Presentation of Cemex ‘Climafuel’ Proposals and their Implications to the Local Communities

1. Presentation of Cemex ‘Climafuel’ Proposals and their Implications to the Local Communities 15th November 2008

2. Outline the Proposed Development Background • European Landfill directive – the UK must reduce the biodegradable landfill to 35% of 1995 std by 2020 • Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme has taxed local authorities • Landfill sites are filling up( Ufton has 2 years left!) • The price of Fuel has risen steeply • Cement making uses a lot of energy • The Rugby works uses coal shipped by road & rail from abroad. • CEMEX has a clear financial benefit in putting forward a proposal to burn waste • The Long Itchington Site is good building land with a chimney installed • Parallel development application.

3. Outline the Proposed Development - Mechanical Biological Treatment Process (MBT) CEMEX CEMEX CEMEX CEMEX Moisture Refuse Derived Fuel To Rugby Kiln Refuse Recycling Landfill Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)

4. Volumes Per Year Inward bound 300,000 t refuse 100,000 t “Climafuel” 400,000 t Total Outward bound 250,000 t Waste/Fuel to Rugby 71,000 t Recycling 37,000 t landfill 358,000 t Total 758,000 tonnes Grand Total Outline the Proposed Development Vehicles movements Per Year Inward bound • 6,000 refuse trucks • 37,000 bulk HGV’s • 43,000 Total Outward bound • 35,800 Waste/Fuel to Rugby • 35,800 Total • 78,800 Vehicle Movements The average UK person generates 592kg waste per year, the proposed development will process waste from 506,756 people! – (BBC/OU Survey)

5. Traffic Streams

6. RDF relies on the presence of things that burn well Paper Plastics If we recycle more there will be less paper and plastics in our waste. If there is less paper and plastics the RDF won’t burn as well. The lower the level of the quality of the fuel drops then other “Commercial” waste is needed As recycling goes up the waste needs to come from further away What's in your bin? If you took out all recyclables Would it burn? Sustainability – How Green is the Proposal?

7. Sustainability – How Green is the Proposal? Carbon Emissions • The calorific Value of “Climafuel” is half that of coal, for a given output twice as much will be needed. • Typically CO2 is double conventional fossil fuels for incinerated waste. • The current process uses coal, a “dirty” high carbon footprint fuel. The proposal is to replace this with another high carbon fossil fuel • RDF does not come from sustainable (ie renewable) resources. • There are increases in emissions due to the additional handling and transport compared to the baseline. ”

8. Sustainability – How Green is the Proposal? “The Waste hierarchy MUST be applied in local waste management Decisions” 1975 EU waste Framework Directive

9. Implications for the Village – landscape & Visual Impact Size 210 M long,21M high,153 M Wide + + + = How big will it be? – It would fit the Albert Hall in three times over and have room for the village church.

10. Implications for the Village - Traffic Existing Traffic Movements • Traffic Survey indicates • 5,486 Cars per day • 18 Buses per day • 586 “Lorries” per day

11. Implications for the Village - Traffic Existing Traffic Movements • Traffic Survey indicates • 586 “Lorries” per day • 296 – 51% are small twin axle lorries • 290 – 49% are “Heavy”

12. Implications for the Village - Traffic Quote – CEMEX (UK) Ltd 10-25 “Based on the annual tonnages of materials imported, processed and exported to and from the site there will be 15.24 HGV movements per hour at site access between 07:00 am and 19:00 each weekday and on Saturday mornings. During the evening, night, Saturday afternoons and Sundays the number would reduce to 6.58 per hour” CEMEX Monday – Friday = 262HGV’s per Day Saturday = 201 HGVs per Day Sunday = 158 HGVs per Day Chris Hurt Own figures = 281 HGV’s per Day These figures do not include the additional clay lorries now going through the village

13. Implications for the Village - Traffic Safety • Fatal accidents • HGV’s 1.6 per 1 million km • Cars 0.9 per 1 million km • HGVs are around 8% of total traffic • 20% of all pedestrian fatalities caused by HGV’s • 76% of all HGV accidents are on A roads or Motorways. Department for Transport Road Accident & Road Freight statistics #1 2008

14. Implications for the Village - Traffic Proposed Traffic Movements • Traffic Survey indicates • 262 – 281 HGV’s per day increase = 90 - 97% • The CEMEX lorries are one of the heaviest types

15. Conclusion • The proposal does not increase recycling. • The proposal does not produce a renewable & sustainable fuel. • The Proposal does not optimise carbon emissions. • The proposed plant will process enough waste for ½ million people each year. • It would be located within a rural village. • All transport to and from the plant to Rugby is by road through Long Itchington, Marton & Princethorpe. • The designated route uses rural and “b” roads. • HGV traffic will increase by more than 90%.

16. Summary The main reasons for CEMEX which drive the proposal are • Availability & suitability of land • Chimney is in place already • Financial advantage There will be a clear negative environmental impact on the village and surrounding communities. A GREEN SMOKESCREEN?

17. What Can You Do? Information • UK Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) • Lists over 30 local pressure groups against RDF • Friends of the Earth (FoE) • Policy for MBT ,Bio-waste , recyclables • Cemex • Look at the planning application.

18. What Can You Do? Deadline 13 December Planning To have your voice contact Matthew Williams Warwickshire County Council Shire Hall Warwick Cv34 4SX Or e mail matthewwilliams@warwickshire.gov.uk Quote S965/08CM033 Planning January