An open letter to the Minister of Local Government

Aug 05, 2008 Letters

---

DEAR MINISTER,
The media report of Tuesday 22 July, 2008, that citizens of Bee Hive and neighbouring villages on the East Coast have complained of the illegal dumping of garbage in their communities, is a timely reminder that garbage disposal on the East Coast is approaching crisis proportions, posing serious health hazards for residents, as well as increasing the threats of flooding.

These concerns had previously been raised by community members within the ECD Clean-Up Committee with a number of the ECD NDCs, and most recently with the Region 4 RDC when they met with Chairman Corlette to discuss the solid waste problems on the East Coast, from Golden Grove/Haslington to Plaisance/Industry.

According to a media report of July 11, 2008, your ministry has signed a $1,050,000 per month contract with Puran Brothers Disposal Services “for the operation of the Lusignan landfill site.” According to the SN report, the Environmental Protection Agency had approved the “functioning” of the site.

The brief report did not provide details of the contract and did not elaborate on exactly what “the operation of the site” involved. Can you say what arrangements are in place for the NDCs to move their waste to the site?

It should be recalled that Lusignan was never intended or designed to be a sanitary landfill, but a temporary waste holding area, created at the time of the 2005 floods as an emergency measure to ease the pressure on the dump site on Princes Street, where the waste being held at Lusignan would eventually be deposited.

Based on information from ECD Clean-Up Committee members, and careful consideration of a number of reports and studies, GCI advises that, before consideration can be given to turning the Lusignan waste holding site into a permanent landfill, certain basic features must be factored into the design and operation of the site to ensure that:

• the waste from the East Coast (the media report mentions Mahaica to Plaisance) be deposited effectively in “cells” (specially constructed pits);
• there is daily compaction with heavy rollers to optimize landfill space;
• there is daily soil cover to reduce irritants, such as flies, rodents and odour;
• the environment is protected in the process.

Expert opinion made available to GCI strongly recommends that the site conforms to certain basic requirements, among which are the following:

1. SITE APPROACHES: there should be an all-weather road approaching the site to ensure continued operations during heavy rainfall. We understand that Lusignan residents as well as Prison officers have complained of the condition of the road. More regular use by heavy vehicles will speed up the deterioration.

2. FENCING: The entire facility should be fenced to make the holding area a “service” facility, keeping out all unauthorised persons and animals.

In a recent visit to the site by GCI personnel, before the start of the operation by Puran Brothers, it should be said that a family of bare-footed children and their parents could be seen scavenging in the refuse site.

On a previous visit by ECD Clean-Up Committee members, groups of people could be seen picking up plastic bottles that, we are told, were being sold to bottom-house business places manufacturing condiments (cassareep, pepper sauce, green seasoning). The public heath hazard cannot be over-stated.

3. GATE OFFICE: A gate office should be situated to guide delivery trucks/vehicles to deposit their pay loads in the prescribed cells.

The office should also be responsible for collecting user fees, if required, and should be able to record types and volumes or weight of waste entering the site.

Names (number plates, unladen weight) and other particulars of vehicles should also be recorded.

4. SITE CONSTRUCTION: The site should not be swampy or otherwise waterlogged. There should be perimeter canals within or without the fence to ensure that leachate is collected.

This substance is potentially harmful, in that it contains both chemicals and biological impurities, and must be treated before it enters the surface canals in the neighbourhood. Given the proximity of the GuySuCo canals, this is a vital requirement.

5. CELL CONSTRUCTION /LEACHATE MANAGEMENT: It is recommended that cells be excavated in rows adjacent to each other, with a row for vehicular traffic in the middle of this network of rows; that semi-perforated PVC pipes be placed at the base of these cells to capture leachate and transport it to the perimeter canals mentioned earlier.

Vegetation should be introduced into these canals; together with containment of leachate within the canals, the biological and chemical impurities can be minimised.

Overflow mechanisms can therefore be attached to the canals to allow a phased migration of treated leachate from the canals.

6. WASTE DEPOSIT OPERATIONS: Waste should be deposited in cells — one cell at a time — and in layers – one layer on top of another — until prescribed height is to be compacted with a bulldozer or a heavy roller (sheep foot) on site, and a thin layer of earth (soil cover) applied at the end of each day’s operation.

This soil cover effectively limits the proliferation of flies, rodents and other irritants, and odour. If dust becomes a factor during dry spells, then manual or mechanical spray of water can be applied.

Inmates of the prison as well as Prison officials and residents have complained of the smells and flies.

7. THE POTENTIAL FOR FIRES: Given the proximity of the prison, fires, which are a feature of landfill operations, have to be anticipated.

The management of the facility should ensure that there is enough earth on site, and a water pump is always available.

8. MONITORING: The EPA officers who have been involved in the approval process should also be involved in monitoring the operations.

We are copying this letter to the Environmental Protection Agency for their consideration and response.
Bert Carter Chairman

---

---