Waste Recycling - Minister for Transport and Technical Services - Transcript - 3 August 2008

Environment Scrutiny Panel

Composting Report

FRIDAY, 3rd AUGUST 2007

Panel:

Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (Chairman) Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier

Witnesses:

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (Minister for Transport and Technical Services) Mr. J. Richardson (Chief Officer, Transport and Technical Services)

Mr. W. Gardiner (Director, Waste Strategy)

Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (Chairman):

Right: "It is important that you fully understand the conditions under which you are appearing in this hearing. The panel's proceedings are covered by parliamentary privilege through Article 34 of the States of Jersey (Jersey) Law 2005 and as a result you are protected from being sued or prosecuted for anything said during this hearing although this privilege should obviously not be abused. The proceedings are being recorded and transcriptions will be made available on the Scrutiny website." The other one is pretty much the same, I think.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : I think you should read it though.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

You want me to read the other one as well for the other non States' Members? Right. For non States' Members: "It is important that you fully understand the conditions under which you are appearing in this hearing. The proceedings of the panel are covered by parliamentary privilege through Article 34 of the States of Jersey (Jersey) Law 2005 and the States of Jersey Powers, Privileges and Immunities Scrutiny Panels PAC (Public Accounts Committee) and PPC (Privileges and Procedures Committee) Jersey Regulations 2006 and witnesses are protected from being sued or prosecuted for anything said during hearings unless they say something they know to be untrue. This protection is given to witnesses to ensure that they can speak freely and openly to the panel when giving evidence without fear of legal action although the immunity shall  obviously  not  be  abused  by  making  unsubstantiated  statements  about  third parties who have no right of reply. The panel would like you to bear this in mind when answering questions. The proceedings are being recorded and transcriptions will be made available on the Scrutiny website." Right.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier (Minister for Transport and Technical Services):

Thank you, Chairman, for those warning notices. As this is a formal hearing, could I just inquire because I do not know, there are only 2 members of your panel here, does that mean that you are quorate?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

That is a very good question. I would need to take legal advice.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) I was just wondering if you, perchance, are not quorate, whether you are in a position

to hold a formal hearing or not.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Yes, good point, it had crossed my mind as well. We were expecting, I think, Ken Le Brun, but he is not here at the moment. Could one of the officers find out whether we are entitled to proceed?

Mr. M. Haden:

There are 4 members of the panel, so the quorum is 50 per cent. I am not sure whether we can constitute it as 5 members, if it is constituted officially as 5 then we are not.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel: Right, okay.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

The second point I was going to raise was also for a formal hearing there should have been some terms of reference and we are not aware of what the terms of reference in respect of composting are. In the interests of perhaps moving things forward and the sake of good governance, might I suggest that we abandon a formal hearing and just press on in an informal basis?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Yes, I am happy with that. Yes.

Mr. M. Haden:

Could you just carry on with the transcription only because most of the officers with the panel are either absent on leave or one on sick leave and --

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) I am happy for a transcription to be taken down on the basis that it is an informal

hearing and we will not necessarily see it published as a matter of record on the

Scrutiny website.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

All right. Yes, okay. Well, I am certainly happy to proceed on that basis. Right --

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: Sorry to be pedantic.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

That is quite all right. Yes.  Formatted: French (France)

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I think maybe what we can do is treat this as an exploratory meeting and then, if we have the need to get anything down on the website, we will call you back in the terms of reference, maybe. That would be a better way.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Right, the reason for convening this meeting was to, as Paul says, explore where we are or where we are not with the composting issue. As you are well aware, the open windrowing process is continuing at La Collette until whatever policies are put in place for their replacement. There was a report done by Paul and myself and others earlier on with the compost working party, indeed we have had discussions on the Scrutiny  Panel  over  composting  issues  and  we  are  just  wondering  where  the department are at the moment in relation to (a) closing down or moving or updating the facilities at La Collette and whether or not there is an intention, as has been intimated in the States on more than one occasion by the Minister - by yourself - that you  are  prepared,  or  would  be  prepared  to  take  on  board  some  of  the recommendations  that  had  previously  been  made,  in  particular  to  distributed shredding facilities?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) Well, the position  is,  to make it quite  clear, that  the open windrow  composting

operation at La Collette is proceeding and proceeding successfully, albeit with the

caveat that the department is aware that from time to time there is an annoyance to

some local residents by the smell that is given off in particular when the compost is

turned, which it has to be, and when the wind is blowing towards the land. We regret

that there are occasions when the composting process has to continue in order that the

anaerobic processes do not make the smell worse when unavoidably the wind will be

blowing in an adverse direction. Having said that, the strategy remains largely the

same and that is that we would wish to transfer those processes into an enclosed

composting plant. Indeed, if we did pursue the strategies as originally laid out, a plant

of  that  nature  would  probably  have  been  commissioned  last  month  and  would

currently be in operation. Nevertheless, we, as you know, spent a lot of time to allow

a Scrutiny report to be prepared, originally instigated by Deputy Le Claire. We have

taken on board a number of suggestions, most significantly that it would be helpful to

have various sites at key locations around the Island to act as reception centres for

green waste compost, thus cutting down the number of trips required to our current

location. We have also pursued and are coming to the conclusion of an evaluation of

a variety of sites that were put to us as alternatives, subject to a public consultation,

public advertisement, and now a full evaluation of their suitability. I have brought

with me not just my Chief Officer, John Richardson, but also William Gardiner , who

is our Director of Waste Strategy, who has been spearheading that evaluation process and you are very welcome to direct questions to him or my Chief Officer to establish where we are.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

In the current Annual Business Plan, the annex to 2008, it does state on page 104 that plans are on track to complete a new in-vessel composting facility in 2009. Would you like to comment on the timetables?

Mr. J. Richardson (Chief Officer, Transport and Technical Services): Would you like me to --

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) Sure.

Mr. J. Richardson:

That Business Plan was produced in 2006 before we had Deputy Le Claire's report so by the time we went through the drafting programme --

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

No, this is the current one in actual fact.

Mr. J. Richardson:

That is the 2007 Business Plan?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel: No, 2008.

Mr. J. Richardson:

That is the 2008 Business --

Deputy R.C. Duhamel: This is the latest.

Mr. J. Richardson:

Oh right. Sorry, 2008. So that was -- right. So, in theory if we had approval for a site then 2009 is probable. We need about 12 months to build a plant, 12 months' construction period.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

From our investigations it is clear that it could take less time than the 12 months that you are putting aside. Is there way that the timetable could be brought forward?

Mr. J. Richardson:

I think that will depend totally on land availability, whether that land is in States' ownership or private ownership and what arrangements have got to be made for procurement or leasing and the legal aspect of going through land purchase if we go into private sector land and the type of technology that is selected. So I think our Business Plan is saying the States' debate and the strategy so far is for a single in- vessel enclosed compost plant which will take about 12 months to construct once we get on to site. So we are leaving it at that. If, for any reason, we ended up with a different arrangement and land was available then it might shorten the time horizon. But I think at this stage it would be wrong to build up hopes that it would be quicker than that because we have not concluded the land issue yet.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Yes, but that said, I mean part of the reason for doing the work previously was to attempt  to  persuade  the  department  that  there  was  perhaps potential  to  split  the problem into a number of parts in order to bring forward the dates. So, has a decision finally been taken in that regard as yet or are you still looking at it?

Mr. J. Richardson: Do you want me to --

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) Well, we are down to a very short shortlist.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Right, okay. Is there any indication of when the Minister would be making his mind up finally?

Mr. J. Richardson:

I would anticipate probably 2 to 3 months to get final selection in terms of -- yes, September, so it is 2 months to get down to the final recommended sites and then after that it is a case of depending whether that site or sites are in public or private ownership, we can then work out a reasonable time period in order to get the project moving.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel: Right.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

So, the department has gone out and done evaluation of the sites? Obviously, we suggested some technologies that you were looking at in any event, some of the systems that we looked at with in-vessel type that you have seen. There are some things to discuss at another time about the letter and the issues that were raised about the distribution of material once it has been composted and the application of that to land which I think we can set aside for now because I would like to come back to that another time. But to try to explore where we are going or where the department is going, where the Island is going, where are we with those evaluations? How many sites have been excluded? How many sites have been set down as possible sites for future? What is the technology -- you are talking one large plant, are we talking away from La Collette or what are we doing?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) Well, if it is helpful, one of the reasons that I have asked the Director of Waste

Strategy to be here is that he would be in a position to give you a short presentation on

how the evaluation has been conducted. So you can see the issues that were applied

to each site and how we have ended up where we are. I should emphasise the

decision making is not entirely based within the department, we have had a cross-

departmental exercise on this, so you are not, as it were, getting the department's

particular view on evaluation. It is a number of key officer personnel who have been

brought in to give an appropriate, in my view, holistic overview to the judgment. William?

Mr. W. Gardiner (Director Waste Strategy):

Thank you. Good morning everybody. I have tried to set out here where we are on the process to give you a clearer position as to where we are. It is fair to say that the evaluation process has been complicated because of the necessity to treat fairly the private  sites  and  States'  sites  and  also  to  consider  the  number  of  different combinations which can be thrown up both by different technologies and also by the different combinations of reception treatment facilities that arise. We also had an added complication that the La Collette Hazard Review has changed effectively, our ability to have public receptions at La Collette for new facilities. So that has certainly been an important development.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Before we go on, that is quite an important thing you just said there, I think. You are now saying that given the ongoing evaluation the reception facilities that you were envisaging at La Collette are no longer feasible?

Mr. J. Richardson: For mass public --

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) Mass public drop off point?

Mr. W. Gardiner :

Yes. It is all right for limited -- it all depends on the number of people on the site at any one time.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) Right.

Mr W. Gardiner :

But for mass public, like a Saturday and Sunday where you have got lots of cars, individuals coming down then, La Collette is not suitable for that any longer. It is about controlling the risk to individuals and that has meant that it is certain but it is very unlikely that the public placing facilities will be suitable at La Collette. Commercial receptions may still be. So we are taking that into account. The evaluation process has been divided into 3 parts. First stage looked at the effectively screening process against the expression of interest criteria that were discussed and developed with yourselves towards the end of 2006. We developed a process by looking at each site and determining against the expression of interest criteria whether the criteria had been met to progress to stage 2. In the first part of that screening process we looked at particularly transport access because that was a key consideration for us, the zoning of the sites and then we looked at the footprint of the sites and particularly having investigated further the distance between sensitive receptors. We have got some specific advice from the Open University on what is acceptable distance to have from sensitive receptors to any composting operation which disturbs the compost so turning, windrow composting itself, shredding, those operations and we have confirmed that ideally you should be no closer than 50 metres, the very closest you should be is 30 metres to sensitive receptors. So that has also informed our review of footprints because if you have a shredding operation or a turning operation, any treatment operation you have to keep that distance. As I say, it does not mean that the areas in the consideration for each site have been under review. So, what we found in doing stage 1, we looked at all the different technologies that we had had expression of interest on which I believe covers all the different types of technology that you yourselves were interested in and indeed we have had expressions of interest on and we looked at an analysis of the footprint that would emerge from that technology assuming either full treatment of all of the compost that we are expecting to arrive(?) and then we looked also at a lesser level, so a third of the total, so that we could look at, for example, combinations of sites. So that process was undertaken and for each expression of interest site and indeed the States' sites that we had already considered, we looked at whether they met the requirement as being a potential public reception facility, potential commercial reception facility, a potential treatment facility for all of the wastry(?) or a third of the wastry and sites could proceed to stage 2 under one or any combination of those factors. It took us a while to get to that but it gave the most fair evaluation against those criteria. As a result of that assessment we progressed 12 of the sites and those are detailed for you in this paper on the table, 6 of which were private sites and 6 of which are States' sites. The results of this stage 1 assessment are with John at the moment and I believe we are having a ministerial decision shortly on it and it will become a public document at that stage. But those are the sites that met one or more of those combination of requirements. Of the sites in stage 1, 12 were eliminated - eliminated is probably the wrong word - but if they were in the green zone the Island Plan on advice from, as the Minister says, our colleagues in the Planning Department, they said that proposals for new development in the Green Zone as stated in the paper here should only be considered where it is demonstrated there are no suitable alternatives in the built up area. So effectively those ones are your green zone and are put on hold while we do the rest of the assessment at stage 2 and 3. If we cannot find a suitable site in stage 2 and 3 we will go back to those green zone sites. There were 2 sites as well in the area of outstanding national character, so those have been ruled out altogether because it is probably unacceptable for what is an effectively industrial, agricultural operation, depending how you clarify it, to be in those areas. One site, once we have done the assessment looking at sensitive receptors as well on the 30 metre zoning was too small to pass through at all into that stage as well. So that is really the results of the stage 1 assessment. We have also detailed for you there the minimum footprint areas for the different combinations of single sites, multiple sites, full capacity processing, third capacity processing. You can see the types of site and how they had been progressed against those criteria.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) Can I just ask about your criteria, but before I do, though, just to say that the work

that has obviously been done so far, in  your presentation, I must commend  the

department and the other organisations. You have obviously gone into it in a very

thorough way and it is heartening to see that you have been doing it and one does not

really appreciate what is going on behind the scenes. This is an opportunity to see

what it going on. I must say, for the record, up to this point of the presentation

anyway, it is very encouraging to hear what work has been going on. Can I just ask

though before you proceed, in relation to your minimum site areas for the facility

types, you have got large areas in metres squared, I guess we might want to - or I am

sure the Chairman might want to discuss those. I look at those numbers and I imagine

my in-vessel compost system that I see demonstrated within certain companies within this report and ones that you have looked at and the area for treating on site strikes me straight away, looking at these numbers, minimum site area, that they are quite large. Does that include the site area and a shredding area and also -- because obviously we are not reading this as we are going, but does this also include the minimum sensitive receptor area as well?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) In itself, Deputy , 10,000 square metres does look like quite a large number but a large

football pitch is roughly 100 metres by 100 metres which is 10,000 square metres, so

that puts it in context. That is the sort of thing we are looking at, the largest size

football pitch, it matches up to the largest area we are looking at and everything else

will be smaller than that.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) Okay, thanks very much.

Mr. W. Gardiner :

Well, I think it will help the panel when this report is published because we gave the breakdown for 6 categories of different in-vessel composter and looked at the metre squared requirement from the best available data that we had, either published data or submitted data with the expressions of interest we have received for each technology both for the technology and then the maturation area and then the other reception areas and what we found was that the choice of technology has a relatively small impact on the overall sizing or size requirements which I think is what we were discussing last year. We assume that. We did not have any evidence of that, we now have gathered evidence which shows that and we have got a table which I am not able to share at the moment, but you will be able to have shortly, which shows that and sets out how those areas are derived. We have also got to get to that point we have developed model footprints for each of the assumptions which you can look at in the drawings of how it is laid out so --

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) You have done a lot of work on this, yes.

Mr. W. Gardiner :

I am afraid it has taken longer than we have wanted to, but it has been fair to each site we had to do this.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) Yes, but you have done a thorough job so far. It is to be commended for that.

Mr. W. Gardiner :

So we can certainly show, in due course, it will be document -- as soon as it has received ministerial approval --

Male Speaker:

I think really, I mean, talk about the endgame. The endgame is the decision on what we do with the Island's green waste. But if we can track through, from a Scrutiny process, everything that we have looked at and everything that we have tried to suggest and everything the department has done and marry those up with suggestion and investigation and it seems that that is happening. Then the process of government is working, is it not?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) Yes. I do not want to predict what the final choice is going to be in terms of site

recommendations, it would be inappropriate. But what I certainly can say, it is as a

result of input from Scrutiny last year that the thinking changed to some extent in

terms of looking at a multiplicity of sites and it is indeed fortuitous, not to say

coincidental, that following on from the Buncefield incident and its implications for

development around fuel depots, it is as well that we were already doing that work

because the clear implication coming out of the hazard review is that we will no

longer be able to use the La Collette area for major public disposal. In other words,

the public will simply have to go to alternative sites and in that sense we are all

grateful that we have been looking at that issue, as it were, before we were obliged to

look at it anyway.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Right, jolly good --

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) I interrupted you mid-flow. I appreciate what you are saying, Minister, thank you for

that. I did not mean to interrupt the officer, but I just wanted to make it on the record

that I have been one of the most strongly - not critics - but sort of scrutineers, I guess,

on this issue and I am heartened. I am going to go back and tell people that are

affected by this, not just residents but also visitors and hotel owners and guesthouse

owners, and I can say that while the end may be in sight, we do not know what the

end will be. I can certainly say from a fair perspective, the department has been doing

a thorough job in investigating proposals. It had been looking at alternatives because

of the Buncefield issue which the Minister has just mentioned, as I say, I think it is

commendable. I will go back and make that known.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

We are very grateful to you, Deputy Le Claire, but as a word of caution, I would point out that La Collette is still a potential site --

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) I understand that.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

-- so I would not want you to get anyone's hopes up --

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) No, no, I fully understand that the end decision has to be made and it might not

necessarily please most people, but what I want to give evidence to is the fact that we

have looked at all of the other opportunities and we have come up with what is the

best solution. So far what I am hearing is that we are going through that process so

we do not have those concerns.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel: Stage 2.

Mr. W. Gardiner :

We are progressing with stage 2. This is really a technical evaluation of each of the sites and it is undertaken with colleagues in Planning, Environment and Public Health. Transport  and  Technical  Services  develop  criteria  for  key  requirements  that  we believe are necessary consideration for any composting site and those are set out for you there.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) Where are those?

Mr. W. Gardiner : They are at --

Mr. J. Richardson: Under that table.

Mr. W. Gardiner :

Unfortunately I did not give you page numbers. Under stage 2, technical evaluation process. So, we look again at wider compatibility for the Island there, not just land zoning, issues such as visual impact, biodiversity and heritage impact are covered. We are looking at operational criteria in particular, connection of power and drainage, construction criteria such as the levelness of the site and the likely cost impact -- sorry, the likely scale of cost impact for operational criteria. Environmental criteria are largely based on noise in stage 2. This is because issues such as odour and dust with in-vessel composting systems usually can be controlled to a state that that is not a primary factor, noise becomes the primary factor in in-vessel composting services provided they are controlled effectively but we will be looking in detail at wider nuisance in stage 3. But we did not want to spend a lot of money on an enormous combination of sites because we have still got, as I will explain, a large number of combinations that we are looking at with 12 sites and a number of those sites have more than one potential solution to contribute to. We also look at the bio-aerosol risk again and hazard zoning. In terms of access and transportation criteria we are looking at the proximity to waste arisings and we have done 2 surveys then at La Collette on the parish by parish arising of green waste for both commercial and public reception. So we now know 2 snapshots admittedly, but reasonable basis on where the waste is coming from. That has been very helpful in thinking about scoring particular sites against that requirement so obviously the site at St. Ouen s is not going to score so highly as the site in --

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) When did you do those snapshots?

Mr. W. Gardiner :

One was done in early July and one was done in April, I believe.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) So both at a time when the foliage is at its growing --

Mr. W. Gardiner : Yes.

Male Speaker:

Yes. This year in particular.

Mr. W. Gardiner :

I am sure we could share those as part of the work if you are interested. We are also looking at the traffic junction access requirement that would be necessary for each site at a high level, not in any terms of a detailed feasibility access because that would be expensive on such a high number of combinations as far as getting that revisited at stage 3. The likely impact on the programme of - so in other words, things like vacant possession come into play there. If we are talking about a site which needs a lot of work to it that is going to have a delay and we thought it important to value, as the Chair mentioned, how long this is going to take is of absolute importance. So, what we have done is divide stage 2 into 2 processes. One is wherever a solution - and when we are saying a solution it is a site being considered as either public reception, commercial reception or a treatment facility or a third of a treatment facility - all those things on the table. Wherever it is unlikely to be viable against any of those criteria we are going to strike it out because otherwise we will have, we worked out I think, 140 different combinations to evaluate at stage 2. So what we are doing is we are saying that it is unlikely to be viable and look at the reasonable combinations of solutions that are likely to be viable against those criteria in detail in stage 2 and we call that stage 2B. Well, I did not explain very well but did it make sense?

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) Well, up until stage 2B, yes.

Mr. W. Gardiner : Okay, let me try again.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) No, I did get that, but I just would like to ask though stage 2 and you have got stage A

where you break down the enormous amounts of possibilities to ones that can be

practical. So what is stage B going to be?

Mr. W. Gardiner :

Stage 2B will look at those criteria and score them and we are using a scoring mechanism  where  our  colleagues  in  the  different  departments,  for  example  in Planning, will score compatibility with the Island Plan, probably Environment will look  at  the  environmental  criteria,  colleagues  in  Public  Health  will  look  at  the nuisance criteria and score them, the individual solutions against those sites against the score of a weighting table. Say, for each category of criteria using compatibility of the Island Plan, there will be a plus 2 score if there is not any contradiction with the Island Plan at all developing on that site. A minus 2 score would mean that you have got significant issues to overcome against the Island Plan.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) It seems that this is all very thorough. What analysis has been factored in in relation

to finances and options for getting there? Where would that money come from?

Have you been restricted or have you just imagined you have had a big bank account

which allows you to do what you want?

Mr. W. Gardiner :

Well, because of the need to get down to the nub of the latter really in terms of which sites are really viable and look best, we have saved the financial, legal and full technical evaluation on those sites to stage 3. So once we get down to what we are hoping is no more than 5 sites, 5 solutions if you like, there will be a full financial, legal and technical appraisal of those 5 combinations. Just because to do that for the number of combinations we are dealing with --

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) It would be a waste of money, yes.

Mr. W. Gardiner :

-- it would take a long time we worked out. Initially, that is what we are trying to do. So in stage 3 we are looking at the operational criteria, environmental criteria in detail, access and transportation criteria including a full traffic feasibility assessment and then there are capital and operational costs, land values and we will do full legal checks both on the States' sites and private sites --

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) Make sure they have got the land, yes.

Mr. W. Gardiner : Exactly. So that is --

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Will each site be assessed on the applicability or not of a particular type of treatment plant --

Mr. W. Gardiner : Technology.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

-- for technology, because obviously there is a major issue as to some sites might well be deemed to be too small for one particular technological operation but a perfect size for another.

Mr. W. Gardiner :

I think that was dealt with really in stage 1 because what we found is that the type of technology does not really have an effect on the land take, so the issue of the site being too small in relation to technology I think we have overcome. It is more about testing a range of combinations against single sites where you get --

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

So is the key criterion on site on-site availability of land for maturation?

Mr. W. Gardiner :

Not in every case. It would be, in terms of stage 3 -- we have not done stage 3 yet so that is sort of pre-empting it really. But stage 3 will look at application of the footprint that we have developed at stage 1 which includes sufficient area for maturation and the technology development to take place. You will see in response to Deputy Le Claire's question how the choice of technology does not really have a major effect on that range of solution. In fact looking at the different types of technology; tunnels, enclosed halls, vessels, containers, cage systems and vertical systems, there is, once you include maturation either in the vessel or outside the vessel, the range is -- enclosed halls are probably 110 per cent, let us say, and cages is 89 per cent. So that is the sort of rounded range.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Yes, but specifically what you are working up is there must be maturation on site?

Mr. W. Gardiner :

What we are working at is a solution which deals with the total problem, yes. Because to be fair to different technologies, because some do deal with maturation in- vessel, some do not, but to be a fair assessment and not to pre-empt the tender evaluation, we have to make the assumption that both processes had to be included.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Right, okay. I have got one general question before we carry on. On page 3 it says: "November 2000, T and TS (Transport and Technical Services) agree to review the potential offered by privately owned sites for a long term replacement for the current La Collette green waste composting operation in addition to the States owned sites that are already under consideration." To what extent are you allowing any development of, or working up of, a potential solution to be flexible enough to incorporate the potential to add in food waste should that be decided upon by the States?

Mr. W. Gardiner :

We are required under the strategy to incorporate sufficient capacity for food waste and we have allowed an extension area as part of the evaluation of space for, I think it is 8,000 tonnes of food waste.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Eight thousand tons? Yes, okay.

Mr. W. Gardiner :

Which is based on the assumptions in the strategy.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

That is interesting, that. You mention 8,000 tons, but in previous documentation, we have been told that there is of the order of 17,000 tonnes of food waste.

Mr. W. Gardiner :

That is -- sorry, 17,000 tonnes of input, but 8,000 tonnes of processed which is soggier.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Right, okay. Fair enough. Okay.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

What has happened with the sludge? Sewage sludge, are you looking at utilising any of that in the process?

Mr. J. Richardson:

Sewage sludge at the moment, because of the land bank issues is probably going to go to  the  Energy  from  Waste  plant.  The  options  are  being  kept  open  in  terms  of availability of land bank and the competition of the Island's land banks for all the various commodities that go to that land bank, whether it is compost of whichever degree and grade we end up with, food waste if it is in compost or not in the future, sewage sludge, animal manure, existing vegetable waste coming from the Agriculture Ministry  itself  which  they  are  dealing  with  now.   When  you  take  all  those combinations of, I think it is 6 I have just counted out there, clearly there is one land bank on the Island which is competing for all that material, so there is a balance to strike, and with the protocols which I am sure you have seen, that certainly are becoming much, much stricter now for the agricultural land, then the application or the ability to apply to agricultural land is reducing, which means that the other land, the normal green land, open space land, is becoming very restricted in terms of availability for sewage sludge. It certainly looks at the moment as if the ultimate route will be dried sludge to agricultural land where it is possible. Bear in mind there is now a rule of 3 months when no material can go to land at all in each year, because of the wet conditions. So, I think where we will end up is, where appropriate dried and  fully  thermally  treated  sewage  sludge  on  the  land  where  that  land  bank  is available. But where it is not available, then it will be disposed of through Energy for Waste plant or replacement Bellozane plant.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) Can I ask you 2 questions from that, please, John? The first one, if I could, is, you say

there is a 3 months' window where the land is too wet to apply the sludge, given our

recent weather cycle -- or am I wrong?

Mr. J. Richardson:

Sorry. No, not just sludge. It is all application - compost as well.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) So, given the --

Deputy R.C. Duhamel: Only in nitrate sensitive areas.

Mr. J. Richardson:

I am not going to disagree. I am not sure about that, but certainly the indications we get from the industry is there is a 3 month period in the year - whether it is a combination of nitrate sensitive and condition of land - where it is extremely difficult, if not almost impossible, to get access on to farm land for disposal of compost or sewage sludge. So, nitrate, I am sure, plays an important role, but its practical acceptability and availability of land, that the farmers effectively close us down.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

From our calculations, I do not think it is an issue. But we would be happy to exchange and to argue over the calculations.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) Can I ask in what respect do you not believe it to be an issue?

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Well, we have calculated that we need of the order of 2,000 vergées for food or co- composted material of green waste. Obviously, if you are adding in sewage sludge to the mix, then that would change the figures slightly. Certainly, if the problem was split into 2, which is the situation that is coming forward at the moment, and the sewage sludge is dealt with in a different fashion to food waste and co-composting or green waste, then 2,000 vergées on the total land available within the Island is not an issue.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) You say it is not an issue because the owners of that land have already agreed --

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

It is not an issue because within the make-up of that land, it is not just agricultural, it  

is amenity land as well, and if you only need of the order of 20,000 tonnes and 2,000  Deleted:  0

Inserted:  0 vergées,  and  there  is  the  order  of  64,000  vergées  on  the  Island  -  admittedly,  a

proportion of that is built upon, but we do have an element of gardens, we have an

element of golf courses and other amenity land - 2,000 on the total land available is not an over-bearing burden to be

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) That is what my first question was going to be. How do you make an assessment, if I

could ask? The Chairman knows his figures from his background, I guess. That was

the first question I wanted to ask. I now understand the difficulty in applying it to the

land because of the conditions, with the seasonal changes we are seeing. Who knows,

that might increase the difficulties. But what assessment, and on what scientific basis

is the department working on in relation to the actual land bank? In terms of 64,000

vergées on the Island - and I did not know it was that much - you probably have done

the work to identify that, but where can we see what is the analysis of the land? You

said there are 6 different applications to the land base. Could you provide us with an

assessment of the land base and the different things so we can see exactly, from your

perspective, what you are looking at and from our perspective, what we think we

might be able to suggest as options that you have probably factored in – just to see

that we are all looking at the same pie, basically?

Mr. W. Gardiner :

In response to the Scrutiny form, waste recycling details, given the assumptions that you have made, and in our detailed response to the findings we would provide a breakdown of what we think the available land is.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) Where did you get that information from?

Mr. W. Gardiner :

That was from a variety of different sources.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) Could you provide that information to us, as to where you have got your calculations

for the land? Because that is what I am after is to see how you have assessed your

Mr. W. Gardiner :

I think the overall finding, without pre-empting that response, was that we would not disagree that there was the potential for that land to be available. The difficulty is that it is not just available in a vacuum. It has got a number of different conflicting uses as well as the operational application concerns and the financial drivers, and through our experience of applying different types of material to land, farmers are going to take commercial opportunities where they arise. That vegetable material applied to land, for example, is not likely to attract a lesser cost than green waste derived compost, for example. So, while there might be the potential for that material to be applied to land, you have got to think about the way that farmers approach this and the way that the land is used in rotation, and a combination of things. So, the actual availability of that land may not be economically available --

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) I think this is a crucial assessment that needs to be undertaken by --

Mr. W. Gardiner : They are going to do it.

Mr. J. Richardson:

I think it is absolutely crucial. The sums add up. I do not think we disagree with you in  terms  of  the  sums  and  the  theoretical  calculations  of  land  bank  availability, application rate and how much land could be available to use. The issue comes down to --

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

It is down to organisation. Yes.

Mr. J. Richardson:

Well, not organisation. It is down to acceptability of the product. Will the farmers accept it? Does it conform to the protocols that they are working to with their supplies, if it is on agricultural land used for growing crops? Does it fit in within their rotational cycle? Does it fit in with the competing demands of other materials? Because if you look at the rural initiative scheme, where there is an emphasis on storing cow slurry for the 3 wet months of the year, it means that at the end of that period, the dairy industry has a large stockpile of slurry manure which they want to apply to land. So, immediately, for a period of time when that time scale ends, a large element of land subject to the application matrix is then used up to dispose of that backlog of slurry. All of these have got to be factored in to the availability of land. I think, when it comes to making the comparison between theoretical calculations and practical application, when you take all of those factors into account, what do you find? Certainly our experience, when you are working with the industry, is that the theoretical calculations do not work. You have then got to look at --

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I  think  you  are  missing  out  a  chunk  there,  because  it  is  not  just  working  with agricultural partners, it is working with the other partners at land that would be suitable or could be suitable.

Mr. J. Richardson:

I totally agree and, no, we are not missing that out at all. We are not just talking about agricultural land used for growing crops, we are talking about the Island's land bank. That is absolutely crucial. We can completely agree with you. We are not missing it out. Please do no think we are.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) From a politician's perspective, what I am doing is, I am discussing with colleagues

possible application of compost to different areas within the Island, depending upon

what the compost is made up of. Obviously, we know from a very basic level that

there is soil improvement. There are various levels of different compost that can be

used in potting plants, et cetera, maybe stymieing the importation of product, or

helping to stymie the importation of product. Maybe taxing those would help to

favourably diminish the amount of stuff that is being brought in and sold, although we

have spoken to garden centres and there is a high margin in everything else. But it is

the quality in relation to, also, potted plants, and the guy from Flying Flowers, I think,

now is selling potted plants, so those applications from an industry perspective. There

are all different types of applications. But what is very interesting is, if you look at all

of this different material, and you say some it has got to has got sewage sludge and

some of it in future may have food waste in it and some of it may not. Some of it may

be maturated down into a soil improver and some of it may be just shredded where it is on the land. Some of it may be bagged and sold off Island. What is, of necessity for politicians to understand, is they need to look at an aerial view of the Island and see which parts of the Island are agricultural, like in the Island plan, and this is what needs to be drawn up in the Island plan, which parts are actively in agricultural use? As you say, there are 6 different types of use. We need to know which organisations are those farms being used in conjunction with; for example, there is a field here which belongs to the Jersey Rural Organisation. They will have a list as to what they do with that field - when they plant it, when they seed it, when they turn it, when they leave it and everything else. If we can make an assessment as politicians in ticking off the boxes and see, then we can come to a position where we understand. At the moment what is happening is, I am taking it on face value. These notional sums I cannot see and I cannot evaluate for myself. Other politicians, conversely, are taking it on face value that there is no land available. When you speak to somebody like the Constable of Trinity who is a farmer himself, and you tell him that there is other land that could be used to put composting on, and he tells me that there is no land available, then I think: "Well, I think there are some, somewhere", that is not satisfactory. I am not saying that he is right or I am right. I am not saying he is wrong or I am. What I would like to know if possible, and would like to see is an actual evaluation - and I do not want you to be doing it, because it is obviously Agriculture Department's business to know what is happening with the land, but if you have got anything on what you have been working on, I would like to know if we can have it, so that we can then go off in that direction and ask the Agriculture Department: "How much land have you got? What is it being used for? Who is actively involved in agriculture? Who is not involved in agriculture? Who wants to get out? Who has turned it into a cricket pitch? Who has got it sitting fallow? Who has got some cars parked on it? Who has got alternative uses? Who would possibly take up an option?" If we can do that, I think we are doing what we need to do. Otherwise, we are all going on: "There is" "There is not", and it is not good enough.

Mr. W. Gardiner :

We did gather information from our colleagues in Agriculture and Parks and Gardens in developing our --

You have done that?

Mr. W. Gardiner :

-- outlying assessment. It is not fully systematic system that I think you are outlining there, it is more a --

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) I think that would be our task, because that is an extremely time-consuming thing to

do. But I think that is something we could do as Scrutiny. We could go and look and

see. I do not think that is your responsibility. You can evaluate.

Mr. J. Richardson:

I do not disagree with the theory of what you are trying to do. But I think you have got to try and take a mid-position of the practical option, because if you look at our operation which is compost, sewage sludge, which are -- compost that goes to land is accepted quality at the moment and we have got a number of farmers and non- agricultural people who will take it - golf course type scenarios - and we have got sewage sludge which, when it is in its dried condition, a number of agricultural and non-agricultural, depending on rotation issues, will take it from us. So, in terms of disposal of those 2 end products, we have got a pretty good data base of land and people on the Island who will take it. Now, I would not for one minute suggest that that data base covers 100 per cent of the Island and land availability, but it is those who are prepared to take it. There you have got to factor in when the conditions are right and when their land is available to take that material. Now, I think our data base is pretty comprehensive, but I can give you an example of last week, there was no land available for application of any material, and the staff were frantically ringing round trying to find land that was available for disposal of sewage sludge. If we had not got the sludge drier back into service last week, we would have been bagging semi-dried sewage sludge and storing it, because there was no land available. No one would take it 2 weeks ago.

Mr. W. Gardiner :

It has happened a number of times.

Mr. J. Richardson:

It has happened a number of times. So, what I am putting over to you is, if you take a theoretical, as you say, aerial photograph of the land and you try and identify all of the land that could be used for, whether it is agricultural or non-agricultural, then you try and build that data base up, I think we will be here in 2015 still trying to work out, let alone trying to get a pump running in 2009.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I do not think we definitely have to do that. But I think there has to be a general kind of  meeting  in  between  the  2  different  positions  to  accept,  as  you  have  already accepted, that there is a land base, the application and everything implies that it could be all got rid of on to land, but there might well be organisational problems in determining a schedule for the spreading of such materials, and some work would have to be done.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) Chairman, there unquestionably would be organisational problems. I do not believe

States is likely  to get  into the business  of  compulsorily insisting on disposal of

composted waste on to private property. Therefore, if I may finish -- you cited an

example of golf courses. Sure, there are plenty of golf courses. They certainly do not

grow  agricultural  products,  and  therefore  a  mixed  compost  solution  would  be

potentially viable. Assuming that the owners and members of the golf club were

happy for that to take place. I suggest that is by no means a certainty. Similarly,

while it is possible to take theoretical overview of the available land mass of the

Island, I think we all are entirely aware that there are huge tracts of it where it would

be entirely inappropriate to have any form of composted waste disposal. You would

simply be altering the local ecology. So, this is a difficult issue. It has taken a period

of time to build up our own green waste composting. Firstly, building confidence in

the local community it is a product that is reliable and of high quality. But let us not

forget that we still have to pay farmers to distribute to the land. It is not something

that they pay us for, or accept for nothing. They also have difficulty in that various

products have different impacts on the ph values of the soil and the chemical content.

So, this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an easy area to deal with. The

difficulty the department faces is that we must have certainty. We cannot go ahead with projects and processes unless we have a very clear view of  what the final disposal point is going to be. We do not deal simply in waste treatment. The department is responsible for waste disposal, which means there must be a final resting place for everything that we process. That is, frankly, the key issue.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

That is why I am asking what work has been done on it, and I am asking whether or not we can take an evaluation as to what is available. There is a couple of things that I am tempted to say, tempted not to say. I do not want to be unhelpful. I think the thing, maybe moving on to something that would help to ascertain where I am coming from: it is a costly exercise to recycle this material, and to do the best use of all of this, and it is something that is causing the States of Jersey an enormous amount of time and energy. It is a good thing we are doing, undoubtedly. There is a new directive in the Island plan, an amendment that was brought by Senator Perchard to say where States' functions are not necessary, we should be looking to cut those back. There are issues, therefore, about the dissemination of not only the location but also the working practices in the private sector. But as you rightly say, the farmers are being paid to put this on their land. Now, our investigations had us meeting with some farmers that could not get their hands on enough of it. The application rates which the department have put down and everything else, which are ever moving targets in relation to the industry which -- I am not a scientist, so I am not going to start mentioning it. Those need to be assessed. One thing I do know is that the department obviously has an ongoing issue with sewage sludge, and I am not trying to talk about sewage sludge, I am trying to talk about composting - if it could be incorporated or if it could not be. The fact that it could be, or it might be or might not be, that is obviously a factor. But putting sewage sludge to one side for the moment, I know when the trial was done when I asked if the sewage sludge was being factored into the compost, that you distributed it to some farms at the time to see if they wanted it. I went to speak to the managing director of Jersey Royal, and we were talking about the processes of what can and cannot be applied to land at the time, and he was quite concerned to find that one of his growers had had the application to his land which, in his view, should not have happened. Now, there needs to be, in my view, an assessment of what land bank and application rates there are within the department by us, so we can have a clear view as to what we are offering as an alternative in relation to distribution. Also, another factor that is missing from all of this, which I would like to start to introduce although it has already been on the cards for a long time - an introduction of a gate fee for the reception of this stuff. It is costing us money, the States of Jersey, to pay farmers to take it after we have had an extremely expensive process in dealing with it. When I was down there yesterday watching all of the commercial vehicles coming in, some of them uncovered, with huge piles in pretty much an unsafe state, arriving at the reception area, I am thinking these people are making a good buck out of this. A lot of them who do this gardening service, have told me, including Mr. Binet , that 9 times out of 10, if they were told that there would be a gate fee which would help to offset these costs, averages the amounts being received, 9 times out of 10 they would be told by the people they are gardening for: "Do not bother taking that down to La Collette, create my own little compost area down there at the end of my land." What consideration has been given, if any at all, to the introduction of a gate fee for commercial receptions or private receptions of green waste? It is costing us money to distribute it. Has the department been thinking along those lines of what the revenue could or could not - or just completely excluding that?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) In broad terms, we give very close consideration to gate fees across the range of

products,  and  in actual  fact,  in respect  of  pallet boards,  to  pick up  a  particular

example, the introduction of a gate fee and how we would handle it over time, has

effectively created an internal market within the Island in pallet boards. There are at

least 2 private contractors who deal with pallet boards in various ways, and because

they are prepared to pay a minor figure per board, in contrast to the gate fee that

people would pay to dispose of pallets down at our particular reception areas, that is

working very well. Now, I do not know quite the impact of a gate fee on green waste,

commercial or domestic, because the other side to the coin is that we do see, even

though an enormous amount of waste is accepted for nothing, there is still fly tipping

going on. I think it is a very fine line between charging gate fees that will work and

have positive effects, and charging fees that simply encourage the less reliable folk in

our community to simply chuck rubbish where they feel is most convenient. Now, I

am aware, clearly some people might feel if they are avoiding a charge that they wish

to start composting on their own land. However, unfortunately, it is the experience of the  department  over  years,  that  in  many  cases  where  this  happens  those  people involved do not really understand the mechanics of composting; do not understand the importance of maintaining the anaerobic decomposition, turning the composting pile, and we end up with really unpleasant, foul-smelling, ghastly mixtures of leachate and various  remnants  in  dreadful  piles  all  round  the  Island,  which  simply  create  an unpleasant public nuisance. So, I will ask the Chief Officer to give you a clearer detail of how we do tackle gate fees, but it is a very difficult issue, and if you get it wrong it can have much more expensive repercussions, because you end up with very expensive  clean-up  fees  around  the  Island,  because  people  have  just  dumped anywhere.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I think we need evidence for that, because I think it is anecdotal at the moment.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) You can call me a liar, but I have seen it with my own eyes, and I would not talk

about fly tipping if I was not aware that it unquestionably goes on. I have had the

evidence. I  offer  it  to  you.   I  have  seen  it  take  place. There  is,  even  now,

indiscriminate use of even legitimate dumping. Around our harbours you will find

litterbins filled with computer monitors and entirely inappropriate --

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

To be fair, we are talking about the indiscriminate dumping of green waste material from garden contractors who should know better.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) Yes, they should, but it does not prevent them. If the opportunity to do something for

nothing is removed, people do not like having to pay.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) I do not think the Chairman was calling you a liar.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France)

No, sure.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

I am sorry. I do not think the Chairman was -- stop there for a second, if you could.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:   Formatted: French (France) I am sorry. I apologise. I over-reacted. I offer my apologies to the Chairman.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) I think where he is coming from, which is where we are looking at as well, is that it is

significantly expensive and it is a significant nuisance to some people how we are

managing that at the moment. Education is an ongoing process, and dealing with the

green waste in different areas and in different applications, if we had been talking in a

void without all of this work you have been doing, which has been great, it would be a

never-ending discussion. But I think emotive issues about fly tipping and all the rest

of it, will probably be addressed in separate shredding areas that are available. But

surely, there must be a stick and a carrot approach to some of these sorts of issues in

relation  to  the  fact  that  if  you  encourage  the  gardening  companies  to  have  an

understanding - and surely some of them do have an understanding - rather than just

turning up at La Collette and unloading it, they will save themselves money in fuel;

they will save themselves money in time. Surely we can reach out and we can

provide  some  education.   But,  certainly,  on  its  own  it  is  all  anecdotal,  and

notwithstanding all that, there certainly are issues with people fly tipping. Now, you

have seen it. So, therefore, we have got an expensive facility at the moment that is

being operated in a location which is causing a lot of people a lot of issues, and yet we

still have fly tipping. So, what I am asking is, is there an opportunity to encourage by

the introduction of a gate fee, a more responsible situation than we have got?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) Well, we have looked at this already. John can give you a breakdown on the general

theory of gate fees.

Mr. J. Richardson:

Before I get to the gate fees, I think you have got to turn the clock back to --

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) Fly tipping is illegal, first of all. Let us make that clear.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) So is speeding.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye: It is against the law.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) So is speeding, taking drugs, getting drunk. People just break the law.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) It is a fact people do.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

It is a question of degree, is it not? I will give you an example. The other day I went down to have a look at La Collette because it was particularly smelly in town, and there was an onshore wind blowing from the southwest or the southeast or whatever, and I went down and had a look, and I said I thought that the problems had been caused by the shredding operation. It was not. It was a turning operation. I had a word with Lou Wagstaff and I think it was Mr. Fauvelle was called in as well, and we had a chat. Part and parcel of the problem was, it was being suggested, that the piles were turning anaerobic and that was not just caused by the material in the piles, but there were also occasions where anaerobic material was being delivered to the site and it smelt. Everybody knows that is the case. I said to the 2 officers involved, I said: "Well, surely you could charge for that material? Or, failing that, just put up a big sign to say that you are not going to accept any material to your shredding site or composting site in the short term or whatever. It is not going to be a large amount, once the message strikes home. If people are going to be charged for material that is going to cause your department problems, and problems with substantiate or not by members of the public, why accept it?" They said they would love to be able to charge, or at least to put up a sign to say that any material that does not fit the bill in terms of it is freshly cut or whatever and is going to cause you problems, you do not take it. I mean, you do not have to take it.

Mr. J. Richardson:

I think we agree with you, and if the opportunity was there to charge, we would certainly look at it. But I think, certainly, before --

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

The point is you do charge. You charge for the large tree trunks. Right? You have introduced a new charge for pallet boards, and that is not a long-standing thing. It has just recently occurred. So that the actual issue of charging for the materials to come to be disposed of in whatever fashion by your department, it is an established procedure, albeit not particularly highly, perhaps. But that is the point Paul was making.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

It costs us to get rid of it. We cannot give it away for free. It is costing us money.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Can we not look at a semi-charging system or ?

Mr. J. Richardson:

Chairman, can I make a point? Because this is being transcribed, and that transcription is going to be absolutely useless today, because we are talking across each other. I have sat in so many Scrutiny Panel meetings where the transcription has been useless to us and to everyone because we have talked across each other. I am sorry I am raising it, but I think this discussion is starting to go into a very poor state because we are cutting across each other. I am very happy to answer questions, but I would ask that we respect each other by not talking across each other, because that transcription - we might as well turn it off, the rate we are going. So, can I continue where I started, where the Minister asked me to start, which was to try and explain a little bit about gate fee, and some of the background and some of the experience we have had in the past in terms of distributed composting and alternatives, which we are quite happy to look at this, but I think we have got a lot of background evidence and a lot of history now, in terms of how it has and has not worked and some of the legislation that is now in place, which I would suggest is probably much stronger, much more onerous on us and the private operator now, if we go to that formal route. We started by trying satellite composting on farms many years ago, and it was the Minister that said, and there is evidence, because it is on committee record and, I think, Deputy Duhamel, you were a member at the time, it was stopped because of pollution problems.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I take strong issue with that. I think it was stopped for other reasons as well.

Mr. J. Richardson:

There may have been other reasons, but one of the prime reasons was there was evidence of pollution of this material not being turned when it should have been turned, and leachate running off the site, and leachate pools. If you want the photographs I will gladly go back in the archives and get them for you. So, we have got that evidence of not working well. That was before the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000, and clearly now any composting that were to take place in any form of satellite location, whether it is on anything other than a domestic garden compost, admittedly, would require approval from the Environment Department or Planning in terms of leachate collection and treatment. So, I think we are going into a much, much bigger and a very different scenario now to where we were when we tried satellite composting. Not to say satellite composting does not work. In an open windrow situation you would certainly need proper drainage and leachate collection of some form. Before we get to the gate fee issue, in terms then of how you could operate any type of remote composting on a number of locations will require a reception facility at that location, and a shredding facility and a composting technology of whatever format. Alternatively, it can be a central reception, central shredding, and distributor composting. Now, these are exactly the things which we are looking at as part of this major report we are doing. Whichever one you do, there is a significant cost, regardless of whether it is public sector or private sector who provide that facility. You have got the capital cost of one or more shredders, you either have a shredder on each site and you have got to man it and operate it and maintain it, or you have one shredder that goes round several sites each day or each week and shreds it and processes it. So, you have got the capital cost of setting the facility up, and you have got an operating cost and there are loads of scenarios you can work through to get to that stage. Now, the question then is, how do you establish a gate fee? So, if we set a gate fee for our facility which says for every kilogram or every ton or every delivery of material that comes to us, we will charge you the customer x per ton, if that means that they are not going to bring it to me but they are going to go to someone - let us assume that 2 or 3 in the private sector are happy to operate that facility, they will then have to cover the cost of capital and the cost of operating. So, they are going to look for a return on that. If you look at the UK market and European market, the only way these processes become viable is when you put them into one single site of a very large scale, which has got a big enough throughput and turnover to cover your cost of capital and your cost of operation. So, go to the private sector, and if the private sector can set up and run, and operate at a profit, or certainly make a viable business, great; good luck. But at the moment, the indications are that does not happen, and when you look at the UK and European market, that certainly does not happen. So, I am not quite sure why Jersey would be different. But if we set a gate fee, we could set a gate fee of £1 or whatever rate -- the rate is not the issue, the principle is. Once you set the gate fee, you are then saying the market is free to operate, and the pallet board is an extremely good example. The reason that the market works for pallet boards is because there is an end market which has got value to it. You then have to consider the value of the product, and the pallet board is a product with a value to it, and the cost of processing to get it to that re-use stage is of a certain scale. The cost of composting is a cost of processing at an end value, and unfortunately in those 2, the 2 do not balance. So, whatever you set your gate fee, you have got to try to make that equation balance, and unfortunately with composting the only way it is being found to work sitting on all the sites we have seen in the UK is a mass single site, one big plant.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I think the difference, though, has to be taken into account is this gate fee for pallet boards has only just come about. It is a very, very recent ministerial decision. I am not even sure it has been formally recorded as yet. I have not looked, to tell you the truth. But the difference between pallet boards and a gate fee, and compost and a gate fee, is that with pallet boards at the moment you have got a private operator who is beavering away to generate business, based on the resource recovery of those materials. I think, personally, the same thing could happen if it were allowed to happen, or encouraged to happen, as indeed it has been for wood pallets, in terms of composting facilities as well.

Mr. J. Richardson:

The first thing I would say is, the pallet board gate fee is not new. It has been in for about 6 or 7 years. If you look at our scale of charges published annually, you will always see pallet boards there. It is not new, we have just changed the mechanism of how we operate it. So, pallet board gate fee is not new; it has been in for a long while. What we have done is changed the operation in order to make the market work better. So, that is the first point I need to stress.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

So, what was it before then? I had heard that it was £1 a board, to be delivered.

Mr. J. Richardson: That is the new fee. Yes.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

That is what I am saying. This is the new gate fee.

Mr. J. Richardson:

The gate fee. If you look at our scale of charges published annually, pallet board reception has been a chargeable product for the last 6 or 7 years. It was up at £6.50 a board, I think.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

So it has gone from £6.50 a board to £1.

Mr. J. Richardson:

We have changed the way in which the market runs. But all I am using pallet boards for is as a demonstration that there is a market which can work below that gate fee, which is viable because there is value in the end product. To make gate fees work for composting, you would have to set a gate fee and you would have to set a charging mechanism that allowed the value of the end product to be sufficient to allow private sector to operate under that fee - and the chances are that does not work.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

This is where we get into the economics and the financial aspects of running our composting organisation. I mean, if for the sake of example, we were talking about a shredding facility being operated by the department or any other kind of private operator, they would presumably charge a gate fee for material to come in to be shredded, and you are absolutely right, that gate fee charge would have to bear some relation to the further add-on value that could be made for taking that shredded material to turn it into a fully composted material. Or otherwise you would kill your market or move people into an area of suggesting that there is no value in materials and push them towards the fly tipping scenario. But, personally, I think there is perhaps an argument for looking at gate fees for at least part of the services that are being operated by the Transport and Technical Services Department at the moment and if, picking up on what Paul was suggesting about private businesses wishing to enter into the market, if indeed it was felt a sensible direction to be going in in terms of a States' policy to encourage private businesses to take up some of these materials and do useful and valued things to them, then perhaps a centre ground might develop sooner than you think.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) Well, I want to make it clear that the department does encourage private businesses

and there are a number of them currently operating. I have only recently signed a new

contract  for  Reclamit  to  carry  on  and  extend  their  operations  from  paper  and

cardboard to now include plastic but I think you must realise there is a level, I think,

of public responsibility involved. One of the reasons that we carry out the sort of

operations that we do now - as I think the Chief Officer explained well - was because

when they were tried historically in the private sector for whatever reason or reasons,

there was a failure and consequent public concern and therefore the department in

essence picked up a loose ball and took responsibility for the problem. I will continue

to retain a level of concern over private run operations because the motivation is not

the public responsibility or public service; it is profit. Wherever there is profit to be

made, there is a tendency to cut corners, to not worry so much about the quality of the product and there is, I think, a serious underlying issue in how any private operator would carry out their operations. There is clearly a need for some level of supervision and/or regulation because I believe there is an inbuilt element to the way the free market system works which, in many respects, reflects the private profit motive and not the public interest.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

No, but I think your officer did tell you that conditions had changed legislative-wise and that we did have a water pollution law and while he was not not in favour of independent satellite operations, he did feel that, under the present law, some of the things that may or may not have happened in the past would certainly not happen if they were operated in the same fashion today.

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) I always listen to my Chief Officer's advice but I would want to make it clear to you

as the Scrutiny Panel that I have distinct reservations about the capacity of the private

sector to do what I would regard as a proper job.

Mr. J. Richardson:  

Can I raise one other point which I think is very important? We should not overlook the fact that there are probably at least 3 operators now; private sector large scale landscape gardeners or whatever who do that service themselves now because the product they produce is of a very high quality that they can sell but it is very selective in terms of the product. The other point is that there are a number of sites around the Island that Planning have investigated because of apparent land raising issues that, when you look at the quality and the type of product that has been put into them, has raised serious concerns and I think that has been the matter of public record that Planning have used enforcement action. So there is an issue about regulation and managing of that site but there is a balance to strike between the 2 and if you look at some of the larger scale landscape gardeners on the Island, they will take their certain types of green waste which they take from your property and they will produce woodchip and material which they will sell on. It is a viable market which they can operate in. But when you look at the type of material that goes down to La Collette, it tends to be the very wet green waste, grass cutting, et cetera or oversize, the tree roots type of area which is very difficult to dispose needs a very specialist process which is extremely expensive in terms of cost.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel: You do charge for tree roots.

Mr. J. Richardson: We charge for tree roots.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

That is right. That is the point.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Can I say, the last couple of days I have been down at La Collette looking at the gardens for the Britain in Bloom thing with the Parish and, at the same time, I have been talking to residents and businesses there - and it might be an ongoing factor but I do not see it done every day - I have noticed a recent large pile of what looks like clean wood material. It is interesting to hear that you have gone from a pallet collecting process of £6.50 to £1 and then, suddenly, there enormous pile of clean wood appears. I am wondering --

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:

We can give you a very straightforward explanation for that. That is in anticipation and we gave the local contractors 3 months warning of the new charges coming in. One of the processors of pallet boards - who is least favoured in terms of the recycling or re-use hierarchy - cuts the pallet boards into kindling wood by basically running band saws longitudinally across them, thereby leaving all the big chunks of wood to which the original smaller boards are nailed down to because he does not need the kindling wood and does not use them. He then takes them by the lorry load back to us. We have decided that that is inappropriate abuse of our facilities and will now be levying a significant charge on, as it were, chopped up pallet board bits but because we gave them a 3-month warning, he is in the process of trying to shift every single pallet board that he can get down to us before charges cut in. So there has been a sudden surge which is you have seen this huge pile develop. It is a temporary effect.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Hang on, that is not quite the case. From what I had heard, there is a partnership agreement that has been negotiated over the last 3 years whereby this operator took out boards to be repaired, boards to be converted into kindling wood and the blocks were to be returned to the department to allow the department to make animal bedding because they are shredded. Now I think it has since been decided by the department that, for whatever reason, they have decided not to be in animal bedding any more and so it has been stated to the operator that there will be a charge placed on those blocks being delivered back to La Collette because they are no longer required. It is only a short-term operation because if the market existed previously for animal bedding in terms of what Transport and Technical Services were doing, then presumably the market will be displaced in the direction of this other operator or anybody else and they will continue to make the product and profitably because I believe it was being done profitably by the Transport and Technical Services Department. All that is being asked for by this particular operator is that, as indeed we thought, if there is any brokering of deals of partnership agreements with the department, the conditions whereby a gate fee is introduced is not done at the wrong time and adequate warning is given to the business in order to ensure that they are not penalised financially before they make any changes to operating in the way that --

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) I am satisfied that 3 months is a fair warning but the Chief Officer can give you

chapter  and  verse  on  what  the  precise  nature  of  the  relationship  is  because,

unfortunately, whenever this gentleman talks with other people, the nature of the

relationship seems to be slightly different from the one that we understood it to be.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

Can I ask have you ever visited the factory?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) I have driven past and seen the enormous piles of pallet boards.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

But you have not been shown around it, have you, although the invitation has been given?

Deputy G.W.J. de Faye:  Formatted: French (France) I  know  how  it  operates  but,  as  you  well  know,  I  am  perfectly  capable  of

understanding how things work without having to go and see how they work.

Mr. J. Richardson:

For the record, we have visited the operation.

Deputy R.C. Duhamel:

I know you have but the Minister has not.

Mr. J. Richardson:

Okay. Just for the record, you mentioned "partnership". I was not expecting to talk about pallet board management today because I could have brought the report with me but, for the record, as this is being transcribed, we do need to set the record straight.   The  original  position  was  a  partnership  with  an  individual  which  is absolutely correct and I am not going to mention names but it is the one we are talking about making kindling wood. As a result of our concerns with the amount of rejects coming back to us compared to the quality and the value of the product going out and the opportunity of getting whole pallet boards back into the re-use market in their original form and from an expression of interest from another operator who wished to do that operation, i.e. take a whole pallet board and put it back into pallet board re-use rather than chopping up for kindling wood, we then agreed we would put the whole pallet board processing out to expressions of interest. So the one on one relationship with the original person was there but a long while ago. We then put it out to expressions of interest which we evaluated and during that evaluation period, a number of other options came up such as taking broken pallet boards to the prison to be repaired. Certain other local operations and operators who export products from the Island became interested in using re-built and strengthened pallet boards to export their product on rather than using the blue GKM boards, as we call them; the ones that go around in a loop, as such, for re-use. So the market evolved. What happened was that, in evolving that market, we then saw the opportunity that there were a large quantity of pallet boards being chopped up for kindling wood that could go back into the market as a genuine re-use. Our animal bedding was done as an experiment to see if it worked. It does work but it does need quite a lot of refining in terms of machinery to really make a viable market. We charge for it and we try and recover costs but if we were going to go into it long-term full-time, then we would need to re- invest quite a lot of money into getting it into a viable market. If we do not use the off cuts for animal bedding manufacture, we then have to chip them, de-metal them and  that  material  is  exported  to  a  chipboard  manufacturer  in  the  UK  which  is extremely expensive. So it was a combination of wanting to raise pallet board re-use back  up  the  recycling  hierarchy  or  waste  hierarchy  into  genuine  re-use  and  the opportunity to get them repaired locally and use for export that made us look at the whole marketplace again. So it is quite a complex process we have been through and what we believe now is the position is that the free market is in a position where it can operate itself at its own market value and the market forces will direct which direction the pallet boards go in. But what we have said is that if that market force is such that they still go into kindling wood, then that is fine and the market will determine that but the return blocks we will make a charge for. If there is another viable economic route for those blocks to go in, then the market can work within that ceiling we set for receiving the blocks and it is very much down to the operators then in the private sector to operate that way. It is about allowing the market to operate. I use the analogy to this compost again. It is because there is a value in the end product. If you are going to take compost and do the same, you have got to determine, from an economics point of view, whether there is a value in that end product that is viable and it is sustainable. If the answer is yes, then why have we not seen people coming forward to us offering to do it?

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:  Formatted: French (France) Would your analysis not, from an economical perspective -- you have got evidence. It

is a pallet board but it is a product and you are talking about products and processes.

The evidence is there that if you introduce a high gate fee for a product and it goes to

a private sector resource that funds a private initiative --

Mr. J. Richardson:  

Only if there is a value in the product at the end and the other example which we have used very successfully is waste engine oil. We used to receive waste engine oil free of charge and we would export that waste engine oil to the UK at great cost to the Island. As biodiesels and alternative fuel sources started to come in, and the low scale refining process came in, it became evident that there was a value in that end product. Through 2 or 3 years of playing with the market, we then developed a situation exactly the same as the pallet boards - because we used that model for pallet boards - where we set a rate for receiving it which allowed the free market below to operate in because  there  is  a  value  in  the  end product.  That  is  the  whole  essence  of  the economics of dealing with this waste. It will only work if there is a value in the end product. So we are very happy for a private sector organisation to come to us and say: "Here we can operate a compost or shredding process" or whatever and we have not had it and I would suggest the reason we have not had it is because when you look at the capital cost associated with reception, drainage, shredding, composting, maturing to produce the end product, the scale on which we operate in in Jersey is so small for the capex and opex that it does not give you a value and a return. So we could set a gate fee and we would end up setting such a high gate fee that the chances are very unlikely that the value of the end product would give a private sector operator an economic return, so you would end up with either them trying it and going out of business because they cannot get the return they want on that end product or the gate fee is so high for them to make that return - and bear in mind ours will be even higher to keep us out of the market - that people would not do it and you would get fly tipping everywhere.