A view from the West

Featuring food, fuel and the future in Jersey

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
incinerator part 2

There will be public meetings on 9th October 19:00 St Pauls Centre
and 12th October 14:00  Ommaroo

There are no hustings on the 12th. I have yet to decide whether to skip the hustings on the 9th at Trinity to go to the public meeting.

A couple of notes to make:
First it will no doubt be repeated that the new incinerator meets the relevant EU directives. I think that is probably true.  The fact is the EU directives are political compromises of the highest order between 27 countries and a number of political factions all horsetrading off with each over everything.

There is a relevant eu item here.

In 2006, Directive 75/442/EEC on waste has been codified. Codification is a process by which legal texts that have been revised several times are codified into one new text that replaces all the previous versions. No legal or political changes are made to the text during the codification process. The new codified Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2006/12/EC) is now the only legally valid version of the Waste Framework Directive and will remain so until the substantive proposal for a revision is adopted. I believe that still stands

 Directive 2006/12/EC is here

note item 2)
(2) The essential objective of all provisions relating to waste management should be the protection of human health and the environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, transport, treatment, storage and tipping of waste.

Incineration is a treatment of waste.  It is in the ANNEX II A as a disposal operation.  There is an apparent get out in article 2

Article 2

1. The following shall be excluded from the scope of this Directive:

(a) gaseous effluents emitted into the atmosphere;

Not difficult for an incinerator emitting gases to conform to the directive if it is exempt.  However particles are not gases - the are small solids.

Article 4 is pretty good

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.

If there is a lawyer out there, or if you know a lawyer, perhaps we could be told this. What is  the Ministers personal libility, and the States corporate liability,  in the event of an action based on the above and the fact that the minister was informed and made aware that less damaging alternatives were available.

Read what the Parliamentary office of science and technology say in parliament post 149. It gives an insight in to the general issues, albeit from  8 years ago. naturally the status of gasification and pyrolisys has advanced since then.  You will note the sections on particles talks about pm10 rather than pm 2.5 or pm1. A critical difference.  I would draw your attention to  the bit about  the report from the department of health's committee on the medical effects of air pollution stating that even 'pm10 brings 8,100 deaths per year'.

A draft report on long-term exposure to air pollution is here
Page 4 seems to be heading in Dr Van Steenis direction ""The evidence also points to PM 2.5 as the most satisfactory index of particulate air pollution for quantitative assessments of the effects of policy interventions"

Dioxins information is here  Since the Chief Medical Officer said yesterday she didn't know of any link between air pollution and breast cancer, I thought I would give her some pointers.
The link between dioxins and breast cancer is considered here
  The presence of dioxins in incinerator flue gases is in the parliament report above, bottom right page 1.
Wasn't that hard to find was it.  Took me a good 15 minutes.


The other side is an e-mail I have been forwarded that originated in th public health department. (diagrams omitted)
Health in Jersey and waste incineration

" I am writing to you to strongly refute the recent comments made by anti-incinerator campaigner Dr Dick Van Steenis. 

 The new energy from waste plant will have a net positive effect on health in Jersey. This was the conclusion of the Health Impact Assessment commissioned from The International Health Impact Assessment Consortium (IMPACT) at Liverpool University. Their report was completed in June 2008. IMPACT is renowned as the leading research team for undertaking such work. Their assessment included a rigorous review of the research evidence in relation to energy from waste processes and health.

The current incinerator at Bellozanne fails to meet EU air quality emission standards and should be shut down as soon as possible. The new modern plant will be more efficient, producing much lower emissions that comply with current European safety standards. The new Island waste management strategy also includes an increase in recycling and a new covered process for composting which should reduce to a minimum the nuisance currently experienced by local residents due to the smell in the vicinity of the current composting site.

 Jersey is a world leader for tackling infant mortality (baby deaths from birth to one year of age). Only 4 babies die each year, a figure which is bettered internationally only by Sweden and France (figure 1). 

Jersey has a higher incidence (new cases per year) of cancer relative to the England average. This is mainly due to the high skin cancer rate which in turn is linked to the sunny climate in Jersey and highlights the need for islanders to take care in the sun to avoid sunburn (figure 2). Jersey also has relatively high rates of lung cancer and head and neck cancer. These cancers are usually caused by smoking and heavy drinking. Jersey has a historically high smoking prevalence (percentage of the population who smoke) and continues to have a very high consumption of alcohol compared with other countries. Prostate cancer is more commonly diagnosed in Jersey but the death rate is similar to England which is due to the fact that having prostate cancer may not shorten life for some men.

  My annual health report ‘Our Island, Our Health 2008’ includes more detailed figures and comment on the topics of waste disposal, infant mortality and cancer. 

Dr Turnbull, Mr Pritchard and I have made this statement at this time in response to comments made by the anti-incinerator campaigner Dr Dick Van Steensis who appears to speak as an individual without the backing of any credible organisation. I find Dr Van Steensis’s views implausible and unfounded."



  • 1

Plan "B"

what is the alternative to this then? As yet there has not been a sensible suggestion of an alternative what incinerator does Dr Van Steensis propose?

Captain Fantastic

Dear Captain

I believe Dr Van Steenis is proposing a plasma system, and prefers the Plasco Energy Group system. I was going to do some research on this for incinerator part 3. You can get a quick view at

  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account