Calanques National Park: why the discharge of “red mud” was again authorized

Off the creeks of Marseille and Cassis, in the waters of the National Park, the Altéo company will be able to continue to discharge its aqueous effluents, resulting from the production of alumina. The prefect of the PACA region has just announced the renewal of the authorization allowing the site to discharge its residues at sea, 7 kilometers from the coast.

This decision sowed discord within the government, divided on the merits of continuing these rejections. Ségolène Royal expressed her fierce opposition and denounced pressure from the Prime Minister, in favor of renewing the authorization. In a press release, Matignon said the decision was based on the independent opinion of the Higher Council for the Prevention of Technological Risks (CSPRT).

A long deliberation

In fact, if pressures cannot be ruled out, it would be wrong to say that the dice were loaded on December 22, when the CSPRT met to vote. For nine long hours – an unusual time for this committee of experts – the thirty or so members present debated the “pros”, “cons” and conditions.

This advice is made up of representatives of different ministries, unions, defenders of industrial interests, members of health and environmental associations. That day, everyone had to decide whether the mining company Alteo could continue to benefit from an exemption from the legislation on the discharge of effluents into the sea. Indeed, certain pollutants – aluminum in particular – exceed by more than 250 times the legal thresholds (37 times for arsenic).

According to our information, four scenarios were on the table. One provided for the immediate cessation of discharges; the other two a renewal under conditions (twice two years, or twice three years). The last, finally, authorized the company to reject chemicals for ten years, without conditions. The six-year plan won the broadest support (around 20 votes), but the “2 + 2” scenario fell short – with one or two votes.

A very damaged maritime area

If the debates were particularly long, it is because the committee, like the administration, was very divided. For the health aspect, the opinions were based in particular on two reports relating to the chemical contamination of fish and molluscs present in the area and consumed by humans. Some 2,000 seafood products were thus analyzed.

These preliminary reports, produced by ANSES and Ifremer, available on the website of the Ministry of Ecology, show that marine animals bear the indisputable trace of the metals (aluminum, titanium, valadium) which constitute the signature of these releases. Contamination, much higher in the “impacted area”, seems to decrease in the “reference area” (not affected by the releases) selected for the study.

The authors note the poor chemical quality of Mediterranean waters, with a “problem of marked contamination for different substances in the two sampling areas”. However, the health risk associated with the consumption of these products seems to comply with regulatory thresholds, they conclude cautiously, leaving the question open despite everything.

The environmental risk, for its part, has not been the subject of specific studies. Forging an idea is not, however, very complicated. The alumina production site has been dumping its residues at sea for nearly fifty years. More than 20 million tonnes of red mud were thus released into the seabed of the Cassidaigne pit.

“Amber light” for the operator

The Council’s opinion requires the operator to assess the health risks associated with the consumption of seafood products, within two or three years – a request supported in particular by the Ministry of Health. Alteo will finally have to prove the compliance of its activities with the regulations on atmospheric emissions by 2018. These conditions should appear in the future prefectural decree.

“This vote should not be seen as a green light, but rather an amber light,” said Jacky Bonnemains, president of the Robin des Bois environmental association, which qualifies the agreement as “reasonable.” A position shared by France Nature Environment, which also took part in the vote. “There was a real debate, real opinions were expressed during this day, even if we are still lacking in terms of environmental guarantees”, specifies Maryse Arditi, who heads the industrial risks network by FNE.

For the sake of consistency, these two associations would obviously have preferred to stop discharges. But such a decision would have resulted in the immediate bankruptcy of the already economically weak site – management has changed hands four times in 12 years. Some 700 jobs were said to have been threatened. “At least we have escaped the scenario of ten years without conditions which finally collected few votes, including among the industrialists, explains Jacky Bonnemains. Despite everything, there is a form of awareness on this issue, even among the hard core of the Council ”.

Multiple health issues

The vote therefore reflects a very consensual position. However, the health consequences linked to the activity of the site remain problematic. The sludge, packed and stored on land before being discharged into the sea, emits toxic dust, loaded with heavy metals, which constitutes a health risk for the inhabitants of the surrounding municipalities, such as Gardanne and Bouc-Bel Air. “Studies are underway to assess the toxicity of these fine particles on populations, especially children,” says Jacky Bonnemains.

A threat also hangs over the water tables which, in fact, suffer from mining activities. In January, in Bouc-Bel-Air, a source was contaminated with bauxite (aluminum) residues from this storage.