Monday, April 30, 2007

CEMEX -PROPOSED CLIMAFUEL BURNING

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

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

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

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

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

TINA SCOTT TEAM LEADER EXTERNAL RELATIONS

TEL: 01543-404967
FAX; 01543-404931
midscentral@environment-agency.gov.uk


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

The official line is:

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


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

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

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

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

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

If you care about your air you MUST ask questions.

Monday, April 23, 2007

REGULATION AND COMPLIANCE?


ENVIRONMENT AGENCY NOW ADMIT:

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

WE KNOW NOTHING!

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Take a deap breath before reading..

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

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


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

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

CAROLYN ROBBINS: Thank you for presentation and questions.

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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

Monday, April 16, 2007

GOVERNMENT AGREES WITH LILIAN

(click pic above to enlarge)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




CEMEX MAY DEVALUE HOUSES:
WHINGEING TO START!

Says a letter in the Rugby Observer.

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

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

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

Monday, April 09, 2007

800 Lorries now..burning issue!


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Monday, April 02, 2007

New Webcam Under Test

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

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

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

Things to look out for:

The plume dipping and 'grounding'.

A thick black plume.

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


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

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


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

Sunday, April 01, 2007

Tyre Burning Whitewash


PERSISTENT POLLUTION AND PROVOCATION OF THE PUBLIC PROMOTES PAINTING.

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

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

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


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

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

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