Incinerator plan a hot topic

Having it on the agenda an opportunity to give voice to both sides of the argument

The Paewira Waste to Energy Incineration Plant was on the agenda at last week’s Te Awamutu-Kihikihi Community Board meeting. There was a large public gallery turnout to hear both sides of the argument for the proposed new incinerator at 401 Racecourse Rd, Te Awamutu.

The community board was not making the decision on the incinerator plant but having it on the agenda was an opportunity to give voice to both sides of the argument. I would encourage anyone interested in the incinerator plant to watch the meeting at waipadc.govt.nz/ourcouncil/agendas-and-minutes, from the one-hour mark.

Group manager growth and regulatory services Wayne Allan outlined the process and said Waipā District Council (WDC) and Waikato Regional Council (WRC) both required public notification and WDC was legally required to accept the proposal.

He advised WRC has consent applications for discharge to air, discharge to stormwater, deposition of clean-fill, and Waipā covered the remaining areas of concern. He noted the applicant, Global Metals Solutions, initially requested a non-notified consent process.

Allan advised independent hearing commissioners will be making the decision to determine the application.

Due to technical issues, we had no sound on Zoom so public forum speaker Professor Connett’s presentation was read.

He stated he had been researching the issue of waste management since 1985 and had given over 2500 public presentations in a total of 70 countries.

He had helped citizens prevent the building of 300-400 incinerators worldwide. He provided many points that needed follow-up. Most concerning was his statement about nanoparticles.

“From an environmental and health perspective burning waste is highly complicated and risky.

“A modern incinerator converts hundreds of tonnes of waste per day to trillions of extremely tiny particles, which are very difficult to capture. Particles so small that they can carry toxics across lung membranes into the blood stream and to every tissue in the body.

“These nanoparticle emissions are not regulated or monitored.”

He commented that waste was a design problem and that we need better industrial design for the 21st century, like the zero waste programme.

“That is the future, incineration belongs in the past. Incineration is not sustainable. It cannot be part of a circular economy.”

Roger Wilson from Global Metals Solutions made five key points about the incinerator project.

These were:

● The incinerator would reduce the amount of waste going to landfill by incinerating instead (80T of the 480T received daily or 17 per cent);

● The economic benefits of additional jobs created in the town resulting from the operation and maintenance of three plants with yearly five-weekly shutdowns;

● An education facility about waste and recycling;

● Preservation and improvement of the Mangapiko Stream; and

● Providing a link to the Ngāroto Cycle Track.

In question time, he confirmed his company had not built an incinerator plant like this anywhere before.

The plant will be using 70,000 litres a day of freshwater, which will then be disposed of off site.

He confirmed that not 100 per cent of heavy metals such as mercury and lead would be removed from the waste that was to be incinerated.

Wilson advised there had been no health impact assessment completed by the company because it had not been a requirement in the application process.

Sue Coutts, from Zero Waste Network Aotearoa, spoke about what she perceived as the pitfalls of the incinerator including the low diversion rate from incineration.

For example, Raglan’s Extreme

Zero Waste diverts 75 per cent to recycling of the waste that comes through the door whereas the incinerator plant intends to divert just 17 per cent.

The incinerator is based on burning fossil fuels and plastics and is creating an emissions source. Her view was that New Zealand’s current regulations and rules were not adequate and she pointed out that we do not have any of these facilities in New Zealand.

Paewira would be the first.

To be heard, make your submission before the closing date of Friday, October 13.

Detailed information regarding the application and the submission form is available at waipadc.govt.nz/ wastetoenergyplant or from the Council's office in Bank Street.

The board had 29 applications worth $55,818.48 for discretionary funds and allocated just over $35,000 to a number of worthy organisations.

As always, we are very impressed at what so many community groups do for our town.

It was also fantastic to have so many make the effort to join us to speak to their applications.

Community feedback has been consistently unhappy about what is planned for the Te Awamutu War Memorial Park, particularly around the removal of any of the stonework, reduction of the lake and the significant cost.

The majority of feedback is for it to be maintained and not altered.

As a result, the community board voted unanimously to recommend to the strategic planning and policy committee that changes to the War Memorial Park go on hold while a full review is conducted, and that all stakeholders have the opportunity to take part together in a participatory democracy forum to resolve this.