Review of waste management

1240/5(3456)

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY PANEL BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT

ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 11th SEPTEMBER 2007 Question

With regard to the Panel's review of waste, would the Chairman advise members -

( a ) why the presentation to States members and others of alternatives to mass incineration of Jersey's waste,

as agreed by the Panel in January and proposed to be held in March, has not yet been held?

( b ) with reference to SR13/2007 (Waste Recycling' presented to the States on 3rd July 2007) and especially

page 89 thereof, would the Chairman advise whether his Panel carried out economic comparisons between recycling and incineration as part of the review and, in particular whether the Panel investigated –

(i ) t h e assumed composition and quantity of recyclables were the Island to achieve 60% recycling,

(i i)  th e probable value of those materials, less the cost of shipping and any treatment necessary,

(i ii ) t h e cost of incinerating the above materials, including ash disposal and amortisation of plant costs.

If t h e P anel did research these issues, would the Chairman set out the results of the Panel's research, with

particular emphasis on comparing the economics of recycling versus incineration?

Answer

1. The terms of reference of the Waste Recycling report did not include a comparison of residual waste treatment facilities. However the Panelhasan active interestin the alternatives to mass incineration and will organise a presentation to States members and others well inadvance of the States debate to determine the technology for future residual wastedisposal in Jersey.
2. This has been answeredinpart(a).However, the Panelhas requested information from the Transportand Technical Servicesdepartment (in July 2007)on the cost of incineration and is still awaiting a responseon whichtomake a meaningfuleconomiccomparisonbetweenrecyclingand incineration.

 ( i )  The composition of recyclables, were the Island to achieve a 60% recycling rate, depends on the

materials targeted within the waste stream. For example just recycling all paper and all kitchen waste would achieve a rate between 55 and 60%. It is more likely that a wider range of materials would be considered and that the mix will vary over time as consumer habits change.

 ( i i) The Waste Recycling report provides indicative prices based on May 2007 for the most common

recyclable materials (P.89). The total value of recyclable materials depends on the relative quantities available. Shipping costs were given by two separate local operators and are shown on page 88 of the report. The cost of treatment depends on the method of collection and requirement for sorting. During the course of its research, the Panel investigated various types of treatment plant and relative costs.

( i ii) As set out above, the Panel is awaiting this information from the Transport and Technical Services

Department.

W  h e n the Panel receives the detailed analysis of existing and projected incineration costs a comparison

of the economics of incineration versus recycling will be undertaken.