30th June 2007
Letter from Peoples Action Alliance to Garth Saunders, Manager of CWSA

Dear Mr. Saunders,

Thank you for your letter in which you assured the People's Action Alliance that we would be included in consultations regarding the Bequia Garbage.  We will be pleased to do so and hope we can be helpful.

I wondered if you would like me to fax you the Admiralty Table which I have which shows that the wind blows 98% of the the year from either the northeast, the east, or the southeast.( 81% of the time from the northeast or the east).  This is the direction which would potentially bring emissions over the whole of the island if the incinerator is placed in the suggested location. This was a study done twice a day, every day, over eight years.  I do not think any wind direction study at all was done in the formulation of the 2005 report for CWSA although you may know of one.

I also have an interesting map produced by Michael Connell, the chairperson of the Bequia Tourism Association, who is an architect living in Bequia (originally from St. Vincent).  He proposes a location for the incinerator on the Northeast point of Bequia beyond Cinnamon Garden, and well over the hill from The Fort i.e. facing north and east where no one lives.  This is worthy of study.

The PAAB does not have a simple answer to the difficult question of the garbage in Bequia.  We are quite aware that none of us is an expert in this field. We feel, however, that we speak for the population of Bequia when we request that all avenues be researched to provide the best public health solution to garbage disposal, and that this should be done publicly and with full information supplied to all interested persons,  particularly to the inhabitants of the island who will be the persons affected. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Pat Mitchell chairperson

14 th March, 2007
Mr. Garth Saunders, General Manager,
CWSA, St. Vincent

Dear Mr. Saunders,

The committee of the People's Action Alliance of Bequia has met to discuss the reply you were kind enough to email to us concerning the proposed garbage disposal at Park. Unfortunately we do not find your explanations allay all of the fears raised by the British Consultant's Report of 2005.

The preposterous plan to import into Bequia garbage from the other islands of the Grenadines is our first and foremost concern. In your email you indicate that “garbage from other islands will be limited to only specially sorted and cleaned combustibles, packaged in bales and containerized”. Your statement is contrary to our understanding of the British Consultants Report, (2.2.5) “This means that provisions would have to be made for the transport of unprocessed waste from the other islands to Bequia.” The same report states that, “The maximum tonnage of waste from the 3 islands derives from Canouan ... (where) 93% of the waste …derives from Raffles resort.”

Your statement, that “haulage of imported combustibles will at worst be a weekly occurrence,” does not tally with the British Report that envisages 111 trucks of garbage collected per week in Canouan (table 4.5) and 7 trucks a week of imported waste (table 4.6) to be moved from Bequia's ferry port to the facility at Park. This is one truck per day there and back so that your statement that, “Wear and tear on the roads in Bequia will not increase over what presently obtains with our collection service,” is palpably untrue. No one, we are sure, is prepared to guarantee that it would not be considerably more than 1 truck per day of extra garbage, and probably a great deal more.

However many trucks per day, however, is too much. The principle of having Bequia process garbage from Canouan, where 93% is produced by the Raffles Resort, is anathema to almost every citizen of Bequia. Raffles is on 1200 acres of land, and accommodation there can cost US$1000 per night. The gross income of that resort alone probably exceeds that of all the commercial enterprises of Bequia put together. Let them look after their own garbage! If they can fly in, and ship in, so much stuff, they can well dispose of the waste it produces. We should learn a lesson from the North American Parks Departments which have a sign posted on hiking trails to discourage persons from leaving their garbage behind on the mountains, “If you can take it in, you can take it out.” If a business earns its income from promotion of a luxurious 5-star lifestyle, it will just have to deal with the consumer waste that is its by-product. We would suggest that it should be part of the agreement Government makes with developments of a certain size that they must deal with their waste, just as they have to deal with ensuring the other necessities of civilized life such as access to fresh water, and the disposal of sewerage.

There are two other issues about the plan for Bequia garbage which we would like to discuss with you.

1 . The type of incinerator envisaged

You say in your email, “cost will never take precedence over the health of the residents of the Grenadines” and yet the British Report states, (4.6.21) “It is not realistic to fit air pollution control (APC) equipment to the incinerator such that any unacceptable compounds in the emissions are removed and disposed of because of the high cost of purchase and operation of such equipment. (Our italics) This is worrying since the report also states (4.5.43) that, “some plastics (i.e. pvc) contain chlorine the emissions from which may …..Be converted into dioxin compounds …which are undesirable in the environment.” The report also discusses “emissions which have the potential to recombine to form harmful substances.”

The PAAB would like to be apprised of the brand and type of incinerator which is planned in order to research its properties.

2. The location of the incinerator and the landfills

The Park Site, according to the Report, is “located in a wildlife reserve designated under the Wildlife Protection Act 1987” and is also “within the boundary of a marine conservation area designated under the Fisheries Act Regulations 1986” The PAAB would like to know if world wildlife organizations have been contacted to get their input into the proposed plan. If not, we would be pleased to do this.

The Park Site is perfectly sited to disperse harmful emissions over the whole of Bequia because of the prevailing wind during 80% of the year. The fall-out area includes Spring, Friendship, Port Elizabeth , the yacht anchorage of Admiralty Bay , Princess Margaret, Lower Bay and ultimately Paget Farm and Isle a Quatre, in other words, the whole island. If the facility is to be sited at Park it is therefore absolutely essential to verify that there will be NO HARMFUL EMISSIONS of any kind which could build up, not only in the air, but more dangerously on the rooftops of houses and businesses which collect the water for consumption by the people.

In the Report it is clear that one of the main attractions of the Park site was that there was an existing road to it. The PAAB does not feel that this is an adequate reason, however. Better to spend money now to create a safe area for the incinerator than have to abort a misconceived project at some later date when permanent damage has been done to the fragile environment of this small island, or to the health of her inhabitants.

To sum up the PAAB has serious misgivings about much of the Park Garbage Plan and we would be happy to discuss these with you. We do not feel, however, that the importation of garbage from Canouan or any other place is up for discussion. Quite simply it is our view that this should not and will not be tolerated.

Yours truly,

Co-chairpersons: Rocky McIntosh, Pat Mitchell

Excerpts from Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd. Report of September, 2005 – an environmental and social impact assessment prepared for The Central Water and Sewage Authority

Note: These excerpts were compiled to assist interested persons to get some understanding of the situation regarding the planned incinerator as not everyone has the time to study the original 193 - page report.

An excerpt was chosen for one of two reasons, either because, if true, it may be worrying to the population of Bequia, or, in other cases, if false (e.g. that there is a daily ferry from Canouan on which the garbage could be placed for transport to Bequia) it would question the accuracy of the report on other matters..

Note: Our comments on the report are in italics. Otherwise all below is in the exact words of the report. We have put certain important sections in bold.

Item in the report numbered

1.5.1

Fresh water is an extremely precious resource in the Grenadines with almost complete reliance on rainfall collected from roofs as the main source of potable water

1.6.1

Air quality is important in the Grenadines due to reliance upon rainfall collection from the roof and because of tourism in the local economy

1.6.2 (There is) a fairly constant easterly wind

1.6.6 Assuming the chimney is at least 11 m. high and that the plant is properly operated and maintained, no impacts of significance are expected. This includes potential impacts on drinking water collected from the roofs

1.7.3 The Park Upper Site is located in a wildlife reserve designated under the Wildlife Protection Act 1987. The area is also within the boundary of a marine conservation area designated under the Fisheries Act Regulations 1986

1.7.6 Operational impacts on the ecology are likely to be minor

1.11.3 Operational traffic associated with the proposals would travel from the port facilities of Port Elizabeth . Vehicles would circulate through the residential areas of Port Elizabeth , Pretoria , and Union Vale…through Spring Estate (which comprises some residential and tourism units) Industry (with hotel and a few scattered residential properties) and through Park Estate.

1.11.5 The additional vehicle movements associated with the new waste facilities would result in minor effects on the local road network ( red flag - how could this be termed minor?) 

1.11.6 With regards the required inter-island transport movements by sea, it is considered that there is sufficient capacity available... ( Another red flag, could this be true?)

(The following we have put in bold as this is very important in our judgment)

2.2.5 The Park site is the preferred site for the development of the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and also for the incinerator to dispose of the residual waste stream from the 3 islands (Bequia, Canouan, and Union ). This means that provisions would have to be made for the transport of unprocessed waste from the other islands to Bequia.

4.2.12 the maximum tonnage of waste from the 3 islands derives from Canouan…whilst it would appear logical that the incinerator be located on Canouan, 93% of the waste on this island derives from Raffles resort, and funding requires commercial commitment to the costs of waste management by the resort operator, which is not currently in place.

4.2.13 consequently …the government of St. Vincent & the Grenadines determined that the incinerator should be located on Bequia.

4.4.20 Tyres may also be incinerated which should assist with reducing the requirement for expensive support fuel (estimated 1000 tyres per year) ( red flag)

4.4.22 regarding air quality assessment …the possibility of burning PVC- containing materials, the emissions of which have the potential to recombine to form harmful substances…

 Table 4.5 Trucks Collecting Waste in Each Island (estimates)
Bequia 10 per day
Canouan 23 per day
Table 4.6 Trucks collecting Waste from the Ferry Port to the MRF facility at Park
1.4 Per day

4.5.14 It is proposed to use flatbed trucks to transport the waste to the MRF at Park. All trucks would be covered with a tarpaulin during transport.

Table 4.5 Traffic to site
Trucks per week in Bequia 49
In Canouan 111
In Union 3
Per day in Bequia 10
Per day in Canouan 23

4.5.16 the contractor would decide transport routes but it is envisaged that they will follow the main roads

4.5.19 the current ferry operations are suitable for the transport of waste from Mayreau, to Union and from Union , Canouan to Bequia. ( There is no ferry from there to Bequia!!)

4.5.43 some plastics (i.e. pvc) contain chlorine the emissions from which may under certain circumstances in incinerators be converted into the dioxin and furan family of compounds. These are long-lived persistent compounds, which are undesirable in the environment and hence their production should be minimized or avoided.

4.5.46 a landfill required for non-combustible materials (dry cells, rechargeable batteries, waste electronic equipment (e.g. televisions) light bulbs, and pvc plastics such as off-cuts from construction pipes and food wrapping cling film. These will be crushed and put in a nearby landfill along with the ash from the incinerator.

4.5.47 the residuals landfill must be used sparingly as once full it will be difficult to find further storage on the islands. The estimated life of the residual landfill for Bequia is 39 years.

46.12 in the landfill will be put (why is it necessary to drag all this stuff to Bequia from other islands just to put it in a landfill?)
. Waste electronic equipment, (computers, TV's)
. Fluorescent bulbs (may contain mercury)
. Dry cell batteries (may contain mercury, cadmium)
. pvc plastic
. Sharps collected from the island clinics

4.6.21 It is not realistic to fit air pollution control (APC) equipment to the incinerator such that any unacceptable compounds in the emissions are removed and disposed of because of the high cost of purchase and operation of such equipment. ( Are these not necessary for the health of the people? are we then going to have “unacceptable compounds” floating over the island?)

Persons interested in receiving attachment of original report by email please contact

patmitchell@vincysurf.com