THE EDITOR, Sir:
THE APPROVAL by National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) for the development of a cemetery at Burnt Ground in Hanover is a matter that deserves careful national scrutiny. From the information available, it is fair to conclude that NEPA arrived at its conclusion to approve by its interpretation of the report by the Water Resources Authority (WRA).
A casual look at the WRA comments on the matter could lead to that erroneous conclusion. However, when the conditions which are included in the comments are seriously considered, prudence would suggest that the approval should have been denied by NEPA.
The comments listed below which were extracted from the WRA report clearly expose the danger of the development.
Chudleigh clay loam soil underlies the site and is characterised by a very rapid internal drainage capacity.
The 1: 12500, 1:50000 maps and IKONOS image indicate the presence of depressions and ponds. An appropriate drainage plan to mitigate against the effects of ponding/flooding of the area should be implemented.
Given the high vulnerability of the aquifer, it compels the application of adequate sewage disposal methods, which serve to protect and preserve groundwater quality. The WRA recommends secondary level sewage treatment.
The WRA recommends that the base of vaults be sealed. No seepage from the vaults into the aquifer should be allowed.
It is very evident from the recommendations, that the WRA recognises that the development poses a threat to the contamination of the aquifer. The protection of the aquifer is completely dependent upon the integrity of the sealing of the base of the vaults.
What sort of supervision and monitoring of construction is required to ensure that the quality workmanship and material utilised will guarantee that there is no seepage into the aquifer?
The WRA did its job in pointing out the danger and made recommendations that would reduce the risks. However, the responsibility to approve rests with NEPA. The integrity of the sealing of the base is so critical to protection of the aquifer from contamination that one must look even beyond the possibility of the job properly done. What sort of assurance can be given that even if the vaults are properly sealed that their integrity would be the same after an earthquake?
Taking all the factors into consideration, one is tempted to feel NEPA is gambling with the safety of the aquifer by exposing it to contamination by neglect or natural cause. It is imprudent to gamble especially when one cannot afford to lose.
Both the consequences and the probability of failure are much too high to permit that development at that location. In the public's interest the minister has a responsibility to revoke the approval of this project.
I am, etc.,
LUCIUS C. WHITE
1 Tankerville Avenue
Kingston 6
