Dear Anne, he writes...
Please can you correct the consistent inaccuracies in your blog, www.prosiectgwyrdd.com ? The roadshow was not an ‘incinerator roadshow’. It was a roadshow to explain the possible options that may be available from the market place, explaining markets and outputs of each process, providing information on the procurement process and providing an opportunity for the public to ask questions on the project.
You were there to campaign against one technology, incineration, and staff were on hand to respond to your questions on that technology.
As previously explained Prosiect Gwyrdd is technology neutral and will assess all bids made against agreed criteria.
With regards to your comments on dioxin emissions we accept there are a number of reports regarding the effects and sources of dioxins that are available, the report you are quoting from, while being written in 2007 is based on 1999 data, where as the report we discussed on Tuesday is also a 2007 report that is based on Defra report from 2004, stating "traffic accounts for 3% of dioxins where as MSW incineration accounts for less than 1%, which is available from attached link: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/statistics/health.htm
Staff made it clear that you need to address your questions relating to regulation of any residual waste treatment technologies to the correct agencies.
Specific questions relating to emissions resulting from any residual waste treatment solution should be addressed to the agencies that regulate these processes.
Given the information that has been given to you in this email, please can you remove the inaccuracies in your blog immediately? Also, please can you remove my name from your blog, If you wish to attribute material to me, then it should be in the name of a ‘Prosiect Gwyrdd spokesman said:
I have written the Editor of the Echo to explain the full context of what I said in relation to the, ‘there is no perfect solution’ comment and I wait to hear from them and have this corrected.
...you said that to me? changed your mind??
The project appreciates that you have your views and welcomes discussion but it is very important that you present information correctly and in a factually accurate way. As the information on your blog has been subject to an editorial decision-making process, if this request isn’t actioned then I will have little option that to report this matter to the Press Complaints Commission.
Kind Regards, Ian Lloyd-Davies.
Actually we were campaigning FOR an environmentally sound solution! I am not sure what explaining markets means? Prosiect Gwyrdd is NOT technology neutral as claimed as the process is bias towards incineration which is obvious from the calibre of the companies the project has chosen to give "The invitation to participate in dialogue"!*** A quick google will inform readers that these 'chosen' companies are or have been vehemently opposed elsewhere for wanting to build INCINERATORS! So where are the options and incinerator or an incinerator at the bottom of the waste hierarchy? Landfill in the sky is not a solution!
Read the information about the chosed bidders that Prosiect Gwyrdd doesnt give the public!
TPD has been issued to the successful companies below (in alphabetical order):
1. Covanta Energy Ltd - http://covantaenergy.co.uk/
No Coventa incinerator
CHAIN no to Coventa in Cheshire
The Facebook page for residents against the Covanta Incinerator at Stewartby
2. MVV Umwelt Gmbh - www.mvv-environment.co.uk
ampaign against http://www.ernesettle.org.uk/
Plans for an incinerator at Ernesettle have been dropped by MVV UMWELT
3. Shanks Group PLC/Wheelabrator Technologies Inc -
Lincolnshire Anti-Incineration Alliance (LAIA) •
http://www.shanks.co.uk/ http://www.wheelabratortechnologies.co.uk/
4. SITA UK Ltd - http://www.sita.co.uk
Suffolk Against Incineration and Landfill (SAIL) and Mid Suffolk FoE
Bristol Greens urge objections to waste incinerator plan
Bristol24-7 4 Mar 2010 ... SITA UK Ltd has applied to the Environment Agency for a permit to allow them ... “Waste incineration encourages councils not to bother with ...
www.bristol247.com/.../greens-urge-objections-to-waste-incinerator-plan/
5. Urbaser Ltd - http://www.urbaser.es/en/en_index.htm
http://www.cracin.co.uk/news.html
Essex FoE / Essex Green Party
6. Veolia ES Aurora Ltd - http://www.veoliaenvironmentalservices.co.uk
Swansea ban Veolia · UK Without Incineration Network
15 Jul 2010 ... Other authorities have discontinued contracts with Veolia, but have not specified this reason. Swansea City Council is therefore leading the ..
Rainworth Incinerator Campaign People Against Incineration PAIN ...relating to the Rainworth Incinerator. Veolia tried to prevent us from seeing the PFI
7. Waste Recycling Group Ltd - http://www.wrg.co.uk
Oxford FoE · UK Without Incineration Network
This is great news for Oxfordshire. WRG could not convince councillors that they would properly seal off any hazardous waste before it was transported for ...
8• Viridor Waste Management Limited - http://www.viridor.co.uk
People and parties joined to object against Viridor's New England ...
14 Mar 2010 ... Ivybridge galvanised to object to Viridor incinerator .... is part of the not- for-profit media social enterprise News and Media Republic. ...
No comments:
Post a Comment