Mr Mel Smith
Managing Director
CAMMEL LAIRD
Gibraltar
15th January 2005
Dear Mr Smith,
RE: Removal of GRIT/PAINT OVERSPRAY/ASBESTOS on ROTTERDAM
-It is nearly five months now since we exchanged correspondence on the issue of the removal of grit from your premises. It is also some time back since we discussed with you the concerns over paint overspray affecting residences and cars on the frontline to the dockyard. The question of asbestos works on the Rotterdam was another issue we raised with you. We very much hoped that the safety standards were being applied to prevent works on this vessel from becoming a threat to public safety.
-Given the manner that Cammel Laird has responded or not on these matters so far, the Environmental Safety Group has to state publicly that it does not consider this company to be adhering to best possible practices or to be rushing to meet environmental guidelines and regulations. The ESG would like to request that as Managing Director, you put the public concerns to rest by responding publicly to the following points showing that the action required is indeed within the operational plans of your company.
On the grit removal (officially classed as toxic waste) :
The group is very disappointed at the delay of the removal of the mountain of grit officially described as toxic waste. This, in spite of your assurances to us that this matter was in hand and that we would be seeing trucks removing this waste shortly after the last meeting we held with you. The waste continues to grow and we ask for a cessation of all sandblasting activity until such time as grit removal actually begins. We ask again that you provide publicly a date for the commencement of the removal.
On the paint overspray:
The group raised this question with you as it regularly receives complaints from those affected by your company’s paint spraying activities. At the time your operations manager replied that your company was investigating the possibility of installing special netting that would help reduce this paint pollution. We would like you to advise publicly whether you have any intention of investing in this technology and when the public can expect to see this in place. Cammel Laird should understand that there is considerable strength of feeling within the community on this issue and the ESG, in the growing knowledge of the alarming health effects from exposure to marine paints, will be lending support to any future campaigns on this issue.
On asbestos works on the Rotterdam:
Given the environmental record witnessed so far by this company, the ESG continues to be concerned over the works on the Rotterdam and would like a detailed report to be made available publicly by one of the responsible bodies on the works carried out to date. The Health and Safety Inspectorate have still not provided any specific details on its inspections and any more delay will result in further action being considered by the ESG.
– The ESG wishes to end this letter by restating its desire to work with authorities and industry so long as it can see an earnest intent in those responsible to do whatever possible to reduce the impact of environmentally harmful activity.
If no effective measures are taken and taken within a reasonable length of time, we will initiate a campaign that will, in future, include active protests.
Sincerely,
ESG Committee
