Zurrieq bring-in site

I refer to the letter by Therese Vella, Unhealthy Bring-in Site (May 5). When in my April 25 correspondence I referred to the "mistaken observations", I was referring to arguments brought forward by the general media as to why such a site was removed. It is not my intention to enter into the political aspects of the matter, but I felt it was fair for everyone to note the facts.

The project in question was presented to the Zurrieq local council as a pilot project to be carried out between June 22, 2006 and January 31, 2007, which was to be followed by other sites in Zurrieq according to the number of households once the council approved the project with the organic waste container included.

Until January 31, the service was being provided on a daily basis excluding Sundays and public holidays. I can state that the residents made use of the site in a proper manner (paper in the paper bin, plastic in the plastic bin, metal, glass and organic in their respective bins, in line with volume per site as related to my studies carried out in 2003/2004). The reader cannot negate the amount of waste recovered from this site alone, borne out by our data.

The state of this site was by no means different from other councils' sites after a weekend, and I can see no reason for all the fuss about this particular site and not all the others provided by WasteServ.

Ms Vella was correct to state that the organic bin was being used for all sorts of waste, especially on the weekends. Although this was at times inconvenient to the surrounding residents, it did not mean that the service was not being provided properly. Contrary to the conventional containers, the site and its containers were being washed and cleaned daily with every recovery. 

The failure to upkeep the site came after January 31, upon the council's request to remove the organic waste container and provide the service on a three times a week basis. Residents still expected to use the rest of the containers, dumping the organic waste into the other segregated-waste bins, which we had no obligation to recover. This meant waste was not being segregated and was thus contaminated. We used the containers, which are designed to recover all waste, to clear the surrounding overspill left by the contracted conventional collector of waste. The outcome of this decision had been envisaged and was made known to the council members. 

The council had the right and autonomy to any decision that to the best of its knowledge would serve its community and I would like to thank all council members and the residents who made use of this site for the opportunity to let this project come to fruition.

I would like to recall that this was a case study to prove that my containments system complied with the EU 2008/2013 waste recovery from source directives.