Air of uncertainty: The contentious Waikato waste-to-energy plan
Part I: A bid to incinerate tonnes of waste is billed as better than burying it, but doubts about highly toxic fallout worry neighbours including a nearby dairy factory.
We make too much rubbish. Last year, 566kg per person went to municipal landfills. So, some say, burn it. Waste-to-energy incineration generates heat and electricity, too. It’s done in many countries, and an application for consent to build such an incinerator in Te Awamutu will soon be considered. If approved, it would be New Zealand’s first – and it could ease the way for others.
Attempts to build such incinerators have popped up in several small towns in recent years, but none have eventuated. The most recent demise was in Canterbury’s Waimate district where one was accepted into the fast-track regime. The company lost its agreement to buy land, voiding its fast-track inclusion. It had faced enormous local opposition.
Te Awamutu locals feel the same, the mayor writing, “It is hard to overestimate the strength of feeling that exists in the community against the proposed waste-to-energy plant.” Waikato-Tainui oppose it. Key concerns include air and water pollution, residual ash, climate effects and less incentive to reduce waste.
A legal battle is therefore under way. On one side is the company applying for resource consent, Global Contracting Solutions (GCS), owned by metal recyclers Global Metal Solutions. It’s armed with a King’s Counsel, a barrister and 21 expert witnesses.
In opposition are the site’s two immediate neighbours, a Fonterra factory and a racecourse. They’re joined by the Zero Waste Network, the Environmental Defence Society, the Ministry of Education (representing schools within 600m) and Waipā District Council.
The face-off was due to begin in Hamilton this week before a board of inquiry ordered by Environment Minister Penny Simmonds, who deemed it a matter of national interest. Local councils requested the decision be removed from them. Three commissioners will decide whether the incinerator can go ahead, their verdict likely to influence the success of other hopeful waste-to-energy operators. Board of inquiry decisions can be appealed only on points of law.
Clear the air
GCS proposes to incinerate about 150,000 tonnes a year of municipal waste, plastic, tyres and “floc” – shredded metal recycling leftovers from wrecked vehicles and whiteware, including upholstery, plastic and rubber. Floc can contain serious pollutants (see “Floc with nowhere to go?”, below). It’s unclear where the municipal waste would come from.
Modern waste-to-energy incinerators have filters and scrubbers to capture most pollution. When all runs smoothly, they do that. But expert witnesses are clashing over how effective the pollution controls would be, as revealed in their written evidence. The controls are imperfect: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, mercury, dioxins and particulates, at least, will be discharged. These are colourless and largely odourless, and there’s abundant evidence they can cause illness and shorten lives.
But they are already present in our air, and GCS need only prove the plant would discharge less than New Zealand air quality rules allow. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has repeatedly said those standards are woefully outdated and not in line with World Health Organisation guidelines.