Tyre Burning Review Group, who met regularly with Cemex and the Agency, in a secret exchange of letters the Agency had given a discrete concealed "permission" for the permit conditions "not to be met" - although this was not FORMALLY finalised until the Variation was issued on 1st November 2005.

It somehow simply "slipped their minds" to notify the Community Forum, public, RBC Environmental Health Office, and Faber Maunsell Air Quality consultants, who are supposed to be consultees on all these issues. RBC even brought in another paid industrial EXPERT from Faber Maunsell and even he was "kept in the dark", although he had come to specifically examine the INCREASE in the TOC emissions that the Agency were permitting. Both Cemex and the Agency never thought to mention the changes to the Permit Conditions and the nitrogen dioxide increases, nor to Dr Mike Holland who was brought in by RBC as a Facilitator to examine the Tyre Trials data; no he was not informed either. So much for "openness and transparency and honest consultation!"

So the "consultation" carried out by Cemex and approved by the Agency had the wrong EMISSION LIMIT VALUES printed in the tables, and thus the WRONG CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS. "So What?" It is apparently of no concern to the Agency that the whole consultation has been a "sham" involving misinformation and hidden data. So What?

How did this happen to Rugby residents? Could it just be by an unlawful planning permission, and by an unlawful IPC Permit, that was all carried out IN SECRET behind the backs of the public, and even behind the backs of our elected councillors, and MP? Who knew what, and when, and what did they do about it?

WCC planners seem to have great difficulty with their SUMS! Simple arithmetic is obviously not a job requirement. On 09/09/99 told RBC officers that the EXACT CAPACITY of the NEW WORKS is 2.9 times that of the existing."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There has been much confusion over the planning and IPC permitting process, Rugby Cement stating that RBC EHO was "not a statutory consultee", but the EA said "yes they were", and officially consulted them in June 1999 when Rugby Cement finally finished its IPC application. This with a response to a Schedule 1 request from the Agency sent to them in May 1997. (YES - over two years to answer a few questions!!) But RBC EHO made no answer to the IPC application and consultation in June 1999, and kept the application off the Public register, and out of the public domain. There are no Council records, minutes, or any data at all about how this was done at RBC.

Similarly WCC mysteriously also has no publicly available records. And WCC, like RBC, also made no response to the June 1999 IPC application and consultation, although they were immensely involved in the process with the Agency and Rugby Cement. It seems from the above that WCC and RBC did not even know what was actually being built, even after it was already largely constructed.

In JUNE 1999 the IPC Permit was slipped in "under the wire" to avoid the public finding out the truth about what was actually being built here, AND PREVENTING THEM FROM CHALLENGING THE PLANNING PERMISSION. The IPC Permit was issued 6 weeks before the regime changed to IPPC on 1st November 1999, because ANY DELAY to the proceedings would have meant that Rugby Cement would have had to make a WHOLE NEW IPPC application, (as opposed to the more simple IPC application) and operate under much higher standards, and also to have faced a very challenging public consultation BEFORE the plant was even operating. The public would have had to have been told then, in 1999, that what was built was an : "existing waste-burning CO-INCINERATOR making over TWO MILLION TONNES CEMENT A YEAR".

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

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Daylight Robbery!

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion carried unanimously by 33 councillors.


Thursday, February 15, 2007

Who pays their wages?

Whose side are they on?

Lepers would have been made more welcome!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Ravenhall ; Terry Deery; Neil Sandison and Noreen New

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

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

At least we handed our leaflets (unread, and described as RUBBISH by some) to the Councillors, WHOSE WAGES WE PAY on the steps of a Public building FOR WHICH WE PAY!

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

Thursday, February 01, 2007



Is Buffer Zone needed round cement works?

Powers-that-be wake up to reality?
WHO is to blame for Rugby's pollution?
Cemex and Warwickshire County Council in dock, as cement and also Western Relief Road cited as culprits!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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