Disappointing Environmental Court Ruling Leaves Potentially Toxic Air Pollution Unaddressed – Zero Waste Aotearoa
Zero Waste Aotearoa is alarmed and disappointed by a recent Environment Court decision, which found a facility for burning plastic waste in Whangārei does not need a consent to discharge potentially toxic air pollution.
The process, known as pyrolysis, heats material in the absence of oxygen to release gases, which are then burned. It is defined as a form of incineration in the USA and European Union.
Sue Coutts is External Affairs Director for Zero Waste Aotearoa. She says: “The Whangarei plant uses plastics as a feedstock. Pyrolysis of plastics releases a range of extremely toxic air emissions including heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants – the so-called ‘forever chemicals’ that include dioxin, as well as acid gases and carbon monoxide that should be subject to monitoring and environmental controls.”
“The Court did not require air dispersion modelling from the company. This is a basic standard of evidence for determining the extent of discharges to air. This means that the court has no idea where or how far the air emissions will go. No expert evidence was put forward by the company. Instead, the judge has taken at face value the word of the operator and sales brochure from the manufacturer.”
“The flow diagram in the court judgement clearly shows air emissions containing persistent organic pollutants (POPs), volatile compounds, heavy metals, particulates and acid gases. It is reasonable to expect that some attempt would be made to assess the quantity and likely impact of these in order to understand the effects of the pyrolysis activity on the local environment and community.”
“The ‘carbon black’ from the plant will contain ash, heavy metals and chemicals of concern, which needs to be removed before it is a safe, clean, usable product.”
“The Environment Court has said that a further agreement will need to be reached about which types of waste can actually be used as feedstock. However, without the requirement for resource consent, there’s no mechanism for monitoring to verify any compliance or any enforcement powers.”
“The judgement also found that a pyrolysis plant is a ‘recycling depot;. This is a fundamental misinterpretation of the definition of ‘recycling’ in the Waste Minimisation Act. This is clearly not a recycling activity. At best, this plant would be considered a recovery facility.
It is widely accepted in law in both New Zealand and overseas that pyrolysis of waste to create fuel is a form of incineration and, therefore, not recycling.
“In Europe and the United States, any incineration project must prove that it produces energy at an efficiency level to even be defined as ‘recovery’, instead of ‘disposal’. New Zealand’s laws have yet to catch up on this.”
“Right now, in the United States, these so-called waste-to-fuel plants are being shut down due to their repeated compliance failures and illegal emissions. Pyrolysis plants are mainly used to generate fuels for burning. However, this fuel needs a lot of treatment to be clean enough to burn safely.”
“In New Zealand, disposal to landfills requires consent to operate. It is covered by guidelines and acceptance criteria, along with well understood compliance, monitoring and enforcement systems. It is fair to expect that alternative disposal methods like pyrolysis would be subject to the same kinds of rules.”
“Pyrolysis is explicitly excluded from the EU guidelines for recycling, and from the Basel Convention waste guidelines for the environmentally sound management of wastes.”
“We are also concerned that claims about the composition and quantities of hazardous byproducts have not been appropriately scrutinised by the Court. There is no discussion of what contaminants end up in the water or the lye used to ‘treat’ the gas, nor what happens to the ‘used’ water and lye. There is no attention paid to the contaminants contained in the ‘char’ nor what happens to the char.”
“This judgement does not help protect human health or the environment. The Northland Regional Council brought comprehensive evidence that consent was needed. This should be respected and upheld by the Court. We hope that an appeal of this decision is on the cards.”
