PFAS Contamination – Leachate from La Collette and Wastewater Treatment Practice

​​​Request 738898875

1. What treatment method is currently used at Jersey’s sewage treatment facility to remove or destroy PFAS substances?

o Please provide technical details of any PFAS-specific treatment or filtration systems in operation.

o If no PFAS destruction technology is used, please confirm this explicitly.

2. Is it Government policy to allow PFAS-contaminated leachate from La Collette to be diluted with sewage before being released into St Aubin’s Bay?

o If so, please provide the rationale and supporting documentation or risk assessments behind this approach.

o Was this strategy subject to public consultation or Environmental Impact Assessment?

3. Has the Government modelled or assessed the cumulative environmental and human health risk of releasing PFAS into St Aubin’s Bay, particularly during high rainfall events?

o Please provide any modelling results, environmental monitoring reports, or Arcadis documentation (including the Phase 2 Report dated 1 May 2025).

4. What legal basis or regulatory exemption is used to justify the disposal of PFAS-contaminated hazardous waste at La Collette, contrary to its Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC)?

o Please supply any ministerial directions, exemptions, or amendments that permit this.

5. Has the Department conducted a Human Health Risk Assessment, Children's Rights Impact Assessment, or Ecological Impact Assessment of PFAS discharges to the marine environment from the wastewater facility or La Collette drainage?

o If so, please provide copies of those assessments.

o If not, please explain why they have not been carried out.

Response

1

There is no specific PFAS treatment currently used at Jersey’s sewage treatment facility, however, the behaviour of PFAS during the treatment process will be explored further in the PFAS scientific report 4, therefore Article 35 (Formulation and Development of Policies) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

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 (SPA) haven’t done any modelling; therefore Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies. 

Additional information can be found using the link below: 

PFAS Hydrogeological Study, Phase 2  Report​

4

No Ministerial Decisions, exemptions or amendments currently permit the acceptance of PFAS waste for disposal at La Collette, therefore Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

La Collette Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) for containment cells revised & published in January 2020 based on cell design and construction and EU Landfill Directive. 

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) waste, which includes certain PFAS chemicals, was explicitly disallowed in this iteration of the WAC with zero tolerance, even though guidance states that PFAS in solid waste are not considered hazardous when present in concentrations of less than 1 mg per kg for PFOA or PFHxS and 50 mg per kg for PFOS. 

The WAC is set by the Solid Waste department as the operator. It is updated when there are changes to legislation or best practice.

5

No, the Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) have not conducted a Human Health Risk Assessment, Children's Rights Impact Assessment, or Ecological Impact Assessment of PFAS discharges to the marine environment from the wastewater facility or La Collette drainage.

All leachate generated at the La Collette waste cells is captured and discharged into the sewage network. The SPA is working with the PFAS Panel to understand the impacts on human health and environment as a result of PFAS in waste and subsequently leachate. 

The behaviour of PFAS during the sewage treatment process will be explored further in the PFAS scientific report 4, 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.

Wider monitoring of water in and around the La Collette site, has been undertaken and results will be considered further in the PFAS scientific report 4

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.