Barrington Liaison Group

 

Meeting Notes

 

January 24th, 2008.

 

 

Present

 

Susan Walford                       S. Cambs DC (Chair)

Tony Fletcher             Barrington PC

Liz Robin                                Cambridgeshire PCT

Oliver Smart                           CAMAIR

Alan Jenyon                           Haslingfield Environment Committee

Cllr Heazell                             S. Cambs DC – Haslingfield

R. Newstead                          Barton PC

Andrew Bott                           CAMAIR

Bob Bryant                             Orwell PC

E. Funnell                               Harston PC

Charlotte Berrill              Barrington

Andrew Grant                        Barrington

Neil Goudie                            Environment Agency

Phillip Baynes- Clark            CEMEX

Keith Marsay                         CEMEX

David Heinzelmann              CEMEX

Paul Fletcher                         CEMEX

Ian Southcott                          CEMEX

 

 

 

1.                  Apologies.

 

Received from Andrew Lansley MP, David Atkinson, Helen Wass (both CCC), Sebastian Kindersley, Rupert Dick, Roger Istead, Patrick de Backer and Mrs Hendrys.

 

 

2.                  Notes of the Last Meeting.

 

At the last proper meeting held on July 12th, 2007, CAMAIR had requested the results relating to the South Ferriby Climafuel trials. This had not been done. Although this was in the public domain, CEMEX undertook to provide this information.

 

CllrH asked for paper copies of the slides to be made available.

 

IMS asked that those present update and provide their email contact details.

 

 

3.                  CEMEX Business Update.

 

PBC reported that the UK market was buoyant and up 5% in 2007. Barrington had achieved its cement output budget but was slightly down on clinker. 2008 had begun slowly due to the wet weather.

 

The plant had achieved four years without a Lost Time Injury (LTI) accident. Although this was an exemplary record, the company was not complacent and had formulated an Action Plan for further improvement.

 

The annual shutdown was scheduled for three weeks in April and new investment would include new ‘tubes’.

 

 

4.                  Emissions Performance. (Please note the slides for this presentation are attached).

 

DH confirmed that the derogation for NOx from January 1st, 2008 had been reduced to 800. AB pointed out that the limit remained at 2500 if no alternative fuels are being used. KM noted that the introduction of a low NOx burner last summer had represented a step change in performance in this respect.

 

Particulates had been high in November and this was the result of a Schedule 1 occurrence. Hydrogen Chloride had been high in August/September due to specific problems.

 

In respect of extractive testing, OS queried the statistical uncertainty – CEMEX would clarify with the external testing house.

 

AB noted that the dioxin readings presented differed from those in the report. DH responded that these had been carried out in August.

 

MG noted that particulates showed an upward trend in the second half and SO2 had fallen. This was explained by the change from petcoke to coal. Petcoke is higher in sulphur (typically 6%, coal 0.5%) and the conductivity of the dust is affected by lower sulphur. December saw a reintroduction of a proportion of petcoke. MG asked what the optimum sulphur content would be but KM was unable to be definitive in this respect.

 

 

 

 

5.                  Alternative Fuels Update. (Please note these slides are also attached).

 

KM explained that trials with a Climafuel material from Lincolnshire were planned and NG would be arranging for this source to be vetted by the Agency.

 

Questions were raised about the status of Donarbon vis a vis the CCC waste contract but in the absence of DA and HW these were unable to be answered.

 

 

6.                  Environment Agency. (Please note that these slides are also attached)

 

AB was very concerned about PM 2.5s and the reaction of the PCT. The peak of particulates was moving down the scale to 2.5s with Climafuel and these were far more damaging to human health. LR said she would take this issue back to the PCT. AB reported that there was information on this issue from the US but when requested to bring this to the meeting, he declined. NG responded that air quality objectives were being updated and he was unsure how this might affect this issue. Monitoring of 2.5s could be considered going forward.

 

The problem of plume grounding in Haslingfield and residents breathing these smaller particles was raised. CAMAIR said they had predicted this situation. AB concluded that there should be no way that using Climafuel at 20% could be permitted, when use at 15% produced these results. CllrH was concerned about the effect on PM 2.5s if it was the company’s intention to use Climafuel at even higher levels.

 

NG reiterated the timescales for the consultation process. AB had not understood this and NG explained that consultation on the draft report officially closed on January 31st but that he would still take comments until February 14th. OS complained that the draft report was not available on the company’s website. IMS explained that it had been placed on the website the day after the December meeting. The timetable for consultation had been set out that meeting, was in the draft report and was in the Community Matters newsletter distributed in early January.

 

The debate moved onto the quality of Climafuel available now and in the future. The company hoped that by working with Donarbon, fuel of the requisite quality would be the outcome. There was currently no European Standard but one was possibly in the pipeline; there were standards for the testing of these materials. SW was asked what South Cambridgeshire DC was doing about influencing the Donarbon situation. SW said she would take this issue away.

 

 

LF was concerned that a commercial organization was being subsidized by being paid to take this material.

 

There was some concern about the specification of the material; NG said specifications were in place at a number of locations and were getting tighter; he would provide more information. NG was asked whether he was happy permitting a plant he had no data on – he responded that the data came from the trial.

 

If suppliers were audited, why had CEMEX had such poor experiences in respect of extraneous material in the Climafuel? MG felt that there needed to be some joined up thinking to ensure better quality supplies and NG responded that was what he was being asked to address.

 

There was also concern about the environmental impact of importing Climafuel from the Continent. KM explained that Climafuel was replacing fossil fuels that may are being imported from South Africa or the US. It was hoped that a local source of Climafuel would come on stream and this would be a far more sustainable option. There was also a misunderstanding about the economics of waste and this needed to be addressed.

 

 

7.                  Any Other Business.

 

RB requested that the general quality of the presentations be improved to increase their accessibility.

 

 

8.                  Date of the next meeting.

 

This would take place on Thursday, June 26th, 2008.