Recycling of glass (FOI)

Request 

This is a follow-up FOI request after the response to FOI Glass Recycling FOI (gov.je)

A

Since November 2021, all glass received at La Collette has been sent to the UK for recycling, where it is processed to make new glass products. Please give details of dates when the glass has been sent to the UK and where it is sent?

B

Who approved the use of glass as a drainage medium at the La Collette reclamation site and did the Government know that by doing so the land would be contaminated?

C

When did the Government become aware that the La Collette reclamation site was contaminated, what was the cost of dealing with this contamination and who approved the cost?

D

A targeted transition plan is in place for all glass to be recycled on-island by the end of 2023. Please provide details of what recycling plant/s will be used and the forecasted cost to achieve this?

E

When AAL Recycling Limited ('AAL') was contracted in 2018 to receive, clean, crush and stockpile 100% of waste glass at La Collette, how many companies were involved in the tender process and what were these companies' names?

F

While I appreciate commercial sensitivity around the breakdown of waste glass management costs, more broadly please give a breakdown by area, ie the different type of works carried out, to understand why the figure paid in 2022 up to the 31 August (£201,790) is so much greater than previous years?

Response 

A

The glass is being sent to URM (UK) Limited's facility in Tilsbury in batches. The shipment dates are shown in the attached spreadsheet. 

Glass Shipment dates (excel) 

B

The La Collette reclamation site and engineered design of the outer sea wall lining system was approved by the Environmental Regulator. 

The glass drainage layer is contained between a regulated graded stone layer on the larger boulder sea wall and a geotextile silt barrier before inert soils as a final inner layer. 

Routine sampling is carried out both from the engineered cells within the La Collette site and from designated points at the water line around the periphery of the site. 

These samples are sent for independent analysis and results are reported to the Regulator as part of the Waste Management licences held for the site. 

There is no indication that the glass used as part of the design material has caused any contamination at the La Collette site. 

C

Please see response to question B. 

D

The targets have been set to allow the current contractor to develop re-use markets for glass products on-island and are still under development. Therefore, the information you have requested is exempt under Article 35 (Formulation and development of policies) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. 

Article 35 is a qualified exemption, which means that a public interest test is required and this is included at the end of the response. 

E

The Government of Jersey received tender submissions from the following companies in relation to the referenced work which formed part of an overall contract to manage inert waste at La Collette. 

• AAL Recycling Limited
• Brian Blandin Limited 
  

F

The cost for 2022 is significantly higher than that of previous years since it includes shipping glass off-island for processing. 

The previous years' processing was for the receipt and limited processing on a local site, therefore, no shipping costs were incurred. 

The requested breakdown of the costs is exempt under Article 33(b) (Commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 because the information is commercially sensitive. 

Article 33 is a qualified exemption therefore a public interest test has been applied and is shown at the end of this response. 

Articles applied 

Article 33 - Commercial interests

Information is qualified exempt information if – 

(a) it constitutes a trade secret; or

(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information). 

Public Interest Test 

The release of costs or contract values could potentially disadvantage AAL Recycling Limited and the Government of Jersey's ability to retain commercial advantage in any future tender process.  

This could also result in the Government's inability to secure the best value for the taxpayer and this would likely prejudice the Government as its bargaining power decreases. 

It is in the public interest to be made aware of the amount being paid to AAL Recycling Limited in relation to the management of waste glass.  

However, we consider that the likely prejudices to AAL Recycling Limited, the Government and the taxpayer should this information be released outweighs the argument that the release is in the public interest. 

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 

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. 
• 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 Ministers and officials need a safe space in which free and frank discussion can take place.   Discussions regarding which sites could be used and their cost are considered an integral part of the policy development. 

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

• Release of the information at this stage might 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.

Following assessment, it was decided that, on balance, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information