Appendix 3

JERSEY TTSD

GREEN WASTE COMPOSTING STAGE 2 SITES ASSESSMENT REPORT

Title Page

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

The States of Jersey intends to replace the existing windrow composting facility that is processing green waste with one or more facilities using enclosed composting technology to minimise emissions of odour and bio-aerosols to the environment. It is also necessary to re-locate the existing green waste reception and shredding facility at La Collette since the site is required for development of the EfW (energy from waste) project. The domestic green waste reception needs to be relocated away from La Collette due to the potential risk of a vapour cloud explosion from the fuel storage depot close by. Due to the time scales for the EfW project, it may be necessary to relocate these existing facilities to temporary sites before permanent sites can be found and developed. This evaluation process has been carried out for the location of permanent rather than temporary facilities.

A number of state owned and privately owned sites were put forward as potential sites for composting and/or reception of green waste. A stage 1 screening exercise has already been carried out to eliminate sites that are highly unlikely to be suitable. A total of 11 potential sites were carried forward for further assessment.

Stage 2A assessment involved screening out of unsuitable sites for long-term use on the basis of noise nuisance. Sites P4 (Field 506A, Grouville ), P18 (Field 1122, St Helier) and S2 (Field 1491, St Helier) were eliminated at this stage for being too close to sensitive noise receptors.

Following stage 2A screening, it is understood that site P1 (Field 1364, Trinity ) has changed ownership and is no longer available.

Stage 2B assessment involved scoring of each site for the purposes of accommodating each type of facility (domestic green waste reception only, commercial green waste reception only and in-vessel composting only). Sites were rated quantatively based on a series of criteria explained within this report. A positive number would mean that the site is a good one, and a high negative number would mean that the site is less suitable. As waste treatment sites are generally considered to be unattractive neighbours, a realistic expectation for a suitable site is likely to be a low negative score.The results of stage 2B scoring are given in the following table.

Based on these scores, it is recommended that site S5 should accommodate the commercial reception and in-vessel composting facilities. Further assessment would not reveal a better site than S5.

Further stage 3 assessment is required to determine whether site S1, S4 or S11 should accommodate the domestic green waste reception facility. None of these sites are ideal sites for domestic green waste reception due to their location within the Countryside zone and proximity to residential properties.

It is therefore recommended that Site 12 (a site in Bellozanne currently used for reception and storage of commercial bulky waste) is also assessed in stage 3 as a potential domestic green waste reception site. Site S12 was not on the original list of potential sites assessed in stage 1 as it is not available until completion of the EfW project. If the fact that site S12 is not immediately available is ignored, then it would have scored +1 in stage 2B for domestic reception which is higher than for any other site, and the only positive score in the assessment. A temporary site (based on a modified version of site S2) has been proposed by TTS until a permanent site is available for domestic reception.

Part of this study has been to check whether allowing smaller sites for receiving or processing only part of the Island's green waste would introduce additional superior sites. No single privately owned site scored higher than the best performing single States owned sites. The best States owned sites are large enough to deal with the whole waste flow. The Stage 1 assessment established that the area required for composting and maturation accounts for only a small proportion of the total site area, with much of the space required for vehicle reception and manoeuvring. This indicates that there will be economic disbenefits to multiple sites through the requirement for additional access roads, reception areas and storage areas compared to a single site operation.

None of the private sites considered had existing infrastructure that would have any significant benefit when assessed as a multiple site. Therefore there is no benefit in further consideration of multiple sites as these could not score higher than the best scoring States-owned single sites.

Tony Voong  John Weatherby Author  Reviewer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY........................................................................................................... I TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................III

1  INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1

1. Background ...................................................................................................................1
2. Objectives......................................................................................................................1

2  STAGE 2A - SCREENING ON BASIS OF NOISE NUISANCE.....................................2

1. Methodology .................................................................................................................2
2. Results...........................................................................................................................3

3  STAGE 2B - BASIC SCORING...........................................................................................5

1. Overview of Scoring Mechanism...................................................................................5

2. Details of Each Scoring Criterion...................................................................................5

1. Planning Criteria/Risk.........................................................................................................5

1. Compatibility with Island Plan..................................................................................5
2. Visual Impact.............................................................................................................5
3. Biodiversity................................................................................................................6
4. Archaeology/Heritage...............................................................................................6

2. Design & Operational Criteria............................................................................................6

1. Site Area.....................................................................................................................6
2. Drainage Connection................................................................................................6
3. Level Site for Construction & Operation..................................................................7

3. Pollution, Health & Safety Risks..........................................................................................7

1. Nuisance to Neighbours............................................................................................7
2. Bio-aerosols Risk to Neighbours...............................................................................7
3. Location within Fuel Storage Hazard Zone..............................................................8
4. Location within Airport Public Safety Zone..............................................................8

4. Access/Transportation Issues...............................................................................................8

1. Proximity to Domestic and Commercial Green Waste Origins................................8
2. Vehicular Access and Link Roads.............................................................................9

5. Impact on Project Programme.............................................................................................9

6. Vacant Possession................................................................................................................9
7. Criteria Considered But Not Used in Stage 2B...................................................................9

3. Results.........................................................................................................................11

4  SPECIAL CASE – SITE 12................................................................................................13 5  MULTIPLE SITES.............................................................................................................14

6  CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................15

1. Stage 2A Screening......................................................................................................15

2. Loss of Site P1.............................................................................................................15
3. Stage 2B Scoring.........................................................................................................15
4. Special Site S12 & Need for Temporary Domestic Reception Site...............................16
5. Multiple Sites...............................................................................................................16

APPENDIX A  STAGE 2B SCORING CRITERIA............................................................17 APPENDIX B  SITE FOOTPRINT ESTIMATION...........................................................18 B.1  Factors Affecting Site Footprint Requirements............................................................18

B.2  Single Site for All Processing......................................................................................18

B.2.1 Including All Reception and Shredding.............................................................................18 B.2.2 Excluding Domestic Reception, Commercial Reception and Shredding...........................21 B.2.3 Excluding Domestic Reception..........................................................................................21 B.2.4 Excluding Commercial Reception......................................................................................21

B.3  Multiple Sites for Processing.......................................................................................21

B.3.1 Including All Reception & Shredding................................................................................21 B.3.2 Excluding Domestic Reception, Commercial Reception and Shredding...........................22

B.4  Separate Waste Reception............................................................................................22

B.4.1 Single Site for Domestic Reception....................................................................................23

B.4.2 Multiple Sites for Domestic Reception...............................................................................24

B.4.3 Single Site for Commercial Reception...............................................................................24

B.4.4 Combined Domestic + Commercial Reception.................................................................24 B.5  Expansion Area for Kitchen Waste..............................................................................24 B.6  Outline Layout Drawings.............................................................................................25

APPENDIX C  CENTRE OF GREEN WASTE ARISINGS MAP....................................26 APPENDIX D  NOISE CONSULTANT'S REPORT.........................................................27 APPENDIX E  DRAWINGS & MAPS................................................................................28

1  INTRODUCTION

1. Background

The  States  of  Jersey  intends  to  replace  the  existing  windrow  composting  facility  that  is processing green waste with one or more facilities using enclosed composting technology to minimise emissions of odour and bio-aerosols to the environment. It is also necessary to re-locate

the existing green waste reception and shredding facility at La Collette since the site is required for development of the EfW (energy from waste) project. The existing domestic green waste reception needs to be relocated away from La Collette due to the potential risk of a vapour cloud explosion from the fuel storage depot close by. Due to the time scales for the EfW project, it may be necessary to relocate these existing facilities to temporary sites before permanent sites can be found and developed. However, this evaluation process has been carried out for the location of permanent rather than temporary facilities.

A large number of state owned and privately owned sites were put forward as potential sites for composting and/or reception of green waste. A Stage 1 screening exercise has already been carried out to eliminate sites that are highly unlikely to be suitable. A total of 11 potential sites remain.

This  report  details  the  work  to assess  the  remaining  sites  to  produce  a  preferred solution containing one or more sites.

2. Objectives

The objectives of stages 2 and 3 of the sites assessment process are:

1. Stage 2A - to screen out sites that are unlikely to be suitable on the basis of nuisance to neighbours,
2. Stage 2B – to assess each remaining site against a basic list of criteria without the need for extensive surveys, in depth searches or detailed modelling. Sites that are unlikely to be suitable will be eliminated,
3. Stage 3 – to assess different solutions which may contain one or more sites using an extended list of criteria to give a preferred solution and the associated sites. This would consider financial and legal implications including the value of the properties involved.

2  STAGE 2A - SCREENING ON BASIS OF NOISE NUISANCE

1. Methodology

The nuisance factors normally associated with waste management facilities are noise, odour, dust, light and litter. The degree of nuisance that a sensitive receptor will experience depends on many factors. One key factor is that increased separation distance between the source and receptor will generally reduce the degree of nuisance experienced by the receptor for all types of nuisance.

Noise has been used as a critical indicator for nuisance on which to screen out sites that are unlikely to be suitable. Noise nuisance is relatively simple to estimate numerically, and where noise is considered to be a key problem, it is likely that other issues will also be problematic, such as litter, dust or odour. A specialist noise consultant was commissioned to assess the minimum  recommended  separation  distance  between  the  proposed  types  of  facilities  and residential receptors. The assessment was carried out using generic published information and the consultant's experience to determine the minimum separation distance below which noise nuisance is unlikely to be acceptable even with a reasonable degree of mitigation on site and/or off-site. The noise consultant's report is given in Appendix D.

The aim of this screening exercise is to eliminate sites that are unlikely to be suitable rather than demonstrate that sites that remain will definitely be acceptable from a nuisance perspective. For planning purposes, it will still be necessary to confirm that the chosen site(s) are acceptable from a nuisance perspective.

Comments for nuisance factors which have not been explicitly assessed follow:

1. Litter nuisance. Litter can be effectively controlled by good house keeping procedures and should not be an important factor for site selection.
2. Light nuisance. Reception facilities and most of the composting activities will only take place during the day so the requirement for lighting is not high. Light nuisance and pollution can also be minimised through good design. Light nuisance should not be an important factor for site selection.
3. Dust and odour nuisance. Dust and odour can be minimised by good design and effective operational procedures. For example:

1. Dust emissions can be controlled by damping of dust generating sources.
2. Dust  and  odour  emissions  is  minimised  by  having  all  composting  processing facilities indoors. Process buildings will be kept under a slight negative pressure and ventilation  air  is  either  used  in  the  process  or  cleaned  prior  to  discharge  to atmosphere. If necessary the cleaned air can also be discharged from a higher point to  aid  rapid  dispersion  in  the  atmosphere.  Odour  from  reception  sites  will  be minimised by not accepting black bag or food waste and not storing green waste overnight.

Whilst dust and odour are potentially important factors, the separation distance between the source and receptors will help to minimise the risk of nuisance. Dust and odour (particularly odour) concentrations at sensitive receptors depend on many factors (e.g.

terrain, weather, degree of on site abatement and presence of nearby structures) that are site and technology specific. Detailed site specific assessment/modelling on each site is not practical at this stage. If required, then odour/dust assessment/modelling could be carried out to differentiate between two or three sites that have similar overall scores from other assessment criteria. In any event, it will be necessary to confirm that the final chosen site(s) are acceptable from a dust and odour nuisance perspective.

2. Results

The  following  table, an  extract  from  the  noise  consultant's  report,  provides  the  minimum recommended separation distance between a facility and residential receptors. If the minimum separation distance cannot be achieved for a particular site then that site should be rejected. The consultant's noise report was based on UK categories of locations. Fichtner and TTSD have interpreted these location categories in the Jersey context as follows:

• Rural locations are those within the Green Zone
• Semi-rural locations are those within the Countryside Zone
• Industrial locations are those within the Industrial Zone

Site S6 is in a Leisure Zone and therefore does not fit into any of the above categories. However, Site S6 is large and there is sufficient space within the site that is far from residential receptors so categorisation of the site for the purposes of noise is not material to the site selection process.

For the purposes of this evaluation, the following assumptions have been made:

1. Single reception means sites that receive only domestic green waste or commercial green waste.
2. Multiple/combined facility means
   1. IVC + reception, or
   2. Domestic and commercial green waste reception, or
   3. Green waste + recyclables reception
3. Screening is carried out using residential receptors only and not commercial and industrial receptors. It is accepted practice to apply tighter noise constraints for facilities adjacent to residential properties than industrial buildings or commercial offices.
4. The following table shows the zoning of the potential sites and whether the sites passed or failed the noise screening exercise.

For site P18, the adjacent graveyard is not a residential receptor but for the purposes of noise nuisance, it is recommended that it is given the same sensitivity as a residential receptor and that the site should be rejected.

Based on the above recommendations, sites P4, P18 and S2 should be eliminated as potential permanent sites. The effect of the recommended minimum separation distances also has the effect of limiting the area that is available for use for many of the other sites for reception facilities where bio-aerosols exclusion zones do not apply.

Following completion of stage 2 screening, it was discovered that site P1 had changed ownership and was no longer available. Site P1 was therefore also eliminated at this stage.

3  STAGE 2B - BASIC SCORING

1. Overview of Scoring Mechanism

The scoring mechanism for stage 2B is given in Appendix A. Some notes on the use of the scoring mechanism follow:

1. Column A lists the different assessment criteria against which the different sites and solutions were assessed;
2. Column B provides suggested weightings for each criterion. The weightings are multipliers for the raw scores and are applied individually to each criterion rather than groups of criteria. This approach avoids the need to take account of which group each criterion belongs in as some criteria can belong in more than one group. Weightings range from 0.5 (not very important) to 3.0 (very important);
3. Column C indicates which type of sites each criterion applies to;
4. Columns D to I describe how scores were applied for each criterion.

Detailed descriptions on the application of scores for each criterion are provided in Appendix A, with outline descriptions as follows:

1. +2 score  - The site offers a significant benefit to the project;
2. +1 score  - The site offers a some benefit to the project;
3. 0 score  - Neutral score;
4. -1 score  - The site incurs a disadvantage to the project;
5. -2 score  - The site incurs a significant disadvantage to the project;
6. -5 score  - The problem posed by this criterion is very significant and warrants a more detailed look. Consideration should be given to eliminating the site on this criterion alone, regardless of how well it scored under other criteria.

2. Details of Each Scoring Criterion

1. Planning Criteria/Risk

1. Compatibility with Island Plan

Sites located within green zones and zones of outstanding character have already been screened out in stage 1. Of the remaining sites, those located within an Industrial Zone would score more favourably compared to those within a Countryside Zone or Leisure Zone. Only site S5 is in an Industrial Zone.

Compatibility with the Island Plan is regarded as being very important so a high weighting factor was given for this criterion.

2. Visual Impact

Potential  sites  were  scored  against  the  degree  of  visibility  to  sensitive  neighbours, members of the public or tourists. Site S5 scored most favourably compared to the other sites due to its location within an industrial environment.

A low weighting factor has been suggested for this criterion as the height of the facilities is low, and therefore the overall visual impact is not severe.

3. Biodiversity

Any site located within one of the following designated areas would score -5 in stage 2B. A site specific assessment would be required if such a site was carried forward for detailed assessment:

1. A Ramsar (wetlands) site
2. An SPA (special protection area)
3. An SAC (Special Areas of Conservation)
4. A candidate SAC
5. An SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) site

Any site located within a National or Local Nature Reserve would score -2.

At this stage, a medium weighting factor was given for this criterion. No sites that were carried  forward  for  stage  2B  assessment  were  known  or  suspected  to  have heritage/archaeological issues.

4. Archaeology/Heritage

Sites without any known or suspected heritage/archaeological issues would score zero. Any sites with known or suspected heritage/archaeological issues would score -2 in stage 2B. Such sites would require a site specific assessment if carried forward for further detailed assessment.

At this stage, a medium weighting factor was given for this criterion. No sites that were carried  forward  for  stage  2B  assessment  were  known  or  suspected  to  have heritage/archaeological issues.

2. Design & Operational Criteria

1. Site Area

Since the section on footprint estimation in the Stage 1 assessment report was written, further green waste surveys have been conducted which show that domestic green waste delivery vehicle numbers could be higher than indicated by previous surveys. The Stage 1 assessment  and  report  have  not  been  updated  to  reflect  these  later  surveys  but  are accounted for in the Stage 2B assessment. Appendix B considers the implications of the increased vehicle numbers on the estimated footprints in the Stage 1 report.

Note that the footprint estimates for Stage 1 were based on outline non site specific layouts. Footprint estimates remain non site specific for stage 2B assessment. Site specific layouts  would  be  required  to  confirm  that  the  chosen  site(s)  can  accommodate  the necessary facilities.

Having sufficient site area allows the site to accommodate all of the necessary facilities and cope with the likely volumes of waste arisings without compromising performance. A high weighting factor was therefore given to this criterion.

2. Drainage Connection

For stage 2B, potential sites were scored according to the distance between a mains sewer and the boundary of the proposed facilities. Routing of the mains sewer was based on historical records provided by TTSD.

Drainage was scored for potential composting sites only. For reception sites, the Jersey Environmental Department has confirmed that water run off need only be intercepted for hydrocarbon and particulates removal prior to discharge to a water course or soak-away.

Only  a  relatively  small  volume  of  effluent/sewage  is  expected  to  be  discharged.  If necessary, effluent/sewage could be disposed of without a mains sewer connection. These alternatives include on site treatment and/or transport off-site by means of road tanker. Therefore, a very low weighting factor was given for this criterion.

3. Level Site for Construction & Operation

Potential sites were scored in stage 2B by visual inspection only. Modest gradients could be readily levelled albeit at a cost. It would also be possible to have split level sites.

A low weighting was given for this criterion.

3. Pollution, Health & Safety Risks

1. Nuisance to Neighbours

Screening on the basis of noise nuisance, using separation distances recommended by a specialist noise consultant, was already carried out in stage 2A.

Further scoring was carried out on noise and odour nuisance in stage 2B. Scoring was based on nominal separation distances and the number of residential and commercial receptors affected. There was no consideration of site specific factors such as terrain, screening and weather at this stage. Detailed modelling of such factors was not considered practical for the large number of sites at this stage.

Nuisance to neighbours was considered to be an important factor for site selection. Due to this, separate scores were given for noise and odour. A separate score was also given for visual  impact  which  would  be  another form  of  nuisance.  To  avoid  exaggerating  the importance of nuisance, medium (rather than high) weighting factors were given to noise nuisance and to odour nuisance.

2. Bio-aerosols Risk to Neighbours

In  stage  2B,  potential  sites  were  scored  based  on  separation  distances  between composting/shredding  facilities  and  sensitive  receptors  in  accordance  with recommendations from a bio-aerosols specialist. The recommended distances were based on the experience of the bio-aerosols consultant without consideration of other site specific factors such as weather, terrain and buildings close by.

The bio-aerosols consultant will be asked to undertake a site specific assessment on the final chosen site(s) to confirm that the proposed combination of technical solution and sites would be acceptable from a bio-aerosols perspective.

Reception only sites were not considered to be significant sources of bio-aerosols so bio-aerosols risk was not considered for reception only facilities.

Health and safety is very important so a high weighting factor was given for this criterion.

3. Location within Fuel Storage Hazard Zone

Due to the vapour cloud explosion incident at the Buncefield fuel storage depot in the UK, the States of Jersey commissioned a report1 to assess the risks associated with the location

of the new EfW facility at La Collette close to the fuel storage depot. Based on the results of this report we understand that that a new domestic waste reception at La Collette would not be considered acceptable but that commercial green waste reception and composting operations would be acceptable, although not preferred, at La Collette.

Health and safety is very important but since the likelihood of a vapour cloud explosion is remote this criterion was given a medium weighting factor only.

4. Location within Airport Public Safety Zone

The airport authority and the Health and Safety Inspectorate (HSI) should be consulted on proposed  developments  within  an  airport  public  safety  zone.  The  proposed  scoring mechanism assumes that airport public safety zones would be treated in a similar manner to fuel storage hazard zones.

Health and safety is very important but since the likelihood of a plane crash is remote this criterion was given a medium weighting factor only.

4. Access/Transportation Issues

1. Proximity to Domestic and Commercial Green Waste Origins

The approximate centre of origin of domestic and commercial green waste was determined as follows:

1. Domestic green waste deliveries to the existing reception facility were surveyed on 4 separate days in 2007 to determine the number of vehicles taking waste from each Parish.
2. The raw vehicle numbers for the two week day surveys were multiplied by 5/2 to give the vehicle numbers for a normal week day and then added to the vehicle numbers for the Saturday and Sunday surveys to give a weighted simulation of the results for a full week.
3. It was assumed that waste arisings were uniformly spread from within individual Parishes.
4. The centroid (centre) of waste arisings for domestic and commercial green waste was estimated by calculating the weighted average x and y co-ordinates for all of the Parishes. These centroids are shown in Appendix C. The centroids for commercial and domestic waste arisings are both in the Parish of St Helier which occupies a reasonably central location within the Island and also has the highest population. The un-weighted  centroid  for  land  area  alone  is  in  the  neighbouring  Parish  of  St Lawrence.
5. Scores were allocated to each site according to the distance between the relevant centroid and the site.

The use of limited survey data and the assumptions introduce a degree of uncertainty in the derived  results but  considering  the  size  of  the  Island, the  impact  of  inaccuracies  on transport distances is relatively small. In view of the short distances involved, a relatively low weighting factor was given to this criterion.

1 "Initial Assessment of Vapour Cloud Explosion Risks Associated with the La Collette Fuel Depot", Atkins Ltd, 2007

2. Vehicular Access and Link Roads

For stage 2B, potential sites were scored based on the likely need for new/improved roads and junctions.

Poor  vehicular  access  would  have  implications  on  safety,  costs  and  disruption  to neighbours and normal traffic flows whilst roads and junctions were upgraded. A high weighting factor was given to this criterion.

5. Impact on Project Programme

For stage 2B, it was assumed that privately owned sites could potentially cause a delay in the programme whilst the land was being acquired. If there is a covenant restriction on a site, then it would also be likely to incur a programme delay. In extreme cases, such factors could mean that the site was not available if agreement could not be reached.

Deliverability and project programme are very important so a high weighting factor was given to this criterion. These factors are considered to be important as the knock-on effect of delays in relocating green waste reception facilities would lead to consequential delays in the energy from waste project, leading to potentially large cost increases. In addition, delays to the composting  process  location  would  delay  the  replacement  of  the  current  open-windrow operation which is causing occasional odour nuisance.

6. Vacant Possession

For stage 2B, sites that are currently occupied by residents or ongoing operations that TTSD has no automatic right to relocate were given a lower score than the remaining sites. Having to relocate existing operations could incur programme delays and in extreme cases mean that the site was not available if agreement could not be reached on suitable sites to relocate existing operations to.

A high weighting factor was given to this criterion.

7. Criteria Considered But Not Used in Stage 2B

A number of assessment criteria (mostly from the previous sites assessment exercise carried out in 2006) were considered but not used for scoring in stage 2B as follows:

1. Loss of potential alternative uses of the site. For consistency of comparison between state owned and private sites, the value of the land would need to be converted into a cost figure. This exercise would only be performed in stage 3 (if required);
2. Potential development sensitive receptor. It is difficult to assess and allow for potential future development of sensitive receptors around the site. Certain elements of this criterion is already covered under criteria such as compatibility with the Island Plan zones, and land value (covered in stage 3 if required);
3. Compatible neighbours. This overall criterion is already covered by other criteria such as nuisance, visual impact and safety zoning;
4. Adverse public reaction risk. This is not a criterion that can be readily quantified and scored and is at least partially covered under nuisance, compatibility with Island Plan zones and visual impact;

5. Power  connection.  Budget  estimates  were  obtained  from  JEC  (Jersey  Electric Company) for power connections to each site based on assuming a 750 kVA capacity connection  and  other  preliminary  assumptions.  The  750 kVA  capacity  should  be comfortable even for a complete integrated site incorporating reception and composting of all green waste arisings. Smaller sites accommodating only reception facilities or part of the Island's green waste arisings are likely to require smaller capacity connections. The budget estimates varied by no more than £80,000 between the different sites which is relatively small in the overall context of the project. Power connection costs were therefore not scored in stage 2B assessment but would be included as part of the cost assessment in stage 3 (if required);
6. Ground conditions for construction. Intrusive ground surveys are costly and should only be undertaken during stage 3 (if required) when there are fewer sites to assess;
7. Opportunity to co-locate complementary operations. Rather than attempt to score every conceivable combination in stage 2B, each site was assessed on its own merits for location of a single type of facility. On completion of stage 2B scoring, opportunities to locate more than one type of facility on the same site would be considered if any site scores well for more than one type of facility (composting, domestic reception, and commercial reception). The possibility of co-locating domestic green waste reception with recyclables reception facilities may also be explored in stage 3 due to potential synergies between these types of reception facilities;
8. Disruption during construction. Such disruptions, if any, would be short term and unlikely to be very significant. Therefore, this criterion was not be used to assess the long term suitability of a site;
9. Contaminated ground risk. Ground surveys are time consuming and expensive and would only be carried out in stage 3 (if required) when fewer sites remain to be assessed;
10. Impact on air quality. Air quality would need to be assessed by reference to traffic flows,  pollution  control  equipment  and  dispersion  modelling  which  would  not  be practical for the large number of sites in stage 2B. This criterion would be assessed in stage 3 (if required);
11. Risk of water or ground pollution. It would be possible to design the facilities to mitigate against pollution risks. This criterion is therefore one of cost to be considered during stage 3;
12. Proximity to farms for spreading of compost. TTSD advised that compost was spread on farms throughout the Island and that due to the small size of the Island, transport distances for compost product should not be a criterion for site selection;
13. Perception of potential for traffic congestion. The site selection process should be based on real rather than perceived issues even if it means having to disprove misconceptions;
14. Roads and traffic congestion issues. These issues would need to be considered for the planning application but are not practical for the large number of sites in stage 2B;
15. Property blight. This is not a criterion that can be readily quantified and scored and is at least covered by other criteria such as nuisance, visual impact and compatibility with the Island Plan zones.

3. Results

Where appropriate, each site was scored separately as a potential host for each of the following types of facilities:

1. A complete IVC (in-vessel composting) facility designed to process all of the Island's green waste arisings. It was assumed that domestic and commercial green waste would be collected on a different site (s) and bulked up for transport to the IVC;
2. A reception facility designed to accept all of the Island's domestic green waste for bulking up and transporting to the IVC site;
3. A reception facility designed to accept all of the Island's commercial green waste for bulking up and transporting to the IVC site.

The following table summarises the weighted scores for the potential sites for each type of facility. A positive score would indicate a very suitable site. However, as waste treatment is generally considered an unattractive neighbour, realistically a low negative score would indicate an acceptable site. Higher negative scores indicate unsuitable sites.

Comments on individual sites follow:

1. Site P10. This site is large enough to house either domestic reception or commercial reception only and did not score particularly well for either. The low scores were mainly due  to  nuisance  criteria  and  the  fact  that  it  is  currently  occupied  by  residential accommodation. It is recommended that this site is rejected without further assessment;
2. Site P11. This site did not score well for any category of site. The low scores were mainly due to nuisance, poor vehicular access and the fact that it is currently occupied by privately owned ongoing operations that would need to be relocated. It is recommended that this site is rejected without further assessment;
3. Site P12. This site did not score well for any category of site. The low scores were mainly due to nuisance and poor vehicular access. It is recommended that this site is rejected without further assessment;
4. Site S1. This site could potentially act as a domestic reception only site. The site could accommodate a commercial reception facility instead of the domestic reception facility but not domestic and commercial reception of all green waste arisings for the Island. The site did not score as well as site S5 for commercial reception. It is recommended that this site is put forward for stage 3 assessment as a potential domestic reception site;

5. Site S4. This site did not score well as a potential IVC site due to the proximity of sensitive receptors and the potential impact of the restrictive covenant on the project programme. The site also scored reasonably well as a commercial reception site but not as well as site S5. It is recommended that this site is put forward for stage 3 assessment as a potential domestic reception site;
6. Site S5. This site received the top scores for the IVC and commercial reception and is large enough to house both types of facilities. This site scored well mainly due to its industrial location and large area. However, this site was excluded for consideration as a new domestic reception site due to the hazard assessment and the potential impact of a vapour cloud explosion from the adjacent fuel farm ;
7. Site S6. This site scored well for IVC and commercial reception facilities but not as well as for site S5. The site was excluded for consideration as a new domestic reception site due to the hazard assessment. It is also highly unlikely that more detailed assessment would make site S6 score better than site S5. It is recommended that this site is rejected without further assessment;
8. Site S11. There are a number of residential properties on or close to the boundary of this site. For an IVC facility it is necessary to apply a 50 m exclusion zone for bio-aerosol safety. The remaining un-zoned area is insufficient to accommodate an IVC large enough to  process  all  of  the  Island's  green  waste  arisings.  This  site  could  potentially  be  a commercial and/or domestic reception site but scored significantly lower than site S5 for commercial  reception.  It  is  recommended  that  this  site  is  put  forward  for  stage  3 assessment as a potential domestic reception site;

Based on the above scores, the following is recommended:

1. Site S5 should be the preferred site for commercial reception and in-vessel composting without  any  further  detailed  assessment  of  the  other  sites.  The  co-location  of  the commercial green waste reception and composting facility on the same site will result in further benefits that will give Site S5 an even bigger advantage compared to the other sites where co-location is not possible;
2. Further stage 3 assessment is required to determine whether site S1, S4 or S11 should accommodate the domestic reception facility.

4  SPECIAL CASE – SITE 12

As indicated in the stage 1 assessment report, the current Refuse Handling Plant (RHP) and Resource Recovery Centre (RRC) at Bellozanne were not included in the list of potential sites considered in Stage 1 assessment as these sites would not be available until the EfW project is completed.

As concluded above, the La Collette industrial site is considered to be most suitable for in-vessel composting and commercial waste reception. The choice of a site for domestic green waste reception is less clear cut. All three of the remaining potential sites for domestic green waste reception are close to residential receptors and in the Countryside zone.

In view of the fact that none of the remaining potential sites for domestic green waste reception is particularly good, it was decided to review the possibility of using the RHP/RRC site. The part of the RHP/RRC site identified for potential domestic green waste reception is now referred to as Site S12. A map showing the boundary of the site is given in Appendix E. Site S12 is currently used for reception and storage of commercial bulky waste. On completion of the EfW project, reception and storage of commercial bulky waste will be relocated to a new site alongside the new EfW plant.

Comments on Site 12 are as follows:

1. If the fact that only part of the site is currently available and only for part of the time then the score for Site S12 in stage 2B would have been +1, which is higher than for any of the other remaining potential sites (S1, S4 and S11) for domestic reception. Site S12 scores well because it is located within an industrial zone. Furthermore, since the site is currently used as a waste reception facility there are unlikely to be any planning issues;
2. Due to the short-term unavailability of S12, until completion of the EfW project, there would be a need for a temporary site to receive domestic green waste. The site identified for this purpose was a modified version of Site S2. Comments on this site are as follows:

1. This site was chosen because it is close to other waste reception facilities. The site already has a prepared surface and can be implemented in minimal time and at minimal cost which is especially important for a temporary facility;
2. This site was eliminated during stage 2 screening (for noise nuisance) due to the presence of three residential properties close to the Western boundary of the site.
3. To reduce potential nuisance to neighbours it would be possible to move the original Northern and Southern site boundaries for site S2 further to the South;
4. To improve traffic flows within the site, commercial trailers would not be allowed on site. It would be necessary to review the size of vehicles to be accepted at the site together with traffic flows as part of a more detailed assessment during Stage 3.

It is recommended that site S12 (with a modified Site S2 as a temporary site) is considered along side Sites S1, S4 and S11 during stage 3 detailed assessment.

5  MULTIPLE SITES

Part of this study has been to check whether allowing smaller sites for receiving or processing only  part  of the  Island's  green waste  would  introduce additional  superior  sites.  No  single privately owned site scored higher than the best performing single States owned sites. The best States owned sites are large enough to deal with the whole waste flow. The Stage 1 assessment established that the area required for composting and maturation accounts for only a small proportion of the total site area, with much of the space required for vehicle reception and manoeuvring. This indicates that there will be economic disbenefits to multiple sites through the requirement for additional access roads, reception areas and storage areas compared to a single site operation.

None of the private sites considered had existing infrastructure that would have any significant benefit when assessed as a multiple site. Therefore there is no benefit in further consideration of multiple sites as these could not score higher than the best scoring States-owned single sites.

6  CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Stage 2A Screening

Stage 2A screening using a noise nuisance criterion eliminated sites P4, P18 and S2 for being too close to sensitive receptors.

2. Loss of Site P1

Following stage 2A screening, it was understood that site P1 had changed ownership and is no longer available. No further assessment is carried out on this site.

3. Stage 2B Scoring

The sites being considered have been rated quantatively over a range of criteria. The scores have then been summed to provide an overall ranking. A positive score would indicate that the site would be very suitable. Realistically, as waste treatment facilities are generally considered to be unattractive neighbours, a low negative score would be considered acceptable. High negative scores are considered less suitable. The scores from the 2B assessment are given in the following table:

Based on these scores it is recommended that site S5 should be used for commercial reception and composting facilities without further assessment of the other sites. Further analysis would not reveal a more suitable site than S5.

Further stage 3 assessment of sites S1, S4 and S11 is required to determine the best site to accommodate the domestic green waste reception facility.

4. Special Site S12 & Need for Temporary Domestic Reception Site

Sites S1, S4 and S11 are not ideal sites for domestic green waste reception due to their location within the Countryside zone and proximity to residential properties. It is therefore recommended that Site 12 (a site in Bellozanne currently used for reception and storage of commercial bulky waste) is also assessed in stage 3 as a potential domestic green waste reception site. Site S12 was excluded from the original list of potential sites assessed in stage 1 as it is not available until completion of the EfW project. If the fact that site S12 is not immediately available is ignored, then it would have scored +1 in stage 2B for domestic reception. A temporary reception site based on a modified version of site S2 has been proposed by TTS until a permanent site is available.

5. Multiple Sites

Part of this study has been to check whether allowing smaller sites for receiving or processing only  part  of the  Island's  green waste  would  introduce additional  superior  sites.  No  single privately owned site scored higher than the best performing single States owned sites, whilst the best States owned sites are large enough to deal with the whole waste flow. There are economic disbenefits to multiple sites through the requirement for additional access roads, reception areas and storage areas compared to a single site operation.

None of the private sites considered had existing infrastructure that would have any significant benefit when assessed as a multiple site. Therefore there is no benefit in further consideration of multiple sites as these could not score higher than the best scoring States-owned single sites.

Appendix A Stage 2B Scoring Criteria

S0871-0510-0040 08-10-07

S0871-0510-0002ASV 20-04-07

Appendix B Site Footprint Estimation

Since the section on footprint estimation in the stage 1 assessment report was written, further green waste surveys have been conducted which show that domestic green waste delivery vehicle numbers could be significantly higher than indicated by previous surveys. The footprint estimates have therefore been updated in this section.

Note that the footprint estimates for stage 1 were based on outline non site specific layouts. Footprint estimates remain non site specific for stage 2 assessment. Site specific layouts will be required for the chosen preferred site(s) to confirm that practical layouts are possible given the site specific conditions, site shape and locations of the site access.

B.1  Factors Affecting Site Footprint Requirements

The footprint requirements for a complete working site depend on a number of key factors including:

1. Composting  technology.  For  the  purposes  of  estimating  footprint  requirements  the composting  technologies  offered  for  the  project  have  been  put  into  the  following categories:

1. Tunnel composting such as those offered by WTT, Linde, Christiaens, SRS and CRS. Clamp systems should also have similar footprint requirements.
2. Hall composting such as those offered by Earth Tech and New Earth Solutions.
3. Vessel composting such as those offered by Andar/Rotocom and Bioganix.
4. Container composting such as those offered by Alpheco (through Edmund Nuttall) and Vital Earth
5. Vertical systems such as those offered by VCU.

2. Site specific conditions such as the shape of the available plot and the access arrangements. The percentage of space that cannot be usefully employed for equipment or buildings will depend on a combination of the plot shape, access arrangements and to some extent also the technology employed.

B.2  Single Site for All Processing

B.2.1  Including All Reception and Shredding

B.2.1.1  Tunnel Composting Technology

1. A preliminary site layout was developed (see drawing S0870-023 A2) based on the following key assumptions.

1. That annual average processing capacity is 15,800 tonnes/year.
2. That the "in-vessel" composting technology will be tunnels.
3. That the seasonal peaking factor (ratio of tonnage in peak month to average month) is 1.5.
4. That all input waste will be composted in tunnels for a total of 4 weeks in 2 stages.
5. That 80% of the compost product exiting the tunnels can be immediately dispatched for agricultural use.

6. That the remaining 20% of compost product exiting the tunnels will be further matured  for  another  4  weeks  in  aerated  bays  within  the  post  treatment building.
7. The site will include all processing and reception facilities.
8. There must be at least 30m separation between main process building doors and the covered waste reception area.
9. The layout was based on a non site specific rectangular plot and excludes landscaping and any irregular shaped areas outside of this box that may be useable or otherwise.
10. The estimated area excludes the space required for the offices and staff/visitor parking. These facilities do not generate dust, odour or bio-aerosols and very little noise so can be located in areas of a site that are close to sensitive receptors if necessary.

2. The full site area was split into the following categories:

1. Area for the "in-vessel" composting technology
2. Area for compost maturation as required by the solution proposed
3. Remaining area that would be required regardless of technology employed including:

1. Weighbridge
2. Waste reception, storage and pre-treatment.
3. Product storage, post-treatment and dispatch.
4. Ancillaries and bio-filters.
5. Roads and vehicle turning space.
6. Unused areas within the rectangular site due to imperfect packing of plant and equipment.

Some of these areas are not completely independent of technology employed but the differences should be relatively minor compared to the overall site area.

B.2.1.1  Other Composting Technologies

Indicative layouts and footprint requirements were provided by some technology suppliers with their expressions of interest in the project but each supplier based their estimates on a different set of assumptions, some of which are not stated. It is therefore not appropriate to simply use these estimates directly to compare the different technologies. There is also publicly available information on footprint requirements for different technologies but the value of this information is also limited due to the use of widely differing assumptions and project specific factors.

The following methodology was therefore used by Fichtner to generate rough estimates of the likely footprint requirements of the different types of technologies.

1. Area for the "in-vessel" composting technology. This area is based on information supplied  by  the  technology  suppliers  by  measuring  approximate  scaled  layouts where necessary. Where appropriate, the measured/given area was adjusted to a processing capacity of 15,800 tonnes/year and peaking factor of 1.5 by assuming that area is proportional to processing capacity. Proportional scaling may not be strictly correct due to edge effects but the error introduced should be relatively small.
2. Area for compost maturation.

1. Hall composting systems already include for maturation within the hall so no additional maturation area is required.
2. Container and vertical composting technology suppliers proposed to carry out maturation using the "in-vessel" technology so that no additional maturation area is required.
3. For  the  vessel  systems,  the  maturation  residence  time  indicated  by  the technology supplier was used by Fichtner to estimate the area by assuming that area required is proportional to residence time.
4. The cage system technology supplier indicated a maturation period of 4 weeks which  should  require  approximately  the  same area  as  that  for  the  tunnel composting system.

The following table summarises the results of the footprint estimates for different types of technologies.

The following comments can be made:

1. The choice of technology has a relatively small impact on the overall site footprint requirements.

2. The actual area required for composting and maturation account for only a small proportion of the total site area.
3. The requirement for at least 30m separation between main process building doors and the covered reception area significantly increases the length of site roads, wasted space and overall site area.

B.2.2  Excluding Domestic Reception, Commercial Reception and Shredding

If the domestic and commercial waste reception facilities are located on a separate site(s) then a significant reduction in area can be achieved. Some of the area reduction is due to removal of some of the space required for waste reception but it is mainly due to removal of roads and wasted space required for 30m separation of the covered reception from process building doors.

B.2.3  Excluding Domestic Reception

Excluding only domestic waste reception means that commercial waste reception is still required. Whilst there is a slight reduction in the number of unloading positions required the turning areas remain the same. The actual reduction in site area is not significant.

B.2.4  Excluding Commercial Reception

Exclude commercial waste reception should allow the depth of the reception area to be reduced and the right hand site boundary to be moved approximately 10m to the left.

B.3  Multiple Sites for Processing

B.3.1  Including All Reception & Shredding

The site area for processing one third of the total annual arising of 15,800 tonnes/year has been estimated using the following methodology:

1. It  is  assumed  that  the  composting  and  maturation  areas  will  be  proportional  to processing capacity.
2. The covered reception area is reduced to an area of 35m x 28m.
3. One  third  of  the  reception/pre-treatment  building  and  post-treatment  building  is assumed to be proportional to processing capacity for areas related to storage of wastes

or products. The remaining 2/3rd of these two buildings is assumed to be vehicle manoeuvring  and  equipment  space  which  should  be  relatively  independent  of processing capacity.

4. The area of the bio-filter is assumed to be proportional to processing capacity (not strictly correct but impact should be small).
5. The area for plant, equipment and buildings (including canopied reception area) was estimated for the large single site. The above assumptions were used to estimate the area for plant, equipment and buildings (including canopied reception area) for the smaller (1/3rd capacity site).
6. It is assumed that the full site area is proportional to the area for plant, equipment and buildings and reception area.

The results of the estimates are presented in the following table.

B.3.2  Excluding Domestic Reception, Commercial Reception and Shredding

Due to the need to having minimum turning areas for delivery vehicles, there would be little reduction in site area if either domestic or commercial reception of waste is excluded.

If both domestic and commercial reception is excluded, then the percentage reduction in site area is assumed to be the same as for the full capacity plant.

B.4  Separate Waste Reception

The following steps were involved in estimating the area requirements for waste reception.

1. Waste delivery vehicle numbers was provided by TTSD for 4 separate days (Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday) in 2007. Survey data was also provided for 3 half days in 2005.
2. Historical data shows that green waste quantities have been increasing over the years. TTSD indicated that the vehicles numbers surveyed in 2007 were unlikely to increase even further.

1. The 2005 vehicle numbers were multiplied by  the ratio of design green waste processing  capacity  (15,800 tonnes/year)  to  quantity  of  green  waste  in  2005 (11,363 tonnes/year).
2. The 2007 vehicle numbers were not inflated any further.

3. The adjusted quarterly hourly data was used to calculate the rolling hourly vehicle numbers and hence the peak hourly vehicle numbers for each day.
4. The hourly vehicle numbers were multiplied by the average unloading times (4.9 minutes for domestic vehicles and 8.2 minutes for commercial vehicles) provided by TTSD to give equivalent unloading times for each rolling hour for domestic vehicles, and commercial vehicles. These equivalent unloading times are then divided by 60 minutes/hour to give the number of vehicles that need to be able to unload simultaneously (see table below).
5. From the results of calculations, the following sizing criteria is recommended:

1. For a single site to take all domestic and commercial deliveries, the facility should be designed to be able to unload up:

1. 11 domestic + zero commercial vehicles simultaneously during peak domestic periods,
2. 3 domestic + 5 commercial vehicles during peak commercial periods.

2. For a single site to take all domestic deliveries only, the facility should be designed to be able to unload 11 vehicles simultaneously.
3. For  a  single  site to  take  all commercial  deliveries only,  the  facility  should  be designed to be able to unload 5 vehicles simultaneously.

These results are very approximate due to the limited survey data available and the assumptions that have been necessary. It is still necessary to allow for some vehicle queuing in case the facilities cannot cope. In the event that excessive vehicle numbers are regularly encountered at particular times or particular days, at least some of the users will learn to avoid known peak periods thereby helping to reduce long term problems. The opening hours are short compared to other civic amenity sites in the UK. There is scope to reduce peak vehicle numbers by increasing opening hours, particularly on Sundays during which the existing reception facility only opens for half a day.

The results of the estimates are presented in the following table.

Note that these areas do not include site offices, staff/visitor parking, and queuing of delivery vehicles (although some queuing space is inherent in some of the layouts). It is assumed that no weighbridges will be required at any of the reception sites.

B.4.1  Single Site for Domestic Reception

An example layout for a single site to accept all domestic green waste is provided in drawing 0871-042 A2.

2 Excludes unused area 17.5m x 40m

B.4.2  Multiple Sites for Domestic Reception

As indicated in the stage 1 assessment report, the advertisement for expressions of interest by private land owners to propose sites for green waste reception specified a minimum area of

500 m2. This minimum area was estimated based on green waste vehicle data available at the time of the advertisement.

An outline layout (drawing 871-017 A1) assuming a typical civic amenity site traffic flow system shows that two vehicles could unload simultaneously. More recent green waste survey data  indicates  at  peak  periods  up  to  11  vehicles  would  need  to  be  able  to  unload simultaneously. On this basis, 6 sites would be required to enable simultaneous unloading of up to 11 vehicles. In practice, space has been allocated for use by the skip wagons which will not be on site for most of the time. When the skip wagon is not on site, unloading vehicles could use the area normally reserved for the skip wagon thereby reducing the number of sites required to 4 or 5 depending on how much comfort is required and how uniformly we can expect vehicles to distribute themselves between the different sites.

B.4.3  Single Site for Commercial Reception

An example layout for a single site to accept and shred all commercial green waste is provided in drawing 0871-020 A2.

It is assumed that shredding will not take place on site. If shredding is required, the need to keep  a  minimum  distance  of  30m  between  the  shredder  and  the  reception  facility  will significantly increase the site footprint.

B.4.4  Combined Domestic + Commercial Reception

An example layout for a single site to accept and shred all domestic and commercial green waste is provided in drawing 0871-019 A2.

The inclusion of shredding will increase the site footprint but will increase bulk density (and hence reduce the number of bulk loads) prior to transporting to the processing facility.

Drawing 0871-49 A1 shows the layout without any on-site shredding. B.5  Expansion Area for Kitchen Waste

The Jersey Waste Strategy envisages the possibility of future kerbside collection of kitchen waste for composting.  There is  likely to  be  significant  cost savings  if the  kitchen  waste  is also composted in the same facility as the proposed green waste composting facility. The following assumptions have been made regarding the composting of kitchen waste.

1. The Waste Strategy envisages approximately 17,000 tonnes/year of kitchen waste arisings. For the purposes of this exercise we have assumed that up to 50% of the arisings will be collected for composting. UK experience suggests that significantly less than 50% will be collected so the 50%  assumption is conservative for the purposes of estimating area requirements.
2. Unlike green waste there should be very little seasonal variation for kitchen waste.
3. Kitchen waste is generally very wet making it very difficult to compost without the addition of bulking material such as cardboard or green waste. The green waste could be collected with the kitchen waste at the kerbside or mixed together at the composting facility.

4. In the UK, it is normal for at least some of the separately collected green waste to be composted separately from the kitchen waste in less expensive windrow composting sites. Windrow composting is not an option in Jersey so there would be very little cost benefit in separate composting of green waste and kitchen waste.
5. The  area  requirements  will  depend  on  the  ratio  of  mature  PAS100  grade  compost compared to less mature agricultural grade compost which in turn depends on market demands. For the purposes of this exercise, TTSD would like to assume that all of the additional tonnage will be composted to PAS100 grade product. The area required for compost maturation will be significantly increased.

Layout  drawing  0871-024  A1  shows  an  approximate  layout  for  complete  reception  and processing of 15,800 tonnes/year of green waste and 8,500 tonnes/year of kitchen waste on a single site based on the use of tunnel composting technology. The overall site area requirement is 12,700 m2.

B.6  Outline Layout Drawings

871-017.A1  Partial Domestic Reception - Vehicle Drive by 871-019.A2  Domestic Reception + Commercial Reception + Shredding 871-020.A1  Commercial Reception

871-023.A2  Single Site Composting – Green Waste Only

871-024.A2  Single Site Composting – Green + Kitchen Waste 871-042.A2  Domestic Reception – Large Skips

871-049.A1  Domestic + Commercial Reception

The above drawings are provided at the end of the report.

Appendix C Centre of Green Waste Arisings Map

Appendix D Noise Consultant's Report

•

•

•

• !  "!

• #$ ! ! ! !

• %&' () *' + &

•

•  ! " "

# $%&$'()(*+,

 " +$$, !-!! $ " +. /# '% !0%%&

• 1.    !.

23..  4 .

 5

+

+22(67

•

' & !  "!

#$' & ! ! ! !

%'(&,) *'+ &

- ./',.0,

- .0 '. 1 ','

- .0 .$*

•

  . " 5

& /' , '

2& 3 45, ' ' '

! & ' (

& * , ( 2

& 1 ' , '

.'

•

0**' $ % 0 , ' 6

0**' $ 2% 6'7$*'89,. '

•

•

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ R07.1494/DRK   Fichtner Consulting Engineers Ltd

'$%   +8

& 0:, .# '1 ','66'4 8; '

1 ','<=;1>?+ ' *( ' '

• ' .' (' ** .. ' %( * '64 6'+* '<+ + ,* ' . ?' 6' +* ' <+ + , * ' . ?( , * ' ' @ &

&2 . , ' ' (* * ' ' 6 ' ' + .* ' , '

, ' 6 .. ' . , ' ' 6 , &

&! 6' ' . ' , ' , ' +' * ' &

• .. .' ' ' 6 , ( ' * 4 ', '6 , '6 '.'+ *,' '4 , ' .+ 4 , *&0., *' 6.

' ' ' ' 6 , ' ( , + ' ('

' &

&  0 , 6 ' .. , : , ' . 4' * . ..4' , ..: , ' ' '

.+ *, ' 6 ' . *.(*' , ' & ' , 4. $*4'

.. + ' 6

<?   ' .*' , A&

< ?  6, ' ' (' ** ' &

< ?  $ '66,' ' ,A&

<(?  , .*' ( ' &

<(?  1 .' A&

<( ?   .* ' .' , A

<( ?  3(' 6+ ' ' (' , ' *&

<( ?   * 6* ..' 6' ' 6.' , &

<$?   *.*<&6& ' 4 ' , ?

<$?  5,' (''('66,' +'*' '

, &

<$ ?   ' .' , (*&

<$ ?  *, ' (, &

•

&   (.' ( ' . ' ' &

• +(4 ' 6 .( 4 ' ' .

* ' .* , ' ' , &