Who would want to live in a place like what Mare Chicose has unfortunately become over the past few years? Whatever one says about control of emissions and respect of norms, nobody would want an incinerator near his/her house. ?La Chaumière? has been most unfortunate to be chosen to host a waste to energy facility because, according to the Environment Impact Assessment Report submitted by Gamma/Covanta, since it already hosts ?bad neighbour? activities, has geotechnical conditions for development of waste complex, has prevailing easterly winds minimising potential air quality impacts on communities and is close to population centres thereby reducing transportation distances. The use of incinerators for waste management is indeed controversial and has contributed towards feeding debates for the past few weeks in Mauritius, specially for those unfortunate ones, in the neighborhood of whom, it has been proposed to operate a waste to energy facility. Whereas waste management policies and strategies if well-planned and including waste minimisation plans/activities and composting as well as recycling initiatives, would be a blessing for Mauritius, waste incineration on its own would be another Mare Chicose-like headache in a few years or months...

(...) A waste to energy facility within a proper energy policy and legal framework would indeed be an efficient if not, an alternative way of disposing waste, reducing Mare Chicose landfill problems and rising costs of fuel. A comprehensive policy on energy still needs to be elaborated in Mauritius and no specific legislation on waste to energy exists in Mauritius yet. The American Environment protection Act is quoted on the waste to energy definition by Gamma/Covanta whereas European norms are quoted in the Environment Impact Assessment report of the proposed waste to energy facility, with references only to air quality and not for soil, water quality and noise impact.

Waste energy not elaborated

The only policy the mauritian government seems to have worked on, so far, is an Outline for Energy Policy 2007-2025 with a long term renewal energy master plan which might be completed by next year. As per the Outline for Energy Policy 2007-2025, the preferred strategy will be to increase the share of coal in the country's energy mix. It has also been announced in the National Assembly recently as a reply to a question of a Member of Parliament that two coal thermal plants in which the Central Electricity Board will have equity will come into operation. But nothing specific to waste to energy seems to have been elaborated in this outline.

Serious concerns about the incineration of municipal solid wastes (MSW) project by Gamma/Covanta, involve the following:

Lack of transparency of the temporary authorisation granted to a private firm whereas such agreements should be concluded in the best interests of the mauritian population preferably by public authorities or at least according to proper tender procedures rather than private firms which are most of the time seeking better returns for their investments. Are there any guarantees that the Gamma/Covanta prior authorisation (subject to a series of conditions laid down in the letter of intent sent by the Board of Investment to Gamma Civic Ltd on the basis of Section 13 of the Investment Promotion Act for the setting up of a waste to energy firm), has taken place within existing administrative procedures? Could the first waste to energy facility to operate in Mauritius, in the absence of a governmental policy on energy or regulations, for a term of 20 to 25 years, be, in the best interests of the mauritian population? Or should it be for a term of 5 years renewable if environmental friendly and efficient and in the best interests of the population? Or is it that when policies and laws will finally be elaborated, this waste to energy facility would escape from any stringent governmental regulations? New technologies are being discovered so fast, new ways of waste disposal may be discovered, whereas this private contract will be binding on the government for so many years?

The safety of incineration and the possibility of health problems associated with emissions, like dioxins and furans are of particular concern. Indeed, many consider dioxin and furan emissions produced to be serious health hazards and air pollution elements and it does not suffice to use a single measure for controlling dioxin. Besides, using activated carbon is an end-of-pipe solution. A more integrated approach would include removal of chlorine containing compounds which is a precursor to the formation of dioxin, ensuring a minimum temperature of 850oC at incineration point and maintaining an adequate residence time in the combustion chamber to ensure complete combustion. Furthermore, the monitoring plan in the Gamma/Covanta EIA report, does not cater for epidemiological investigations on cancer risk for the 75 permanent operational workers posted at the facility and the people residing around the area. Since the designated region is being used for agricultural purposes such as animal rearing and vegetable, the impact of dioxin on these receptors should also be regularly monitored. Dioxins, the highly toxic chemicals produced by waste incineration and industrial processes which tests have shown to be lingering in the bodies of people all over the planet, have been identified as the cause of many cancers in a 2000 report by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Higher air pollution, more toxic ashes

The technical and operational aspects of the waste to energy facility in the Gamma/Covanta EIA report, are also of particular concern. The report mentions that the waste to energy facility will not take hazardous wastes. However, it is a known fact that without any existing source-separation of wastes, the stream of municipal solid waste contains significant hazardous wastes, comprising of household hazardous wastes such as detergents, batteries, solvents, paints, pesticides, etc. Without the pre-sorting activity prior to incineration, such hazardous wastes would result in higher pollution risks translated in terms of higher air pollution hazards and more toxic ashes. Furthermore, the amount of ash which will be produced would be around 90,000 tonnes each year consisting of bottom Ash (78,000 tonnes) and fly Ash (12,000 tonnes). Hence, 30% of all waste input would be again converted to wastes, in this case a waste which is much more toxic in nature. Details concerning the treatment of this ash by-product are rather vague. It is insufficient to state landfilling as the measure. Has any study on the hydrogeologic and permeability test of the soil been conducted to ascertain that leachate produced will not pose a pollution hazard to ground water and surface water?

(...) The European Waste incineration Directive 2000/76/EC repeals former directives on the incineration of hazardous (Directive 94/67/EC) and non-hazardous (Directives 89/369/EEC and 89/429/EEC) waste and replaces them with a single text. Many of the plants that are covered by the Waste Incineration Directive are also covered by the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive whereas details of emissions from waste incineration plants and other industrial sources can be accessed via the European Pollutant Emission Register. The Waste Incineration directive regulates standards and methodologies required by Europe for the practice and technology of incineration, to minimise the impact of negative environmental effects on the environment and human health resulting from emissions to air, soil, surface and ground water from the incineration and co-incineration of waste. There is a series of operational conditions, technical requirements and emission limit values for waste incineration and co-incineration plants within the European Community and the directive also provides for public consultation, access to information and participation in the permitting procedure. Will Gamma/Covanta really respect all these European norms and who will ensure that they are met, in the absence of a policy on energy or regulatory framework?

(...) Has Gamma/Covanta carried out surveys about whether other small islands been successful in waste to energy facilities? (...) Transport of waste over large distances not only has implications for air quality but also for climate change through increased energy use and subsequent carbon dioxide emissions. How will emissions from transport of waste together with odours (odours and possible vermin at waste storage prior to incineration) and other associated problems be dealt with?

(...) According to the Ministry of Environment, public comments on the waste to energy project will be taken into consideration, Médine Sugar Estates has written complaints about negative consequences of the project on neighbouring farms and even goes to the extent of saying that the Waste to Energy firm will be liable if animals in the neighbouring farm, are adversely affected, the inhabitants of Albion and Roches Brunes have met several times to discuss about this project and even submitted petitions to the Prime Minister's Office... now will this waste to energy facility be authorised to operate? Will ?people and their health be put first? or business interests be put first?

E. COLO