On 11th December 2005 a terrible fire started at the Buncefield oil storage
depot, Hemel Hempstead. The initial report to the Health and Safefy Commission
(HFC) showed that the fire started due to an overflow of petrol from one
of the tanks, due to a faulty shut off system. Petrol continued to be
pumped and a vapour cloud flowed out and spread into adjacent areas, including
the Fuji plant car park. A series of explosions occurred as the vapour
ignited. The plume of smoke that ensued could be seen from many kilometres
away and was readily picked up by satellite images. The full Health and
Safety Commission (HFC) report (Buncefield Major Incident Investigation)
can be downloaded here.
The explosions occurred shortly before 6 a.m so luckily few people were in the
area. As the site was surrounded by open countryside, there was ready
access for emergency service vehicles and escape routes for pedestrians.
Below left: A satellite shot after the explosions at Buncefield. The
pall of smoke has a 50km radius.
Below right: Buncefield is surrounded by open land. The very opposite
applies at La Collette, with a rock bund and sea on three sides, a densely populated area on the other.
WHAT DID OUR GOVERNMENT DO AFTER READING
THE HFC REPORT? They decided to build an incinerator next to Jersey's fuel
farm.
To justify the risk, they planned to reduce traffic and moved commercial
premises so that there would be fewer people at any one time in
the immediate area of the Fuel Farm. (See one of the projections
below).These plans were published in the expensive Atkins Report
entitled 'Land Use Planning Risk Assessment for La Collette
Fuel Depot and Jersey Gas Facility', by the States of Jersey
and released on 24th October 2007. A PDF download is available here.
From that time, SOS believe, Transport and Technical Services (TTS)
made the decision to site the incinerator at La Collette and the
ensuing 'consultations' with the public and others that followed
were just an exercise they had to go through to show that they had
been done, and the moving of the site from Bellozanne to La Collette
was a foregone conclusion. States Members based their decision to
site the incinerator at La Collette on (later admitted) incorrect
information. The Planning Process was shown to be flawed only after
work had started. (This following over a year's work by Save Our
Shoreline and the Environmental Scrutiny Panel - download the Panel's
report here.) Even today, details
of a major pollution incident which
took place at the site in the spring of 2009
has not yet been reported by Environment Protection.
BUT SURELY A MAJOR ACCIDENT IS UNLIKELY AT
LA COLLETTE?
NOT SO: for example: On Friday 19th November, 1999
an accident occurred at the La Collette power station, involving
a large spill of 18.5 tonnes of hydrochloric acid. Apart from the
corrosive effects of this acid, and its harmful effect on people,
it attacks many metals to release hydrogen gas and forms explosive
mixtures in the air. It took 100 firefighters (many flown in from
Hampshire) three days to make the area safe from explosion. A full
account as given to the States by the then President of the Defence
Commmittee, Deputy Michael Wavell, can be downloaded here.
It was only by luck and a tremendous input of resources including
specialist personel and equipment flown in to the island, that containment
of the gas was achieved and a major disaster was averted.
Below: One of several illustrations in the Atkins report,
projecting fatalities, dangerous doses, etc in the event of explosions
at La Collette. Shortly after the report was produced, the siting
of the new incinerator alongside the fuel farm was planned by TTS..
SO
WHAT DO WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT?
The Fuel Farm sits adjacent to what is in effect a bonfire in a box.
The aforementioned incident demonstrates the ever present possibility
of a lethal and major accident. Siting the incinerator in the immediate
vicinity of the power station and the fuel farm is in our view stretching
the limits of what is deemed acceptable. When TTS were holding their
'consultation' meeting with residents, one member of the group (himself
a safety officer) wrote seeking answers to safety issues. His carefully
researched questions were set out in a letter dated 23rd August, 2008.
The letter was ignored by the Chief Fire Officer Mr. Mark James. We
ask, as the group member was officially invited to be a consultee
representing residents of the area, why he had no reply? The letter
(sent twice with no response), is available here.
Horizontal flue gases at very high temperature will go to the JEC
chimney which in itself is unfit for purpose. We believe the JEC chimney
is being used because of existing emission consents. A purpose built
chimney would not have the headache of the horizontal distance, and associated
cooling problem. But it would need a new planning permit. Extra cost
and energy will have to be expended to heat these gases and this in
itself has become something of a technical challenge. In the event
of an accident (and several have happened at La Collette)
and depending on the strength of an explosion or explosions, fatalities
will happen within a certain radius, and damage will occur in the
immediate area: The Port area, Green Street area and parts of St Helier.
(The 'Buncefield Zone').
The buldings on the promenade including the La Plage, Carlton, and
Fort d'Auvergne would be badly damaged by shock waves.
THE EMERGENCY ESCAPE ROAD
There will be no escape route to the east apart from the narrow and
beautiful Victorian promenade which will have emergency traffic coming
the other way. As of this time the access/emergency 'road' is still
in the Planning stage and has yet to be passed even though the incinerator
is currently being built. Should ambulant survivors be trying to escape,
they will be running east on this narrow road, while emergency services
will be trying to go west, having had to negotiate chicanes in Green
Street. There is no other way in our out should the main entrance
be compromised.
This situation is plainly unacceptable, given recommendations made by the Buncefield
report. In their advice to Planning Authorities, the report concludes:
'The Buncefield incident poses fundamental questions about residential
and commercial developments around sites like Buncefield'. Yet
Buncefield was in an open area. The potential for risk at La Collette
we believe is therefore much greater, and that situation applied before
building a huge incinerator there.
The road will be extended in two places over the Ramsar Area (with
heavy plant working on the beach) and this too has not yet been acknowledged,
or Ramsar notified of the plans. In fact, the Ramsar
request, made on 30th March 2010, for an Article 3.2 report on the
likely effects of recent pollution events at the incinerator on the
Ramsar Area (and possible further effects from the plant's operation) has
not been addressed. (see our April Edition)
Below: The Victorian promenade at La Collette - soon to
become an emergency road? (The beach here is in the Ramsar area -
The incinerator and fuel farm is to the left.)
Next time: What will our tourists think of
the incinerator
on the waterfront? Will they return? SOS report.
Save Our Shoreline May 2010
working to protect our marine environment.
Find us on Facebook and comment on any of our posts. Or
simply show your support by sending us a friend request.
Just click on the logo below to participate.
