Record of complaints against composting operations at Crabbe

1240/5(2858)

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES BY CONNETABLE A.S. CROWCROFT OF ST. HELIER

ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 16th MAY 2006

Question

1. In his written answerson25thApril 2006 on the subject of the relocation ofcomposting from Crabbé in St Mary to La Collette inStHelierin 2002, the Minister stated that "There are few remaining records of complaints to the Health and Social Services Department relating to issues at Crabbé". Would the Minister inform memberswhether this is because records have been lost or destroyed?
2. W o uld the Minister indicate the exact dates, and the nature, of the six complaints that relate tocomposting at Crabbé referred to in his written answersand inform memberswhat action wastakenin relation to them?
3. D i d theEnvironmental Health Departmentengage in any consultation with the Parish ofStMary in relation to the odour and health impacts of the composting operation whileitwas situated at Crabbé?
4. In his written answers the Minister stated that theHealth Protection Unit stipulated to the Planning and Environment Committee that there should be a health impactassessmentcarriedout in relation to the moveof the composting facilities to La Collette inwhich "health effects are thoroughly investigated." Would the Minister explain whyno such anassessmentwascarried out during the three and a half years of the operationofthe site in St Helier, in spite of the fact that complaintsincluding reports ofbreathing difficulties were being received?
5. A s no Health ImpactAssessmentwascarriedoutover a period of three and a half years, would the Minister explain onwhatbasishe stated, during the debate on Composting facilities at La Collette II: approval byStates Assembly (P.31/2006)on 4th April2006, that "as long as the operation is adhering to best practice and all reasonable practical steps have been taken to minimise any smell or nuisance then it will comply with the standards required by the [Statutory Nuisances] Law".
6. H a s the EnvironmentalHealthDepartmentengagedinany consultation with the Parish ofStHelierin relation to the odour and health impactsof the composting operation while it has been situated atLa Collette?
7. In his written answers the Minister stated that, of21recorded complaints, "there have been two occasions when odour from the compost site have (sic) been confirmed and four occasions when the source has been confirmed as seaweed." Would the Minister inform members of the outcome of the other complaints?
8. W hy did the Minister not insist that the potential environmental health problems created by the composting site at La Collette were thoroughly investigated in a timely fashion in view of the "precautionaryprinciple" in best environmental practice?
9. The Minister further stated in his answers that his "own Health Protection staff are currently engaged in setting up a Health Impact Assessment for the proposed composting regime and this will include key stakeholders and residents themselves". In lightof his statement on 4th April2006during the debate on Composting Facilities atLaCollette II: approval byStatesAssembly(P.31/2006) that "The fact is La Collette, for good or ill, is there now and it is our major industrial site, and that is where industrial operations should go" would he confirm that the Health ImpactAssessment will be an impartial or objective studywithoutany presumption that La Collette is the only possible location for the composting facilities?

Answer

1. T h e HealthandSocialServicesDepartmenthas not "lost" any records concerning complaintsabout the composter when it was located at Crabbé. It is the practiceof the Department'sHealth Protection Unit to dispose of all service requests and complaints, thosewhichhavebeenfullyresponded to, that is, three years after a business or an operation has ceased to trade or ceased to operate. This policy was implemented with regard to the cessation ofcompostingatCrabbé in StMary.
2. T h e six complaints which relate to the compostingatCrabbé in St Mary are as follow -:

F o u r complaints on 17th and 21st July, and 14th and 20th August 1997, were complaints about obnoxious

odours created by the composting facility. The Environmental Health Department, (now called the Health Protection Unit), investigated these complaints and it was the judgement of the Environmental Health Department that the obnoxious odours were caused by the introduction of waste potatoes and green waste material into the process. These potatoes and this green waste had been stored on site since 1995 and when introduced into the composting stream, these obnoxious odours were released.

O  n e complaint  on 12th  August 1999, was a  similar  complaint  about obnoxious  odours. It  was  the

judgement of the fomer Environmental Health Department that the offensive smell was caused by the inclusion of potato waste into the composting process.

T h e a bove five complaints were referred directly to the then Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for

action. This was because neither the Health and Social Services Department, nor specifically its Environmental Health Department, had statutory powers at that time to take action against such "nuisances". This was remedied on 31st December 1999, when the Statutory Nuisances Law came into effect.

T h e sixth complaint on 24th July 2002, was a complaint about the presence of rotting potatoes at the

Crabbé site. It was the judgement of the former Environmental Health Department that the probable cause was the way in which composting material was being treated rather than the composting material itself. This technical matter was discussed with the Crabbé site staff to minimise the effect.

3. T h ere are no records within the Health and Social Services Department to indicate that the former Environmental Health Department, nor any other team from within the Department, engaged in any formal consultation with the Parish ofStMary in relation to the complaintsofobnoxiousodoursor concernsabout the possible health impacts ofthecomposting activities at Crabbé.
4. I n response to the consultation processwhich ultimately would transferthecomposting facility from Crabbé to La Collette, the Health and Social Services Department formally advised the Planning Department that it should undertake a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) as part of a more general EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentto inform decisionmaking.It is an indication of the fact that the Planning Department took little notice of the Health Protection unit at that time. A planning permit for the transfer ofcompostingtoLa Collette was issued without a Health ImpactAssessmenthaving taken place.

S i n ce that time the Health Protection Unit has worked closely with Technical and Transport Services

(TTS) to ensure that complaints are fully investigated and that there is a positive working partnership between these parties. The Health Protection Unit has been actively involved with TTS in constantly examining means by which odours can be minimised through changes to working and processing practices.

5. S in  ce the transferof composting from CrabbétoLa Collette, thecompostingprocessissubject to the same legal controls asanyothercommercial or other industrial operation in Jersey. This is because the Statutory Nuisances Law relates as much to States of Jersey operations as it does to private and commercial activities. This Lawrequires that the composting process should take placein such a wayas to ensure the best practicable means of controlling a nuisance, but not entailing excessive cost. The Statutory NuisancesLawdoes not permit the States of Jersey to prevent a businessor operation from operating provided that that businessoroperationcomplies with this requirement.
6. T h e Health and Social ServicesDepartment has notengagedinanyformal consultation with the Parish of St Helier in relation to complaints ofodours and environmental health considerations inconnection with

the composting operation while it has been located at La Collette.

7. T h e other 17 complaints alleged that there were odour nuisances. However,members of the Health Protection Unit failed to identifyany such odour nuisances. The Health Protection Unit is very mindfulof the fact that an odour nuisance can be lessenedor increased byenvironmentalandambient factors suchas wind direction andtemperature. Thus, the practice of the Health Protection Unitisnotsimplyto present itself atLa Collette and make a judgementatonemoment in time. Rather, it is to revisit the site at different times to seek to take accountof these factors.
8. T h e Environmental Health Department (now the Health Protection Unit), throughthe Health and Social Services Department, is not a statutory consulteeunder the States ofJersey's Planning Laws.The advice provided by the Health Protection Unitto the Planning andEnvironment Minister isinformal.Once planning consent has been granted, the Health Protection Unit's powers exist only through its responsibilities fortheimplementationof the Statutory NuisancesLaw.
9. T h e Health ImpactAssessment will beimpartial and objective. Theworkof the Health Protection Unit is carried out professionally and completely independently of my personal views. The early "scoping" exercise for the Health ImpactAssessment has commenced.However, the States ofJersey has to make a decision asto the location oftheEnergy from Waste plantand the composting operation. HealthImpact Assessments can only proceed whensites have been formally identified.Itispossible that the States might choose entirely different locations to those discussed sofar. Only whenanunambiguous short-list' of sites hasbeen identified can they besubject to anEHIassessment.Needless to say, when the sites are formally identified the Health ImpactAssessment process will involve taking serious counsel from key stakeholders and from residents who live proximate to the sites. It isclearly in everyone's interest for the States of Jersey tonowbe unequivocal and definitive and to make a decisionas to the location of the Energy from Wasteplantandcomposting operation. It is this decision which will enableusall to move forward andtoreduce the concernsof residents throughthe construction of modern facilities which,using state of the art technologies, will process wastematerials with the minimumofdiscomfort and irritation. It must be reiterated that by farthe most pressingenvironmentalhealth issue in Jersey is the Bellozane incinerator. Its emissions pose a health risk and itmustbeshut down without any further delay. I repeat it is crucial that the States finally ends several years of prevarication and makes the decision. Any further delay by the Assemblycould not beviewedas anything other than a grossbetrayalof the public interest.