From Keith Shaw.
MOST residents agree that burning any waste as the last resort of Jersey’s waste strategy should be kept to an absolute minimum.

This makes proposals by Guernsey’s politicians to send their waste to Jersey for burning both morally and environmentally repugnant.

I am amazed that this suggestion did not create high-level condemnation from Jersey’s States Members. I understood that the chief executive of Transport and Technical Services and Deputy Duhamel had previously declared that shipping toxic waste was contrary to certain EU laws and potentially an illegal activity. So have any discussions been going on, behind the scenes, for several years?

The management of Jersey’s waste has not been without considerable criticism in the past. It was widely believed that waste discharges from Bellozanne’s incinerator and treatment plant polluted sea water and the environment for decades.

Claims linked them to heavy metals and E-coli found in fish and shellfish from St Aubin’s to Grouville Bays and the deteriorating quality of our once world renowned products.

How could this happen? Evidently toxic waste ash, from the old and poorly performing Bellozanne mass-burn municipal waste incinerator, was dumped mainly on the reclamation sitem to the west of the Albert Pier, together with a range of other hazardous materials.

This continued for many years, despite some political objections at the time, until it was recognised as dangerous and new procedures for toxic/ hazardous waste storage were created at La Collette.

When the reclamation site was developed for a range of commercial uses, excavations took place through and under the hazardous waste materials, which was also removed for long-term storage at La Collette.

Being in a tidal area, these excavations flooded regularly. The sea water mixed with hazardous waste materials then receded. Once again there was a potential to pollute the marine environment and nearby fish storage facilities.

Work carried out adjacent to the marine environment came under scrutiny from a number of independent groups, due to site flooding with sea water. Last year’s Scrutiny inquiry about work at La Collette questioned how effective the monitoring was to protect the marine environment. This was linked to serious concerns regarding all of the previous excavations on the site to th west of the Albert Pier.

Although obviously too late, it does appear that the valid concerns raised by independent observers have now been recognised. A comprehensive document relating to tidal excavations was presented by a senior Planning officer and was accepted by Senator Cohen on Friday 19 February.

Sadly, the legacy of long-term effects on developments in the area can only be estimated, following rumours that at least one development had to negotiate additional insurance related to ground conditions.

What is the plan of action for compound with almost 200 containers of asbestos hazardous waste at La Collette? What is the plan of action for the thousands of old television sets being stockpiled? Our environment remains under threat.