Longue Hougue is the site favoured for the new waste plant.
PLANS for a 70,000-tonne waste plant are inappropriate, according to an independent group set up to scrutinise the tender process.
The Waste Disposal People’s Panel has condemned proposals going to the States with eight shortlisted companies to build a plant and instead recommends an alternative 20,000-tonne micro-incinerator.
It says the existing tendering process is fundamentally flawed, something vehemently denied by Public Services, which says it is carrying out the instructions of the States.
The panel’s report says the current plans are inappropriate on the grounds of cost, capacity and environmental impact because:
- the capacity is based on inaccurate projections
- the cost is prohibitive and unnecessary, adding significantly to the tax burden and also resulting in a major long-term financial liability for the States.
- the quantities of residue produced constitute a serious environmental concern
- gate revenue needs would strongly discourage development of environmentally-sustainable waste management practices such as reduction and recycling.
Currently, about 37,000 tonnes of waste a year are sent to Mont Cuet.
The panel says the tip has 14 years’ use left, although in its report Public Services puts that at seven.
‘No provisions have been made for follow-on capacity but virtually all waste management systems require at least some use of landfill,’ the panel’s report said.
‘This omission must be rectified but it seems unlikely that provision of such follow-on landfill capacity could not sensibly be achieved within the remaining life of Mont Cuet, which implies that action is needed to extend its life through a rapid and substantial reduction in residual waste being landfilled there.’
The panel recommends the States immediately buys a micro-incinerator that can deal with 20,000 tonnes per year, which would cost about £8.5m. and cost £1.24m. per year to run.
Even in the absence of other measures that would extend landfill life to 2031, it said.
It was a solution that ‘carries no real risk and in no way detracts from ongoing improvements in suitable waste-management practices.’
The panel was set up by Public Services to make sure the department was carrying out its work in line with previous States resolutions.
The panel admits it went outside this mandate, but also bemoaned not seeing some important information.
‘The panel has not seen the expressions of interest already evaluated by Public Services and has been given no information to form any basis for assessing whether PSD is justified in the selection of its chosen shortlist. The panel is therefore unable to verify whether the selection procedure is sound and proper or to question whether potentially valid solutions are being discarded – there is a lack of transparency in this process.’
* The panel can be emailed at panel@waste.gg
Article posted on 14th July, 2008 - 2.29pm
Loading ...
Most Commented: