Article in JEP 15/12/08 on Ramsar Site/ Incinerator

[lara.luke]

I thought I would pop my letter here sent to the JEP, they didn t publish my last one. Did anyone read the article and do you have any comments?




Dear Editor,


I am writing in response to the article about the Ramsar Site in the JEP, dated 15th December 2008.

I emailed on the 15th October both P. Ozouf and F. Cohen to express my concerns about the location of the proposed new incinerator due to the close proximity of the Ramsar site and the potential adverse effects that it will have on the surrounding environment. (I have also raised my concerns on Planet Jersey and through the JEP some months ago) I also made them aware of the duties with reference to the Ramsar Convention. One fantastic example of a Ramsar site is the Great Barrier Reef in Australia (imagine if they wanted to build an incinerator there).

My reply from P. Ozouf basically said maybe he would adjust the line of the Ramsar site.

‘I have said that I believe that as far as future land reclamation is
concerned I think that there could be a case for reconsidering the
precise line of the Ramsar line out from St Helier harbour’. (P. Ozouf 25th October 2008)


Mr. Cohen said for me to get in touch with planning as soon as possible so I did. A representation went into planning for the protection of the Ramsar site on my behalf but it was unfortunately turned down.

Since I have tried all available routes in Jersey, and have had no satisfactory answers, I was left with no option other than to contact the Ramsar Organisation in Switzerland to ask for their views on the matter, firstly on the 15th October and more recently the 15th December. I am waiting for a reply from the senior advisor for Europe.


I would like to challenge the article in respect to what has been written about the Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed incinerator. The EIA starts with a legal disclaimer that the company has only used the information that has been given to them and has not investigated any of this information themselves. This raises the question to me – what have they been paid to say? Section 10 of the environmental impact assessment only states that there is a possibility of water pollution affecting the Ramsar site, no air pollutants are taken into account. Section 16 of the EIA again only deals with water resources and drainage. It does state that the main receptor of possible pollutants will be the Ramsar site and therefore the site is potentially vulnerable to the adverse effects of these various pollutants. The only reason I can see for the absence of the effects of air pollutants on the Ramsar site is the fact that they will be piping the waste gases through the existing JEC chimney which in actual fact comes under the exempt works under the law. This means that it does not have to comply with any regulations in place on for example air quality, even though Jersey has not yet adopted air quality standards. Is this the get out clause for when all surrounding areas have been adversely affected by these pollutants? Air pollutants have a potential of traveling up to around 5000m from the source, so the area potentially affected is quite large.


Lastly I would like to say that after reading all 236 pages of the EIA, I now feel like I know a lot more about Bellozane than the proposed new incinerator. Is this a case of highlighting how bad our current incinerator is and therefore anything is good in comparison?


Yours Faithfully,

Mrs Lara Luke,
Dip Pol Con (open), BSc (Hons) Environmental Studies,

[Mark Forskitt]

You might also refer to the EU Waste Framework Directive 2006/12/EC.  Specifically article 4 Article 4

1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and in particular:

(a) without risk to water, air or soil, or to plants or animals;

(b) without causing a nuisance through noise or odours;

(c) without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest

Ramsar, by definition, is covered by (c) - place of special interest.

[lara.luke]

Thank you Mark.

Another big question is also why do they want to place it close to a highly populated residential area?


Perhaps it will be the islands answer to the population problem

[!CaveMan]

Who's going to want to eat Contaminated Oysters from the vast amount of beds around that ramsar area?
once the thing is fired up 24hrs a day, at least the power station only belched its soot out when they cleaned the flues out at night once in a blue moon,
and I seem to remember reading once in JEP migrating birds are feeding in the bay as we were told dogs were to be kept from disturbing them, i suppose then it's ok if they were  to get poisined by gasses and/or toxins and
we never found out what killed off our precious Ormers from Seymour Tower?
e&oe

[lara.luke]

Could the incinerator pollute the Ramsar site, leading to a delisting of the Ramsar Site, enabling it to be used for other purposes, like further land reclaimation?

Quite possible as here's another part of P Ozouf's email to me:

 'St Helier harbour is a commercial port and it has evolved over the centuries andneeds to evolve further as we deal with some of the challenges offreight importation and fuel costs in the future. I am a supporter ofthe concept of moving our commercial port down to the new area of reclaimed land and that would require some re-organisation of the landthat has been reclaimed and there is a potential issue with the Ramsar line.'

[lara.luke]

And don't forget the back-handers

[moot]

And don't forget the back-handers

Lara, I am pleased we have people like you in the island who take the time to come on here and post valuable arguments and information
As regards to back handers being paid this is a serious issue which many skirt around due to fear of being sued. Could anyone possibly believe that in the island which is so awash with money none of this happens ? Massive deals like the £106 million incinerator would have plenty of scope to pay "incentives" to the right people to get the business and the same counts for the £300 million Eslanade plan
Of course I am not saying that it happens but it is perhaps time the subject is approached more openly but of course carefully.
I have heard a BBC Jersey reporter once ask a very senior politician if he was ever approached by someone with a back hander and he replied : a couple of times
Of course he denied ever accepting any and fair play to him for even wanting to discuss it. What do members think ? Does it happen in Jersey if yes  has it perhaps become common and acceptable in the island ? Please think carefully how you phrase your replies and of course no names please

[lara.luke]

 I know from a very reliable source of a large job which the contract was offered and turned down because of a refusal to pay a golden handshake.

[lara.luke]

I believe the parent company of the one commissioned for building the proposed incinerator is the same one that also owns Connex. Does anyone know this for definate either way?

[boatyboy]

This item will concern those that a have a view on the way the finances of Jersey are managed a main issue. Fraud is a uncomfortable subject, and of course most people are honest. Remember the Grand Hotel bar fraud a few years back when almost all the staff working as a team, running the three bars were arrested and found guilty of selling their own bottles of spirits (stock check not affected).

Government docs quoted. You won't believe it ??

http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1044.msg13680.html#msg13680


Also This thread was explored earlier, WEB have changed their WEB site which used to have a plan of 4 areas of development out into the sea around La Collete. David Cabaldu from Jersey Ramsa, wrote to WEB, and others but was stonewalled.

Have a look under states depts / planning / Ramsa /

BB

[Nick Palmer]

I thought I would pop my letter here sent to the JEP, they didn t publish my last one. Did anyone read the article and do you have any comments?

Lara, your letter is about 580 words. The JEP really don't like publishing letters that are that long.

Bear in mind that even if the planned incinerator passes current EU directives on flue gas emissions, the emissions regulations are likely to get tightened up in due course as the science develops, particularly on the health impacts of PM 2.5s. It is inconceivable that any incinerator built to today's standards will be compliant with future likely standards as far as 2035.

As the Public Services Committee, and the States generally, allowed the old incinerator to continue polluting from the early 90's onwards to today, despite it being way outside the EU Directives even back then, clearly they are still of a mind to commit similar "break the rules" behaviour in the future. Don't forget that the bottom and fly ash, that they dump in the reclamation sites, are probably more of a threat to the marine environment than the flue gas emissions... They will still be dumping the similarly toxic ashes from the new incinerator here. Remember that incineration does not make "rubbish" disappear but merely reduces it in size by about 90% - the 10% that remains still has to be dumped somewhere and will still be toxic. There will also be quantities of the alkaline material that they will use to "clean" the acid gases out of the stack emissions. This stuff will also need dumping or exporting, no doubt at great expense.

Stuart was very involved in trying to get the then Chief Officer of Public Services to recognise the above, and has far more "inside" knowledge than I have so he would also confirm that there are none so blind as those who will not see...

[lara.luke]

Hi Nick,

Yes there are many different aspects of concern, and I think if we all got together a lengthy book could come out of the issue of the incinerator


As I ve mentined on another post the EIA states that they will be using this waste ash to build a nice 'ash mound' to mask the unsightly view from Harve Des Pas, and from the other side they will take the colour of the building into consideration.


There are so many problems with using this as either structures - ash mound - or for the reclamation of land. In the EIA they have also stated that there is no need to survey the water quality around the site before construction and therefore luckily for them there will be no baseline studies to compare pollution levels to. Another handy way of avoiding blame.


As for the 500 words maybe they will remove what P. Ozouf said

[Spooky]

Thank you Mark.

Another big question is also why do they want to place it close to a highly populated residential area?


Perhaps it will be the islands answer to the population problem

Something I have heard but I can’t confirm, is that there is some sort of covenant on the Bellozane site that prevents the operator from charging for incinerating waste. This of course (if true) will not apply to the proposed new location.

Regards
Spooky

[lara.luke]

[Ramsar Forum] Jersey - Fear that incinerator will threaten protected area?


Fear that incinerator will threaten protected area
A MAJOR international organisation has said that Jersey faces environmental peril if a £106 million incinerator is built at La Collette.
Experts at the Ramsar Secretariat are concerned that the incinerator will be next to a protected area.
In 2000 the States approved 32.1 sq km of the Island’s shoreline to be designated a United Nations Ramsar Wetland of International Importance.
The area stretches from the seaward edge of the tanker berth at the Harbour to the tip of Gorey pier. Stephan Flink from the Switzerland-based organisation said that he was ‘saddened to hear the peril Jersey is in’.
And Wetlands International, a member party of the Ramsar Convention, has the Island’s incinerator as ‘this month’s threatened wetland’ on its website. Jerseyman Dave Cabeldu, a member of the Ramsar Steering Group who campaigned to get Jersey’s south coast protected, has been speaking to the Ramsar Secretariat in Gland, Switzerland. Mr Cabeldu, speaking on behalf of Save Our Shoreline members, said Jersey was in breach of the international Ramsar convention because an independent impact assessment was not carried out before the incinerator was approved by the States in July.

Article posted on 15th December, 2008 - 2.56pm

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/12/16/planning-deny-environment-danger-claims/
Planning deny environment danger claims
PLANNING and Environment chief officer Andrew Scate has vigorously denied claims that the States have breached the Ramsar Convention.
He also denies suggestions that States departments obstructed the Scrutiny process and says that an environmental impact assessment was carried out. His comments come in response to environmentalist Dave Cabeldu’s criticism that the States approved and signed a deal for a £106 million incinerator without consulting the Ramsar secretariat in Switzerland.
In 2000 the States agreed that 32.1 sq km of the Island’s shoreline should be considered as a United Nations Ramsar Wetland of International Importance. The area stretches from the seaward edge of the tanker berth at the Harbour to the tip of Gorey Pier.
Mr Scate said: ‘The States of Jersey are not breaching their responsibilities under the Ramsar Convention. The planning decision is not flawed and States departments have not obstructed the Scrutiny process. I would like to completely refute any claims that the planning process was flawed and that I did not take into account the necessary environmental information in coming to the decision.’
Pictured: Andrew Scate

Article posted on 16th December, 2008 - 2.55pm

[Nick Palmer]

Something I have heard but I can’t confirm, is that there is some sort of covenant on the Bellozane site that prevents the operator from charging for incinerating waste. This of course (if true) will not apply to the proposed new location.

Regards
Spooky

Yes, there is a "covenant". It is a shame because it means that the States (a.k.a taxpayers) have to pay for waste disposal. If they charged the true cost of incineration and final disposal of the toxic residues, we might find that recycling collection and processing would become a whole lot more attractive when the true market costs of waste handling etc were out in the open. Interestingly enough, although the States have to accept waste for disposal, there is nothing that says that people who have waste for treatment have to take it to Bellozanne...