Solid Waste Strategy (P.95-2005) - second amendments

STATES OF JERSEY

r

SOLID WASTE STRATEGY (P.95/2005): SECOND AMENDMENTS

Lodged au Greffe on 21st June 2005 by Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier

STATES GREFFE

SOLID WASTE STRATEGY (P.95/2005): SECOND AMENDMENTS ____________

1. In paragraph (a)(v), after the wordsamodernEnergy from Waste facility' insert the words to be located atLa Collette, St. Helier'.
2. At the end of paragraph (a)(v), after the words"section 5.4oftheattached report" insert the words "and to agree that until the commissioning of the new Plant, the Committee should, through the Health Protection UnitoftheHealthand Social ServicesCommittee, introduce with immediateeffect a screen testing programmeonvolunteerresidents within the emissions zone of the current Plant, similar to the screen testing that is currently carriedout on staffat the Plant".

DEPUTY J.B. FOX OF ST. HELIER

REPORT

Amendment 1

If adopted the revised paragraph would read as follows –

th a t t he Committee be charged to implement the replacement of the Bellozanne incinerator with a modern

Energy from Waste facility to be located at La Collette, St. Helier, subject to an environmental and health impact assessment and planning approval, to enable it to be commissioned in 2009, and procured according to section 5.4 of the attached report;

The purpose of this amendment is that if the States decide to accept the Committee's recommendation for a replacement of the existing Energy from Waste Plant with a new modern appropriately sized facility, the residents surrounding the existing Plant recognize that they will be accused of nimbyism, but for the following reasons believe that any such new Plant should be sited at La Collette –

(i ) L  a Collette 2 reclamation site is designed to collect and contain the Island's inert waste which

includes the ash from the existing Energy from Waste Plant.

(i i ) T h e ash deposited at La Collette 2 is buried in sealed pits. A new modern Energy from Waste

Plant based at La Collette would not require the transportation of any such ash residues off site.

( ii i)  L a  Collette  2,  through  a  previous  decision  of  the  States,  is  designed  to  incorporate bad

neighbour businesses' from existing residential areas, such as Bellozanne.

(i v ) T r ansportation – the projected increase of the Plant capacity, from 81,000  tonnes per annum of

refuse to 126,000  tonnes per annum by 2034, together with the increasing residential population within the greater Bellozanne area makes the La Collette site the only realistic long term choice, on social and environmental grounds.

T h e m a i n ad vantages of this proposal are that the site has the capacity to receive the increased

projected extra tonnage at minimal disruption to residents and could increase this still further. The Committee must have recognized the suitability and desirability of this when it spent £25,000 of the £50,000 on the joint venture with the States of Guernsey in its feasibility study into the option of a Channel Islands Waste Facility located at La Collette.

A l th o u g h th i s Channel Islands proposal may now not materialize, it nevertheless provides a future

option should Guernsey or one of the other Channel Islands consider this, without the necessity of heavy transportation moving to and from an increasingly densely populated residential area, i.e. Bellozanne.

T h e C o m  m i ttee has already established that, although the harbour is a gateway to Jersey, and

Havre des Pas is principally an attractive tourist area, the La Collette site is an industrial site, with its proposal to establish a modern enclosed composting facility for the recycling of green waste by 2007.

T h e r o a d in frastructure, although not perfect, is already used for the transport of heavy inert

material and therefore is capable of receiving the household waste that is currently delivered to and from the Bellozanne site.

(v ) B y Products – Energy Recovery

T h e tw  o m a in by-products of a new modern Plant are increased electricity generation and the

ability to provide district heating, through waste steam.

T h e e x is t in g Plant provides 3  megawatts of electricity, some of which is exported to the Jersey

Electricity Company Complex at Queen's Road, but due to the age and wear cannot produce the quantity that a

new Plant would be expected to produce. In any event, a new cable would have to be laid from Bellozanne to Queens Road, at considerable expense and disruption. However, a new Plant based at La Collette could provide considerable increased revenue returns to the States, via a new link connected straight through to the existing Jersey Electricity Grid, which is situated on the same site at La Collette.

In 1 9 9 6 , t h e Public Services Department looked at district heating, but found that the residences

around the Bellozanne area were not suitable and the only perceived efficient use was to pipe the residual heat to St.  Helier to supply big service users, such as the Hospital. This was considered too expensive at that time.

T h e re l o c at i on of the Fort Regent Swimming Pool to the Waterfront and the proposed new large

developments on the Waterfront have already been recognized by the Environment and Public Services Committee as a possible outlet for this surplus energy.

Finally, I cannot equate the financial or manpower implications arising from this proposition, due to the unknown specification of the Committee's proposal at this time, and would ask that the Committee carries out this study.

Amendment 2

The existing Plant was opened in 1979 and screen testing on staff commenced in 1983 to monitor the effects of emissions in and around the Plant. Currently the Plant has the worst emissions in Europe and, if located in the European Community, it would have been closed down in 1996. This is reiterated in the Department's own Solid Waste Strategy Report, Section 5.2.1, on the case for replacing the Energy from Waste Plant without delay,"The existing Plant emits significant toxic substances and there are serious concerns about the possible effects that these emissions may have on public health and on the wider environment."

The residents support the Committee in its endeavour to close down the existing Plant as soon as possible, but would feel very much reassured to have the information from the amendment made available publicly.

The only realistic alternative to a new Plant is a costly alternative, namely to add flue gas treatment equipment to the existing Plant to enable it to comply with current environmental standards, as contained in the Committee's Report – Section  1.3, protocols on air  pollution, under  United  Nations Geneva  Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (1979).

Although no relevant effects had been found to the detriment of the health of the Committee's staff, the residents of the area have always been concerned about the long term effects emissions have on their health.

As no checks have been made since the opening of the current Plant on the health of the local community, it would provide greater reassurance to the residents for volunteers to have the same screen testing as that of the Environment and Public Services staff.

There are no significant financial or manpower implications arising from this proposition, and any costs would be expected to be contained within the Committees' budgets.