Revised Laws of Saint Lucia (2021)

Schedule 5

(Section 20)

List of Issues to be Covered in any Environmental Plan submitted with Application for Waste Management Licence

Requirements for Conduct of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Environmental Plans (EPs) in Support of A Waste Management Facility

This Annex identifies general procedures for undertaking environmental impact assessments (for new facilities) and environmental plans (for existing facilities) in support of waste management facility siting, construction and operation. In addition, it identifies environmental issues that should be specifically addressed with respect to the following types of solid non-hazardous waste management facility —

1.     Landfills

2.     Transfer stations

3.     Composting facilities

4.     Facilities for processing recyclable materials

5.     Steam Sterilization (Autoclaving Facilities)

6.     Incinerators and Thermal Treatment Facilities

The requirements identified in this Annex should be entered into regulation.

GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR UNDERTAKING EIAS AND EPS

EIAs and EPs are intended to identify potential negative impacts associated with facilities and to identify measures for mitigating those impacts. The distinction between the 2 types of study is that EIAs are performed on proposed facilities; these studies should consider a wider range of options that EPs for mitigating potential negative impacts since these measures can be designed into the proposed facility. EPs consider the actual or potential negative impacts of existing facilities. Although the range of issues to be considered is similar to the range of issues to be considered in performing an EIA, the range of measures that are considered is more restricted since the facilities already exist and a variety of mitigating measures that might be feasible for a proposed facility (and therefore considered under an EIA) are not feasible for existing facilities and therefore cannot be considered under an EP.

EIAs and EPs are essential to defining the permit requirements for the siting, construction and operation of waste management facilities, and are therefore integral to the permitting system proposed under this policy. Consistent with national policy or legislation regarding planning and environment, the following procedure should be undertaken in execution of EIAs and EPs:

1.     A description of the proposed or actual facility should be provided, noting the scale and hours of operation of the facility, transportation requirements into and from the facility, emissions (e.g. gaseous, liquid or solid waste, noise, odour, dust) from the facility, and potential of facility operations to impact health or the economy (e.g. through attraction of vermin, discharge of leachate or other liquids, introduction or release of new species etc).

2.     A description of the environment in which the facility is or is proposed to be located should be provided. This should address the general topography of the location, surface/subsurface and marine water regimes, general atmospheric and wind conditions, fauna/flora and critical habitat (and particularly with respect to possible presence of threatened or endangered species), presence of archaeological or cultural resources, actual land use and potential for other land uses (not to be considered for EPs).

3.     Possible or actual facility impacts should be determined associated with each of siting, construction and operation. Mitigation measures should be identified for negative impacts and the extent of residual negative impact should be determined. Impact analysis should consider both direct impacts (i.e. those impacts that the facility will have as a direct consequence of its location and operation) and indirect impacts (i.e. impacts that may be facilitated as a consequence of the siting or operation of a facility, but for which there may be other contributing factors). The financial, social and environmental implications of implementation of mitigation measures should be detailed.

4.     EIAs in support of proposed new publicly-owned facilities should consider alternative general processes (e.g. implementation of waste diversion strategies instead of a waste disposal facility) to the proposed facility that would have lesser impacts or a lower cost than the proposed facility. Analysis of alternatives is not feasible for existing facilities simply because they already exist; nor is analysis of alternatives feasible for privately owned proposed facilities because the private owner is engaged in a business in which they have specialist expertise and business opportunity and who do not therefore have choices open to them regarding alternatives to what they propose.

5.     Public consultation should be undertaken as a required task of an EIA. Focus should be placed on explaining the purpose of the new waste management facility, the benefits of the proposed facility, potential negative impacts associated with the facility and measures that are proposed to mitigate negative impacts. The perspectives of stakeholders should be assessed and incorporated into the proposed new facility, as possible and desirable. Information may also be available from residents regarding the local environment that is not available from other sources, and which may therefore contribute to analysis of impacts and mitigation measures.

6.     EIAs should conclude with recommendations regarding: (i) whether there are preferred alternatives to the proposed facility; (ii) the social and environmental suitability of the site on which the proposed facility is proposed to be located; (iii) the mitigation measures that should be incorporated in the design, construction and operation of the facility in order to mitigate potential negative impacts; (iv) the costs associated with application of the proposed facility. EPs should address items (iii) and (iv) of these points; and those elements of point (iii) that are relevant to the facility in question.

New facilities should be allowed to proceed only if: (i) a preferred alternative is not identified; and (ii) the proposed location is environmentally and socially suitable, or can be made so in a fashion consistent with the sustainability of environmental and social systems. The mitigation measures associated with proposed new or existing facilities should become conditions on the permits issued to the facilities, and should be enforced.

DIRECT FACILITY-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Table C-1 identifies environmental issues specific to different types of waste management facility. Cells identified with a “X” represent issues that should generally be addressed in detail in any EIA or EP for the type of facility in question; these issues typically have serious negative impacts in all cases unless mitigation measures are sufficiently developed. Cells identified with a “x” represent issues that are typically less significant for the facility in question; however, site specific factors may result in these issues being as potentially serious as those indicated with a “X”. Open cells identify that the issue is not typically associated with the facility.

The issues identified in Table C-1 are briefly annotated below:

1.  

   -     Habitat removal

1.  

   -     Source reduction

1.  

   -     Education

Table C-1

DIRECT IMPACTS TYPICALLY ADDRESSED IN ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS OF WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

Autoclave/Incinerators

Biomedical waste treatment facilities are proposed for several OECS countries.

Incineration of solid, non-hazardous waste may also be undertaken but requires a constant supply of waste, high energy demands to sustain, incurs very high capital and operational costs when operated to modern environmental standards (even when energy recovery is undertaken), cannot treat all wastes and does not remove the need for subsequent landfilling; although these types of facility may play a role in future waste management systems in OECS countries, they are not proposed for implementation in the current project.

Incinerators are typically located in industrial or commercial zones for economic reasons, since these zones are generally those that are best equipped with the infra-structural requirements of an incinerator. The siting impacts of incinerators are therefore typically modest, although in any specific instance serious siting issues may emerge; these are often driven more by social issues that technical issues. Operationally, however, incinerators may have serious environmental and social consequences, particularly with respect to air emissions. Dioxins, furans and heavy metals are all emitted by incinerators and are subject to very stringent controls in industrialised countries because of their potential to impact human health and the environment. In area of poor air circulation or which are prone to air inversions, overall air quality can be seriously impaired by incinerators, although this is not typically an issue with biomedical waste incinerators. Process residues (ash) require landfilling, wastes must b promptly incinerated to avoid attraction of vermin/vectors and measures should be taken to ensure adequate control of noise and traffic.

Centralized Composting

Centralized composting at the scale proposed in OECS countries has a small-to-intermediate land requirement and consequently does not tend to have the same level of siting impacts as a landfill. Operationally, centralized composting may have s wide a range of negative impacts as landfilling, and the design and operation of centralized composting facilities should be carefully planned and undertaken to ensure that these impacts are eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level; although composting is environmentally advantageous, composting that is undertaken without due care to the issues identified in Table C-1 can be environmentally damaging. Operational concerns associated with composting arise primarily from the degradation of organic materials, but “low-Tech” solutions exist for all the concerns identified.

Recycling Facilities

Recycling facilities are industrial operations that should be located in industrial or commercial zones if they are not located at a landfill site. Their siting and operational impacts are typically modest and are similar to other types of industrial or commercial operation.

Transfer Stations

Transfer stations involve the bulking of waste into larger quantities in order to reduce haulage costs over long distances. Small areas of land are required and their siting impacts are therefore modest. Issues associated with the operation of transfer stations revolve around the handling of waste, odours and litter that this may generate, and traffic management. For the most part, these issues impact on communities rather than on the environment.

INDIRECT IMPACTS

Indirect impacts associated with waste management facilities are facilitydependent, but might include some or all of the following, and other impacts —

1.  

   (i)     urban or peri-urban growth,

1.  

   (ii)     increased pressure on local natural areas,

1.  

   (iii)     impacts on adjacent land values, and

1.  

   (iv)     impacts on environmental receptors (e.g. coral) remote from the waste management facility (through transportation of contaminants away from the waste management facility).

The indirect impacts associated with waste management facilities should be identified and mitigation measures should be undertaken to address these; often, appropriate mitigation measures involve policy or planning actions by government.