Records of PFAS treatment measures at La Collette

​​Request 736871353

1. Request for Records of PFAS Treatment Measures at La Collette and the Sewage Works:

What records exist regarding the treatment (or management) of PFAS-contaminated leachate from the waste mound at La Collette, which includes PFAS-contaminated incinerator ash and soil, in breach of the site’s Waste Acceptance Criteria?

This request seeks documentation, reports, correspondence, or procedures relating to how PFAS leachate—emanating from the hazardous waste mound—has been managed or treated, including any reference to capture, containment, pre-treatment, or disposal (whether on-site or via sewer to the Bellozanne sewage treatment works).

2. Request for Records on PFAS and Sewage Dilution Strategy:

Are there any internal documents, strategy papers, operational protocols, or communications which reference a strategy—implicit or explicit—of co-mixing or diluting PFAS-contaminated leachate with sewage effluent prior to discharge into St Aubin’s Bay?

This is a request for recorded strategies or guidance—not for speculative opinion.

3. Request for Scientific or Policy Records Relating to Combined PFAS and Sewage Risk:

Are there any internal reports, scientific briefings, correspondence, or risk assessments held by the SPA that address the potential increased environmental or health hazards arising from the combination of PFAS-contaminated leachate with municipal sewage (including via odour emissions or final effluent discharge into the marine environment)?

This includes any evidence held regarding the interaction of PFAS with biological treatment processes or its effects on public health or marine biodiversity.

Response

1

There have not been any breaches to the waste acceptance criteria (WAC), therefore Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

The Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) have updated the WAC to meet best practice and current standards and mange environmental risks from our activities.

Historically, there were no records relating to how PFAS leachate, emanating from the hazardous waste mound, has been managed or treated. however further information will be provided in the Scientific PFAS Panel's report on the environmental impact of PFAS.

This work is considered policy under development and is, therefore, exempt from immediate disclosure. Releasing this information prematurely, without comprehensive interpretation alongside other data, is not believed to be in the public interest. The final report, which is scheduled to be made public for consultation in late 2025, will provide a contextual assessment of PFAS in the environment in Jersey.

Article 35 (Formulation and Development of Policies) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied to the release of this information

Article 35 is a qualified exemption; therefore, a public interest test has been applied and is shown at the end of this response.

2

The 2011 report relating to the dilution of leachate has been provided to PFAS panel for consideration and investigation, therefore Article 35 (Formulation and Development of Policies) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied to the release of this information.

3

The Scheduled Public Authority do not hold information relating to the potential increased environmental or health hazards arising from the combination of PFAS- contaminated leachate with municipal sewage, therefore, Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

Further information may be found on www.gov.je using the link below:

PFAS in Jersey​

Articles applied

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority”

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a) it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b) it is held by another person on behalf of the authority

Article 35 - Formulation and development of policies

Information is qualified exempt information if it relates to the formulation or development of any proposed policy by a public authority.

Public Interest test

In applying this article, the following considerations were taken into account. 

​Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

• Disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote accountability to the general public, providing confirmation that the necessary discussions and testing have taken place.

• Disclosure to the public fulfils an educative role about the early stages in policy development and illustrates how the department engages with parties for this purpose.

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information

• In order to best develop policy and provide advice to Ministers, officials need a safe space in which free and frank discussion can take place – discussion of how documentation is presented and provided is considered as integral to policy development as iterations of documents are demonstrative of the policy development process.

• The need for this safe space is considered at its greatest during the live stages of a policy.

• The release of the information without comprehensive interpretation alongside other data could impact the general public with misinterpretation and generate misinformed debate. This would affect the ability of officials to consider and develop policy away from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately.

• Premature disclosure of this information may limit the willingness of parties to provide their honest views and feedback. This would hamper and harm the policy–making process not only in relation to this subject area but in respect of future policy development across wider departmental business.

Considering all considerations above, while transparency is important, the public interest in disclosure must be weighed against potential harm caused by distress or misinformation.

It should also be noted that once a policy is formulated and published, the public interest in withholding information relating to its formulation is diminished, however, the use of the exemption can be supported if it preserves sufficient freedom during the policy formulation phase to explore options without that process being hampered by some expectation of future publication.

The SPA has concluded that, on balance, the risk of causing significant concerns or spreading misinformation, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the benefits disclosing the information.​​