Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

No health risk from Rugby cement works, says report

CONSULTANTS THIS week cleared RMC's controversial Rugby cement works of putting local residents' health at risk.

They found that vehicle emissions on Rugby's roads were more likely to produce health risks than emissions from the coal fired kiln stack of the cement works.

Faber Maunsell's independent report, commissioned by Rugby Borough Council, contradicts claims by environmental campaigners opposed to the cement works.

Faber Maunsell technical director James Richer said his firm had undertaken 'the most comprehensive monitoring of a town this size ever carried out in the UK.'

Air quality at 23 locations around the town was checked for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulphur dioxide and particulates over a 15 month period.

'We picked up high NOx levels in the town centre, almost certainly from traffic, ' Richer said.

'There was one area with high levels of fugitive dust near the cement works, but this certainly wasn't coming from the stack'.

Sulphur dioxide levels were generally very low, said Richer.

Monitoring continues, but Faber Maunsell's results to date were submitted to the Department for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs four weeks ago for validation.

Anti-cement works campaigner Lillian Pallikaropoulos refused to accept that the monitoring exercise had proved emissions from the cement works were safe.

'I'm having the data checked by my own consultants, ' Pallikaropoulos told NCE this week.

'We believe the location of the monitors was adversely affected by local political considerations.

All that Faber Maunsell is saying is that the stack isn't causing problems in the areas being monitored. In other areas we believe it's a major health risk.'

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.