Recently I started to go through the correspondence with my former General Manager from RIGK and I found another piece of evidence in RIGK’s saga to cheat AIPROM clients. I choose to publish one of his messages from the end of 2011 just because I have to sustain an official position regarding how decisions were done in this company and to defend myself in front of RIGK allegations. I’m not so proud now about having too much advices and following his orders but I have to live with this and with a lot of other emails. After this example, please enjoy a new concept for German waste management ethic and accuracy: “Hi to all, Yesterday I received the last declaration from AIPROM members. Hard figures: Total market: 1202,1 tons Total plastic: 702,6 tons (90.43% HDPE; 9,57% PET) Total paper: 491,8 tons Total metal: 7,6 tons Based on the weighting notes, SCAPA collected: Total Quantity: 670 tons (55% from total) divided as: Plastic: 534,6 tons (76,1% from total) Paper: 135,6 tons ( 27,6 % from total ) Metal: 0,4 tons (5,5 % from total) Other +/- 20 tons on the road will be not included in 2011, hopefully will be accepted in 2012. The unbalanced percentage between Plastic (76,1%) and Paper (27,6%) is mainly the result of the decision took by association to aloud the incinerator to decide the quantity for plastic and paper in what were the mixed transport. Before to announce this numbers to AIPROM, I have to ask if: 1 – you agree that RIGK to change a number of annexes to re-balance the percentage before the report to AIPROM 2 – we deliver this results to Andrei, Ana, Carmen in order to fix the problem, then inform the companies 3 – we announce like it is now. (…)” send on 08.12.2011 at 07:12 by Cornel Brad Markus Dambeck Geschäftsführer – RIGK GmbH : answer send on 8th Dec 2011,h 09:00: “Hi to all, Let me say so: It is nice that the market increase. Then we have the possibility to collect more! But coming back to your proposals. If you think that Position 1 is not a problem and easy to do and to explain without creating concerns I am fully agree with your position. But then we have to have a clear figure of what we will announce on position 1. Please discuss this with the team in Romania today. I am going with all decision you make” I appreciated again the flexibility of my boss regarding the transformation of the waste materials but to decide I preferred to spoke not with RIGK team but with AIPROM representatives. SCAPA kept the results as they were written in documents and we planned to see in following years what are the reasons for this situation. Of course the situation did not repeat because the plastic from 2011 was very “heavy”. In the beginning of 2011, AIPROM audited all the collection documents from the previous years and found a lack of official documents regarding the waste transports, a lot of official documents filled with information that describes other waste than SCAPA packages and a lack of information on other transport forms and some tones without weight notes. After this discovery, RIGK had to fulfil the complete documentations and to announce each transport to AIPROM. With this occasion I found that I forgot having a 76,1% recovery rate for SCAPA plastic. I think RIGK broke in that year the Romanian record in plastic collection! A lot of team trainings for RIGK performances! From EPRO European Association of Plastic Recycling site ( http://www.epro-plasticsrecycling.org ) I found that “RIGK gmbh is developing, organising and executing recovery schemes for plastic packaging and agricultural plastics from trade, industries and farmers. All packaging and films recovered through RIGK are controlled and safely and sustainably conveyed to a material or energy recovery”. I put one more doubt on my list. How the German Executive Manager of RIGK srl and RIGK gmbh managed the 2012 final waste declaration to Romanian National Environmental Agency? Still to come.