Energy from Waste Facility - establishment and acceptance of tender

STATES OF JERSEY

ENERGY FROM WASTE FACILITY: ESTABLISHMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER

Lodged au Greffe on 20th May 2008

by the Minister for Transport and Technical Services

STATES GREFFE

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

to r ef er to their Act dated 13th July 2005 in which they approved a new solid waste strategy and charged

the then Environment and Public Services Committee to investigate fully alternative and conventional technologies to provide the final disposal route for the residual waste remaining following the implementation of the systems and facilities; and to their Act dated 28th June 2006 in which they agreed that any such technologies for the final disposal route for the residual waste should be located at La Collette II Reclamation Site; and

(a ) to approve the preferred solution for the replacement of the Bellozanne incinerator of an Energy

from Waste facility, as set out in sections  8 and 10.1 of the Report of the Transport and Technical Services Department dated 20th May 2008;

(b ) to authorise the Minister for Transport and Technical Services to accept the tender of the preferred

bidder subject to the approval of the transfer from the Consolidated Fund of the necessary capital expenditure.

MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

REPORT

ENERGY FROM WASTE FACILITY: ESTABLISHMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER

Executive Summary

The Bellozanne incinerator was originally commissioned in 1979 and has now reached the end of its useful life. It no longer offers a reliable means of waste disposal for the Island and a replacement facility is required as a matter of urgency.

Report  and  Proposition  P.95/2005 "Solid  Waste  Strategy" charged  the  then  Environment  and  Public Services Committee to recommend a preferred solution for a replacement to the Bellozanne incinerator to the States. This Report sets out how this requirement has been discharged and recommends a preferred solution.

Good progress has been made with implementing the targets within the Solid Waste Strategy – details are given in Appendix 1 to the Report.

Recycling of non-inert waste has increased from 20% to 30% since the Solid Waste Strategy was approved. Provided resources are made available, the 32% target set for 2009 can now be exceeded and a 36% target by 2018 is considered achievable. However, non-inert waste has increased by 9% since 2004, as a result of increasing household numbers, an increase which is broadly in line with expectations within the Solid Waste Strategy and has occurred despite significant waste minimisation and recycling efforts.

59 available alternative and conventional waste treatment technologies were investigated between 2003 and 2005. The majority failed the pre-qualification criteria set by the then Environment and Public Services Committee that companies must have at least two reference plants operating on a commercial basis for at least 2  years. The results were updated to include new technology companies emerging since the Solid Waste Strategy was approved and have been summarised within a "Technology Review Report" which has been circulated to all States Members.

Transport and Technical Services obtained approval from the States for the La  Collette  II Reclamation Sit as the location for the proposed replacement for the Bellozanne Incinerator in June 2006. Transport and Technical  Services  then  undertook  comprehensive  Environmental  and  Health  Impact  Assessment procedures and obtained Planning in Principle for an "Energy from Waste" facility in October 2007.

A robust procurement process has been followed for the proposed facility. Initial expressions of interest were  invited  from  all  potential  waste  technology  providers.  The  9  respondents  were  short-listed  to 4  companies who were invited to tender in November 2007. Three bids were received at the end of February 2008.

The States Statistics Unit confirmed in April 2008, that the number of households was projected to increase from 38,000 households in 2007 to 46,200 households in 2035. This is less than the 52,100 households projected in the Solid Waste Strategy for 2035 and means that a smaller capacity plant can be considered for  the  Island – 105,000 tonnes  is  recommended  compared  to  the  original  126,000  tonne  plan proposed within the Solid Waste Strategy.

Bidders were requested to submit fixed price tenders for a 105,000  tonne plant by the end of April 2008. Two bids were received and fully evaluated.

The bid from the consortium CNIM/Spie Batignolees/Camerons (the CNIM consortium) scored highest in technical, legal and financial evaluation, had the lowest initial capital outlay and has a lower operational cost to the Island. The CNIM consortium was therefore appointed "Preferred Bidder" by Ministerial Decision on 19th May 2008. Earth  Tech/Fisia  Babcock  Environment also submitted a high quality bid an

were appointed as "Reserve Bidder".

The preferred solution recommended to the States is for a two-stream, conventional Energy from Waste plant with modern flue gas treatment and a highly efficient steam turbine. The technology is fully proven, will exceed the high air quality standards required within the European Union Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC) and is expected to generate up to 7% of the Island's electricity needs.

A "Waste Treatment – Cost Comparison Report" has been prepared to compare the costs of the preferred solution with waste treatment technology types promoted by the Environment Scrutiny Panel and is attached as Appendix 2 to this Report. The analysis indicates that, when both capital and operational costs are taken into account, the preferred solution being recommended to the States offers the best value to the Island.

The capital cost of the preferred solution – £106.31 million – is summarised within Table 1 of Section 10– Financial and Manpower implications. Funding for the preferred solution is the subject of an accompanying Proposition from the Minister for Treasury and Resources.

If the States approve the Proposition, and the accompanying Proposition of the Minister for Treasury and Resources in respect of funding, the Minister for Transport and Technical Services will progress to appoint the Preferred Bidder as Contractor and obtain financial close, including agreement with the Jersey Electricity Company, at the earliest possible time. Subject to approval, it is expected that the new Energy from Waste facility will be commissioned and ready for take-over in March 2011.

0. B a ckground
1. A previous Public ServicesCommittee received a draft Solid Waste Strategy inApril2000.The Strategy reported that the current Bellozanne Incinerator had reached the endof its useful life and recommended that a replacementEnergy from Waste facility shouldbeprocured. The CommitteeacceptedtheStrategy in  principle,  but required  further  work on the potential  for recycling  and  whether  the  Bellozanne incinerator needed to be replaced or upgraded. A review of the initial Strategywas then carried outby new Technicaladvisers in September 2001, which reached the same conclusions.ThePublicServices Committee soughtconfirmationof the optimumprocurement route for the replacement facility and Price Waterhouse Coopers confirmed that this should be through a design andbuildcontractinDecember 2002. Between 2003 and2005, the PublicServicesDepartmentreviewed alternative technologytypes (listed under section  4.1below)at the request of the Public ServicesCommittee.
2. O n 13th July 2005, the States Assembly approved Report and Proposition P.95/2005 "Solid Waste Strategy". As a result oftheapproval, the then Environmentand Public ServicesCommitteewascharged to investigate fully alternative andconventionaltechnologies to providethefinaldisposalroute for the residual waste remaining, following the implementation of certain recycling systems and facilities set out in the proposition,and to recommend a preferred solution for a replacement to the Bellozanne incinerator to the States with anaccompanying cost/benefit analysis, environmentaland health impactassessmentno later than July 2008. This Report sets out howtheserequirements have been dischargedandrecommends a preferred solution.
3. O n 28th June 2006, the States Assembly approved Report and Proposition P.45/2006 "Solid Waste Strategy: Locations forProposedFacilities", and agreed that any such technologiesfor the final disposal route fortheresidualwaste to replace the existing Bellozanne Plantshould be located at the La Collette  I reclamation site, immediately tothesouthofthe Jersey Electricity CompanyPower Station.

0. R e latedrequirementsof Proposition 95/2005
1. A numberofrequirements related to the implementationof services and facilities within the Solid Waste Strategy were included within the Proposition andReportP.95/2005.Anupdateonprogressonthese requirements is provided asAppendix 1 to this Reportentitled"SolidWasteStrategy – Progress Report".
2. A  lso  as  a  result  of approval of P.95/2005 "Solid  Waste Strategy", the  then  Policy and  Resources Committee  was charged  to propose the inclusion  of a  funding strategy  for  certain capital  projects identified bythe proposition within the States Business Plan 2006 – 2010 by,if necessary, re-prioritising or deleting existing projects, or identifying additional sourcesoffunds.
3. T h e Treasury and ResourcesDepartmenthaveprepared an accompanying Reportand Proposition to fulfil this additional requirement.

0. R e view of Conventional and Alternative Residual Waste Technologies
1. In August 2003, the then Environmentand Public Services Committee issued an advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Communityrequesting that companies express interest in providing a residual wastetreatmentsolutionfor the Island. Nine companies formally expressed interest andwere subject to detailed technical and financial assessment.Inaccordance with the requirementsof the then EnvironmentandPublicServicesCommittee,any proposed technology had tohaveatleasttwo reference plants, operatingforatleast 2 yearson a commercial scale.
2. D  uring  the  development of the  Solid Waste Strategy,  a  large  number of other waste treatment technologies  were reviewed by Officers  and  their advisers.  These reviews were  summarised in  a TechnologyReviewReport written by the technical adviser inOctober 2005, whichincludedreviewsof 59  technologies. The report considered conventional and alternativetechnologies including all ofthose that had respondedtotheexpression of interest advertisement in the Official Journal oftheEuropean

Community. The report was circulated to States Members.

3. T h e environmentalperformance, complexity andenergy efficiency of the technology wasconsidered. Finally, whethereachtechnology offered was capable of dealing with the whole ofJersey'swaste stream or produced any residualwaste stream that required further treatmentand/or disposal.
4. T h e originalTechnologyReviewReportwas used to inform the process for short-listingthosecompanies offering technologies that were considered to have the potential tobe the best solution for the Island. Those recommended included gasification technologies in addition to conventional moving grate incineration.
5. T h e TechnologyReviewReporthas been updated to include all of the technologies that had beenput forward by companies for consideration by Transport and Technical Services since the original TechnologyReporthadbeencompleted and this Reporthas been circulated to all StatesMembers.The updated Report concludes that, although several new technology companies have emerged onto the marketsince 2005, none are sufficiently provenor have offered a viable solution for the whole of the Jersey waste stream.
6. T h e Environment Scrutiny Panel appointed their own technical consultant to review the technology selection within the Solid Waste Strategy.The resulting report contains manykey findings that accord with the view of the Minister forTransportandTechnicalServicesincluding that –

( i) th e Bellozanne Incinerator has reached the end of its useful life and should be replaced

immediately;

(i i) re c ycling on the Island will be harder and more expensive than in mainland Europe and that there

are considerable barriers to overcome before composting kitchen vegetable waste could be introduced;

(i i i) c o nventional Energy from Waste technology is a proven and acceptable technology and may be

the best solution for the Island;

(i v ) p r oven technology means "demonstrated at the same scale on the same feed (waste) for at least

2  years at two or more commercial reference facilities.

7. T h e Environment Scrutiny Panel's Report also challenged the Transport and Technical Services Department to consider alternative types of waste technology. Both modular Energy from Waste technology companiessuggested within the reportwere invited to tender within the procurementfor the preferred solution, but chose not to submit bids. Other alternative technologies promoted within the Report are not being actively marketed within Europeand/or did notrespond to Transport and Technical Service's expression of interest advertisement. Technology companies being promoted by the Environment Scrutiny Panel do not meet the proven definition as defined by their own technical consultant (as set out in paragraph 3.6(iv) above).
8. T h e Environment Scrutiny Panel'sReportalsosuggestsanalternative strategy based upon collecting food wasteand recyclables on alternate weeks to residual waste, compostingthe collected kitchen wasteand drying residualwaste to sanitise it so it can be stored to enable a smaller residualEnergy from Waste facility to beprocured.This alternative strategy is considered high risk,as –

( i) i t r elies upon a significant investment by the Parishes in waste collection over and above that

assumed within the approved Solid Waste Strategy;

(i i) it a ssumes that there will be a sustainable market for kitchen vegetable derived compost, for which

there is no current viable disposal route on the Island;

( ii i) t h e Transport and Technical Services Waste Treatment Cost Comparison Report analysis has

confirmed that the disposal option alone would cost significantly more to operate than the preferred solution (as

set out in Appendix  2 to this Report).

9. T h e Minister forTransport and TechnicalServices' response to theEnvironment Scrutiny Panel report on this subject has been circulated to all States Members.

0. C o stComparison of Waste Technology Options
1. T h e TechnologyReviewReport(see section  3 above) considered a wide rangeof residual wastetreatment technology "types". Thesewere –

(i ) E n e r gy from Waste (EfW) – Conventional Incineration

(i i) E n e r gy from Waste – Fluidised Bed Combustors

(i ii ) E n e r gy from Waste – Gasification and Pyrolysis

(i v ) S t e am  Autoclaves

(v ) A n a e robic Digestion (AD)

(v i ) M  e c hanical and Biological Treatment (MBT)

(v i i) A lt e rnative technologies such as Plasma Gasification, Bioethanol Production or Liming.

2. T h e cost of a viableandsustainablewastemanagementsolutionfor the Islandis significant – irrespective of the combination of recycling and treatment technology type that is chosen. To demonstrate this, Transport and TechnicalServicescommissioned a cost comparisonofthreetechnologytypes - these being ConventionalEnergy from Waste,MechanicalBiologicalTreatmentandSteam Autoclaves. For eachtechnologytype,scenariosemploying different possible uses of the technologyand variations in recycling  rate were examined. These scenarios  were  based upon the  technology types that  were recommended for further consideration bytheEnvironment Scrutiny Panel'sReport.
3. T h e outcomeof the analysis is attached as Appendix 2 to this Report and Proposition and is entitled "WasteTreatment Types – Cost ComparisonReport". The analysis indicates that, when whole life costs are taken into account (that is both capital and operational costs), the option being recommendedby the Transport and TechnicalServicesDepartment offers the best value.

0. E n vironmentalImpactAssessmentof the Preferred Solution
1. F o llowing approval by the States of the La Collette reclamationsitefor the replacementof the Bellozanne incinerator in 2006, TransportandTechnicalServicesundertook a full EnvironmentalImpactAssessment for the proposed facility. A short-listof 4 companies and 2 reserves had been agreed, all of which could be defined underthe collective term "Energy from Waste", but which included a gasification technology solution in addition to conventional incinerators. As a result the proposed solutionwasconfirmedas being an "Energy from Waste" technology type from this time.
2. T h e EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentwassummarised within an "Environmental Statement" which formed part of an Outline Planning Application submission by Transport and Technical Services in January 2007. The EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentconcluded that theproposedEnergy from Waste facility would result in a considerableimprovement in air quality for the Island. The only significant impact from the facility was determined tobe the visualimpact.The Outline Planning Application was the subject of a full public consultation process by the Planning Department and the Transport and Technical ServicesDepartmentalsoorganised its ownpublicawarenessas part of the application process.
3. T h erewas a further needto review the potential impact of a VapourCloudExplosionat the neighbouring Fuel  Farm  in February  2007 following revised  planning  guidance  being issued  as a  result of  the Buncefield Fuel facility explosion in December 2005, resulted in the establishment of the La Collette Hazard Review Group. This Group commissioned a leading hazard consultant to review the risksat the La Collette Reclamation Site in general and of the proposedEnergy from Waste facility in particular.The

hazard consultants report was considered by the Minister for Planning and Environment in October 2007, who

determined that the risk was not unacceptable.

4. T h e bidders for the Energy from Wastecontract that wastenderedinNovember2007were required to design their technologies to contractually meetorexceed the environmental standards defined within the Environmental Statement.  As a  result,  the only  significant revision needed to  the Environmental Statement that obtained Planning in Principle approval has been a revised statementonvisual impact. The updated EnvironmentalStatement will be submitted to the Minister forPlanningandEnvironment as part of  the Reserved  Matters required under the  Planning  in Principle  approval. A  copy of the  full EnvironmentalStatementdocument has not been submitted with this Report and Proposition for practical purposes, butwas offered in full to all StatesMembersin January 2007, and a non-technicalsummary was circulated. The Minister forTransport and TechnicalServices has written to all States Membersupon lodging this Reportand Proposition offering them further copiesas required.

0. H e althImpactAssessment
1. T h e  Minister  for  Health and  Social Services has been  charged  with conducting  a  Health Impact Assessment on the proposed replacement of the Bellozanne incinerator as part of that Department's representation in response to the Planning Application submittedbyTransport and TechnicalServices.
2. T h e PublicHealthDepartmentcommissioned an independent consultant with significantexperienceof conducting HealthImpactAssessments(IMPACT – a consulting divisionofLiverpool University) to conduct  the assessment. The consultant  used  a  very  wide definition  of health  in  conducting  the assessment to ensure that broad health-related issues were alsoaddressed.
3. T h e assessment wasconducted in two stages. The first stage was conducted in response to the Outline Planning Application and was completedinMarch 2007. Thesecondstagewasconducted in responseto information  that  will  form  the  basis  of the  Detailed  Planning  Application  and Reserved Matters submission andis due to becompletedinMay 2008. A copy of the Health ImpactAssessmentdocuments has notbeensubmitted with this Report and Proposition for practical purposes,but the Transportand Technical Services Department understand copies of reports from both stages of the Health Impact Assessment will bemade available for all States Members to review prior to the Debate.

0. T h e Procurement process for the Preferred Solution
1. A n Engineering,ProcurementandConstruction (Design and Build) Contract was proposed as the most appropriate means ofprocuring a replacementfor the Bellozanne Facility by Price WaterhouseCoopersin December 2002. A contract and specification waspreparedfor the proposed Energy from Waste facility during 2007 in accordance with the Institute ofChemicalEngineersRedBookstandard form ofcontract, whichis used internationally for procuring wastetreatment plants.
2. A comprehensivetender evaluation process wasdevelopedbyTransportandTechnicalServices with its technical adviser (Babtie Fichtner Limited),legal adviser (EvershedsLLP)and financial adviser (Deloitte and ToucheLLP) incorporating technical, legal, commercialand financial evaluation. The evaluation framework has been subject toreviewbytheStatesInternal Audit function whose initial findings have confirmed that the financial advice was consistent with best practice and sufficient to provide anadequate basis for the assessment of tenders and financing options.
3. T e nderswere issued to four short-listed companies immediately following Planning in Principle approval being confirmedon1stNovember2007.Thesecompanieswere:

( i)  C o nstructions  Industrielles  De  La  Méditerranée  (CNIM)  SA  (a  French  company  offering conventional incineration technology working in joint venture with SBC or Spie Batignolles

Camerons Limited (a Jersey registered company whose equal Shareholders are Spie Batignolles –

French civil engineering contractor and Camerons Limited a local civil and building construction company)).

( ii ) E a rth  Tech/Cyclerval  (a  UK  Engineering  Consultancy  working  with  a  French  technology

company  offering  a  variation  on  conventional  incineration  technology)  NB:  Fisia  Babcock Environment replaced Cyclerval as technology provider when Cyclerval withdrew during the tender process.

(i ii ) E n er-G (A UK based company offering a gasification technology).

(i v ) L e ntjes UK (A German company offering a variety of Energy from Waste technologies).

D e t a iled discussions with all 4 bidders were held during the tender period to ensure that the companies

were familiar with the process and the unique circumstances prevailing on the Island.

4. D u ring the tender process a number of changestocompany structure andownership took place,which resulted in three bid submissionsbeing received priorto the tender deadline of 29th February 2008.
5. F u ll tender evaluation was only undertaken on the bids which offered fixed prices. Detailed reviews of these bids were undertaken to identify potential areasfor valueengineering, rationalisation and cost reduction. The bidders were required tosetoutthese potential savingswithintheirfinalsubmissions.
6. F o llowing a review of the HousingNeeds Survey 2007 data, the States Statistics Unit confirmed that a lower number of households than  originally  envisaged within  the  Solid Waste  Strategy (46,200 as opposed to52,100) would be projected for the Island in the period through to 2035. As a result, Transport and TechnicalServices revisited its wastearisingsmodelandwas able to confirm that a smaller capacity facility could be considered.
7. T e nders had been issued on the basis of a 126,000tonnecapacityplant (2 x 9 tonneperhourstreams). However,budget prices for a smaller105,000tonne capacity plant (2 x 7.5 tonnes per hour streams)had also been sought in accordance with commitmentsmade to States Membersduring the debate on the Solid Waste Strategy in 2005. Transport and TechnicalServicesaskedthe bidders tosubmit fixed prices for a smaller capacity plant, by 30th April 2008.
8. F ollowing a  further  comprehensive evaluation, the  bid from  the consortium  of  CNIM/Spie Batignolees/Camerons (the  CNIM Consortium) was confirmed to have  scored  highest on  technical, commercialandfinancial criteria and overall scores. Inaddition, the CNIM consortium bid has a lower capital outlay and a lower operational cost to the Island. The CNIM Consortium was appointed as "Preferred Bidder" by Ministerial Decision on 19th May 2008. The Earth Tech/Fisia Babcock joint venture wasalsosubmitted a high quality bid andwereappointedas "Reserve Bidder" at the sametime.

0. P re ferred Residual Waste Technology Solution for the Island
1. T h e  preferred  solution  for  the  Island  offered  by the  CNIM Consortium is  led  by  Constructions Industrielles DeLaMéditerranée(CNIM)SA,which had a turnover of 527 million Euros in 2007 and whichoffers a full ParentCompanyGuaranteefor the contract.
2. T h e proposed technology is a two-stream,conventionalEnergy from Wasteplant with modern flue gas treatment and a steam turbine. The technology is highly proven. There are over 130 CNIM plants operating throughout the world and 15 in similar configuration totheplant offered to Jersey.
3. T h e Flue GasTreatment system technology proposed is highly efficient andmeetsand/or exceeds all of the environmentalrequirements specified within the EnvironmentalStatement,includingcompliance with the European Union Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC) and Waste Management(Jersey) Law 2005.

4. T h e plantis offered with a 10Megawattcapacitysteam turbine that wouldbe capable of generating between approximately5%and7%of the Island's electricity needs.The plant separates the fly ash from the useful bottom ash that wouldenableapproximately90%ofthe ash toberecycled into construction materials in due course.
5. T h e plant has beendesigned in accordance with a DesignBriefpreparedbyHopkins Architects Limited who were appointed byTransport and TechnicalServicestore-design the proposed facility on the request of the Minister for Planning and Environment. The design of the facility is smaller than that stipulated within the Planning in Principle approval, being20 metres shorter inlength.

9. C o - operation with the Jersey Electricity Company and Enabling Works

1. A key benefit of locating the proposed facility at the La Collette reclamation site is that this enabled the potential for co-operation with the Jersey Electricity Company (JEC) with regard to equipment employed within the La Collette Power Station.
2. D i scussionsbetweenTransportandTechnicalServicesand the JECcommencedinlate2005 and have considered a numberof potential shared services. TransportandTechnicalServiceshasachievedan agreementinprinciple with the JEC for thefollowing services:

(i ) U  se of 2 of the 8 flues within the La Collette Power Station chimney for the purposes of emissions from the Energy from Waste facility after full Flue Gas Treatment has taken place.

( ii ) U s e of the sea-water cooling system employed by the JEC when generating electricity at the

Power Station.

(i ii ) P r ovision of a de-mineralised water supply and heavy fuel oil supply for the Energy from Waste

facility boilers.

(i v ) I n addition, the JEC will provide an electricity supply for start-up and contingency operation of the

Energy from Waste facility and will accept electricity generated by the steam turbine at a market rate.

3. T h e agreement in principle with the JEC requires a small initial capital paymenttoenable the connections outlined aboveto take placeand then on-going maintenance and rental revenuepayments. The capital and revenue cost oftheproposedarrangementisincluded within the Financial and ManpowerImplications section below.
4. A numberofenablingworks are required to enable thedevelopmentofthe proposed Energy from Waste facility. These will be the subject of separate planning applications, or form part of the detailed planning application and Reserved Matters submission in relation to the Planning in Principle for the facility. Land transactions will be dealt with by Property Holdings under Ministerial Decisions. Project management costs are required andthe project also includes costs for decommissioningtheBellozanne incinerator.

10. F in ancial and manpower implications

1. T he overall capital cost ofthe preferred solution to the States of Jersey is set out in Table 1 below.

Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) Contract 93.35 Jersey Electricity Company (JEC) Connections 0.40 Decommissioning of the Bellozanne incinerator 2.08 Project Management (including incurred Feasibility costs) 6.85 Total 106.31

2. T his cost is exclusiveoffluctuations in currencyduring,andanydelaybeyondthe six month period from 30th April 2008, duringwhichthe Preferred Bidder'stender is fixed. Allowancehasbeenmade within the funding for the project for appropriate contingencies to deal with these possibilities.
3. T he overall estimated revenue costto the States of Jersey in the first year ofoperationof the proposed new facility comparedtothe current equivalentbudgethas been evaluated. The revenue cost is within the limits of the current equivalent TransportandTechnicalServices budgets for this operation.No cost saving is currently proposed as this will notbeknownuntil the facility hasbeencommissioned.
4. T he staffing of the proposed facility compared to the current equivalent operations has been assessedand is within the current equivalent Transport and TechnicalServices staff allocation for theseoperations. Theremaybe opportunities for efficiencies, because the proposed operation will adoptmoremodern working  practices.  However, as the facility  involves  the  operation  of services that  have  not been undertaken before, it will be necessary to fully commission the plantbeforeany savings can be realised.

11. N e xt Steps, Construction and Programme

1. If theStatesapprovetheProposition, and the accompanying Proposition ofthe Minister for Treasuryand Resources in respect of funding, the Minister for Transport and Technical Services will progress to appoint a Contractor and obtain financial close,includingagreement with the Jersey Electricity Company, at the earliestpossibletime.Simultaneously,Transport and TechnicalServices will seektoobtaindetailed planning permission for the facility bySeptember2008 and commencepermittedenabling works with immediateeffect.
2. T ransport and TechnicalServices proposes tooffer the Contractorthedevelopment site byDecember 2008 with a view to full construction commencing in January 2009. The Preferred Bidderindicates that a 28  month construction period is required. Construction will be controlled through the Planning and Regulatory functions of the States ofJerseyandadditional significant contractual controls have been introduced to ensure that construction causes the minimum disruption possible. If appointed, the Preferred Bidder expects tobe able to provide thecompletedandcommissioned Energy from Waste facility for take-over in March 2011.Subject to approval, it isexpected that the newEnergy from Waste facility will be commissionedandreadyfortake-overin March 2011.

SOLID WASTE STRATEGY – PROGRESS REPORT

1. B a c kground

1.1 A number of requirements related to the implementation of services and facilities were included within the Report and Proposition P.95/2005 "Solid Waste Strategy" approved by the States Assembly on 13th July 2005. This report sets out progress in implementing these requirements.

0. P ro gress on Recycling Performance
1. S in ce the approval oftheSolid Waste Strategy in 2005, tremendous improvements in recyclinghavebeen achieved by the Island. In 2004, 19,591 tonnes ofwaste were recycled from a totalof 96,692 tonnesof non-inert waste collected, giving a recycling rateof20%.In 2007, 32,377 tonnesofwaste were recycled from a totalof106,587tonnes, giving a recycling rate of30%.It can beseen that this 10%increasein recycling levels has been achieved despite anincreaseinthetotalnon-inertwaste collected in that period of over 9%.Recyclinglevelshaveexceededprojectionsineach of the yearssince the Strategywas approved and the level for 2007 isapproximately 3% higher than anticipated. This means the 2009 target of 32% set within the Strategy can nowbeexceeded – subject toresourcesbeingmade available.
2. W  asteprojections within the Solid WasteStrategywere calculated using a wastearisingsmodelwhich used assumptionswithinthe Island Plan 2002 and HousingNeedsSurvey2004toestimatewastegrowth on the Island and then examined the impact of implementing the recycling and waste minimisation proposals with the Strategy. The model has been updated with actualwaste arisings and latest population and household information providedby the States Statistics Unit.The latest projectionsindicate that the numberof households onthe Island will increase from approximately 38,000 in 2007 to approximately 46,200 by 2035.
3. A review of theSolidWasteStrategybeyondthe 2009 target hasbeen undertaken and confirms that a significant increase in recycling provision is appropriateand could be sustained. However, a numberof recycling services will need tobe introduced including:

(i ) d o o r to door recycling collection schemes in each Parish similar to the pilot currently in operation

in the Parish of St.  John, collecting a minimum of paper, card, plastic bottles, metal cans and textiles by 2014.

(i i) a s ignificant increase in the number of "bring" collection banks to ensure that a similar proportion

of waste is collected for recycling as the population increases.

(i ii ) I n troduction of door-to-door collection of glass in the Parish of St.  Helier by 2011.

( iv ) T  he introduction of a new Permanent Re-use and Recycling Centre collecting recyclables and

public green waste by 2011.

( v ) T h e introduction of further recycling of commercial waste including separation of cardboard,

metal and timber on a significantly larger scale through separate collections and separation at the proposed Energy from Waste facility by 2011.

(v i ) T h e collection of more than 23,400 tonnes of garden waste by 2035.

4. P r ovided that such investment in recycling infrastructure continues to be made, a recycling rate of approximately 36% is considered sustainableon the Island from 2018.

5. T h e householdnumbersconfirmedbytheStates Statistics Unitarelower than those modelled to produce the estimates within the Solid Waste Strategyand this means that a smaller capacityresidual waste treatment facility can alsobeconsidered. This isaddressed within the body oftheReport.

0. P ro gress on Specific Recycling Initiatives
1. T h e Environment and Public Services Committee was tasked:

(i ) ( A ) t o provide a recycling centre for the reception and recycling of paper, aluminium, glass

and PET plastic and other materials, before the end of 2006, and to achieve the recycling aims stated in the report;

( B ) t o investigate the commercial opportunities afforded by European and international

recycling companies in tendering for the construction and/or operation of the Recycling Centre.

2. A temporaryRe-use and Recycling Centrewas introduced atBellozanne in June 2007 and has proved to be a popularand successful addition to the Island's recycling service.The centre offers residents the opportunity to recycle paper,card, glass, cans, textiles, scrap metal, waste oil, batteries, waste electrical equipment, mobilephones,construction rubble and plastic bottles. Furniture is collected for re-useby local charitable organisations. In its first year of operation, over 1,500 tonnesofwaste have been recycled at the facility.
3. T h e Solid Waste Strategy envisaged that LaCollettereclamation site would be the mostappropriate location for a permanentRe-use and Recycling Centre, subjectto the consideration and ameliorationof any health, safety, environmental and traffic implications. When it became clear that it was more appropriate for the Energy from Waste facility to be located at La Collette, the location oftheRe-use and Recycling Centrehad to bereconsidered. A review ofthehazard from the adjacent Fuel and GasStorage Facility was undertaken and itemerged that it wasnotappropriateto locate waste facilities serving the general publicclose to the Fuel and GasStorage facility.
4. T h e Strategy had envisaged that collection ofpublicgreenwasteshould be adjacent to the Re-useand Recycling Centre.TheLa Collette hazard review meant that the public greenwaste collection has to be relocated away from La Collette and so TransportandTechnicalServicesconsideredpossible sites where the a Re-use and Recycling CentreandPublicGreenwaste facilities could beco-located.Transport and Technical Services has considered over 40 possible locations for such a facility and supported a Proposition P.7/2008 from Deputy BenFox in January 2008for the establishmentoftwo facilities to serve the Island.
5. It is now proposed to construct a permanentRe-use and Recycling Centre, including public greenwaste collection, in 2010,when a suitable permanentlocationfor the facility has been confirmed within the Island Plan.Once the location of the facility isconfirmed, the commercial opportunities affordedby European and International recycling companiestenderingfor the operation for the construction and/or operation of the RecyclingCentre will be investigated.

0. P ro gress in Promoting Waste Minimisation and Recycling
1. T h e Environment and Public Services Committee was tasked:

( i) (C ) T o take active steps to promote waste minimisation and recycling throughout the

community and to encourage all States Departments to lead by Example.

2. T h e Solid Waste Strategy includedexamplesofwaste minimisation schemes, including the promotionof washable nappiesandhomecompostingwhichhavebeen actively promotedbyTransportandTechnical

Services.

3. O v er 2,000 homecompost units have been provided to residents at a subsidised ratesincetheStrategy was approved andannualcampaignsand a subsidy for nappyre-usehasalso been activelypromoted. Everyschool in Jersey hasanannualpromotional visit byTransportandTechnicalServices' Recycling Officer andtailoredwaste minimisation and recycling initiatives have been developed with each one.
4. A recycling trailer has been refurbished to assist in getting the messageoverto the public and Transport and TechnicalServices has won acclaim for its promotional work including the JerseyIdealHometop exhibition awardin2006.Transport and TechnicalServices has promoted the introduction ofrecycling collections from all StatesDepartments since the Strategy was approved and currently nineGovernment buildings have recycling collections.

0. P ro gress in developing a new Enclosed Compost Facility
1. T h e Environment and Public Services Committee was tasked:

(i i) to provide a modern composting facility for recycling of garden and green waste by 2007.

2. T h e current open "wind-row" composting facility atLa Collette continues to operate efficiently, accepting in excess of 15,000 tonnes of greenwaste from residents and businesses that would otherwise require alternative means of disposal and producing a high quality soil improver to the highest European standards. In 2007, 403,000 litres of Genuine Jersey Soil Improver were sold generating income of £46,423which helped offset the cost of operatingthe facility. Theremaining soil improver productwas accepted by agriculture at a subsidyof £10 pervergée.
3. In February 2006, following a reviewofpotentialcompost sites in States ownership, the Minister for Transport and TechnicalServicesrecommendedtotheStates that the location for an enclosedin-vessel compost facility should beLa Collette IIReclamation Site Industrial Area.
4. F o llowing strong representations from the Environment Scrutiny Paneland States Members from Havre des Pas, the Minister agreed to defer the confirmationof this location and to await a WorkingParty Report on Composting which was finally presented States Members in October 2006. This report indicated that theremightbe alternative better sites for composting facilities in private hands and so Transport andTechnicalServices issued an expression of interest for a siteor sites for compostingin January 2007. 18 Expressions of interest were receivedand these privately owned sites, together with the 11 States-ownedsites that had beenincludedin the initial siteassessment were subjectto detailed site evaluation.
5. F o llowing further consultation with the Environment Scrutiny Panel, the original preferred locationof the La Collette II Reclamation Site Industrial Area,wasconfirmedas the best performing locationforan enclosed composting facility and for the reception ofcommercialgreenwastebyMinisterialDecision (MD-T-2007-0113)inDecember2007.
6. In September 2007, theConstableof St. Helier threatened to judicially review the States Public Health Department'senforcementof the Statutory Nuisances(Jersey)Law 1999 in relation to alleged odour nuisance from the existing open-windrowcompostingoperation at La Collette. As a result Transport and Technical Services was issued with anAbatementNotice(Ref. 08/07)on22nd November2007requiring the alleged odournuisancetobe abated in 150 days.Transport and Technical Services have maintained that this could only beachievedbyprogressingthedevelopmentof the enclosedcomposting facility and appealed the notice on 11 December 2007. On28 February 2008 itwas agreed that the abatement notice should beput in abeyancewhilst the Public Health Department determined what acceptable odour levels around the existing composting facility should be.Once an acceptable odour level is defined it willbe possible for Transportand Technical Servicestoprogress the development of the replacementin-vessel compost facility further.

0. P rogressindeveloping a PilotDoor to DoorRecycling Collection Service
1. T h e approved "Solid WasteStrategy" Report and Proposition P.95/2005required:

(i ii ) T h at the Comité des Connétable s be charged to work with the Environment and Public Services

Committee  to  introduce  a  pilot  scheme  for  a  coordinated  collection  system  for  recyclables (including paper, aluminium, glass and PET plastics).

2. T r ansport andTechnicalServicessupported the Parish ofSt. John in introducing a pilotdoor to door collection ofnewspapersandmagazinesandfoodand drinks cans inAugust 2006. Itwasagreed that the costs of collection would befundedby the Parish with Transport and Technical Servicessubsidising the costs of bulking, transportingandreprocessing collected materials and a private businessprovidingthe initial supplyof collection containers.
3. T h e collection hasproved extremely popular with residents with a 70% participation rate from residents and has recycledapproximately340 tonnes of waste since inception. Initially, the collection was for newspapers and magazines and food and drinks cans,butwasextended to include plastic bottles inMarch 2008. All Parishes, with the exception ofthe Parish of St.  Helier, already have a doortodoor collection of separated glass for recycling. TheParishof St.  Helier withdrew its door to door glass collection scheme following concernsaboutthe safety ofthe collection. It isunderstood this collection may be re-introduced in future, and it would need to beifrecycling targets within the Solid WasteStrategy are to be achieved.
4. T r ansport andTechnical Services has promoted the benefits of the St. John pilot collection service to all the other Parishes andthe Parish ofSt. Mary recentlybecame the secondParishto agree to commence a similar collection service subject toconfirmationof funding. Transport and TechnicalServicesisworking with  another private  business with  a  view  to offering up to three further  Parishes to  sponsor  the introduction  of collection  containers  for  their  own door  to  door  collection  services.  Transport and Technical Serviceshasalsoundertaken to support thecostsofbulking, transporting andreprocessing collected materials forcoordinated collection schemes. The Parish of St. Helier hasalsoundertaken its own recycling collection trial, whichhas informed the recommendedcoordination service beingpromoted by TransportandTechnicalServices.

0. C o -operation with Guernsey
1. T h e approved P.95/2005 Proposition required:

( v i) th at the Committee be charged to take active steps to seek co-operation from the States of

Guernsey on any measures from which joint benefit, financial or otherwise, can be derived in any area of waste management and to report to the States thereon at regular intervals.

2. T h e SolidWasteStrategy identified the possibleeconomiesof scale from developing a single facility to serve both Guernsey and Jersey or ofJerseyaccepting a quantity of waste from Guernsey duringtheearly years of operation of the proposedEnergy from Wasteplant and before Guernsey developedtheirown wastetreatment facility.
3. T o this end a joint feasibility studywasdevelopedbythe then Jersey Public ServicesDepartment with the EnvironmentDepartment of Guernsey whichwascompleted and debated bythe States ofGuernseyin January 2006. Although the feasibility study demonstrated that the concepts were viable and potentially offered savings over separately procured facilities, the proposal was not approved by the States of Guernsey who indicated "that a joint Channel Island incineration facility does not present an acceptable long-term strategy for Guernsey (and) that to contract now for Jersey's spare capacity between 2010 and 2014 is a high risk strategy that should not be adopted".

4. H o wever, following a changeof administration in Guernsey during 2007, the new administration revived discussions with the Minister forTransport and TechnicalServicesaboutthe potential forco-operationon use of the Jersey Energy from Waste facility in the early yearsof the operation of the proposed Jersey facility when there would besome spare capacity available.
5. G e neral elections in Guernsey took place in April2008and a new administration isnow in place. It is understood from Guernsey Officers that the States of Guernsey are due to receive a reportonprocurement options in the summerof2008.

8. T h e Bellozanne Covenant and Financial Mechanisms for Environmental Objectives.

1. T h e approved Reportand Proposition P.95/2005 "Solid Waste Strategy" charged the then Environment and Public Services Committee toworkwith the Parish ofSt. Helier toundertake further researchand bring forwardfor consideration proposals for the resolution ofthe present covenant on the Bellozanne site and to work with the then Financeand Economics Committeeto undertake further research and bring forwardsproposals for financial mechanismsfor the purposes ofmeetingfutureenvironmental objectives.
2. T h e Minister for Planning andEnvironmentisconsideringthe options for some form ofEnvironmental Taxes for the Island with the full supportof the MinisterforTransportandTechnical Services. Any proposals for such taxes have to be considered bythe States Assembly. The Minister for Planning and Environmentisaware that proposals for addressingtheBellozanne Covenant will need tobeincluded within any recommended solution forEnvironmentalTaxes.The preferred solutionfor residual waste management proposed in this Report is complimentary to butnotdependent upon EnvironmentalTaxes.

WASTE TREATMENT TYPES – COST COMPARISON