Waimate Doctors
A group of Waimate doctors have collectively condemned the Waimate incinerator proposal called Project Kea, labelling it a ‘Waste-to-Poison’s plant
Following a resource consent application by South Island Resource Recovery Limited (SIRRL), the Waimate Doctors, comprising of Dr Sarah Creegan, Dr Margaret Larder, Dr Steve Fish, Dr Crispin Langston and Dr Neil Lockley, released an open letter raising concerns about the proposed waste incinerator.
The letter states:
‘Having considered various claims about the proposal for a waste burning plant, we (the local doctors) feel that the issues of risk to health have not been fully recognised. It is not disputed that there will be toxic by-products and secondary health concerns arising from discharges to air, toxic ash and effects due to increased heavy road traffic. What remains unclear, even within the application for consent, is the true level of these dangers.’
The letter goes on to say:
‘On current information, then, this project would be best described as a waste-to-poisons plant.’
Doctors meet with Incinerator proponents.
Following the release of the doctors’ letter, SIRRL contacted the doctors to discuss their concerns. This was after 18 months of dodging concerns raised by the community. So, why the sudden change of tack? Maybe because it’s hard to dismiss doctors as NIMBYs, ill-informed greenies, or keyboard warriors.
The doctors raised some concerns that otherwise would not have been responded to by the company outside of a resource consent application.
Soon after, Dr Crispin Langston, Dr Steven Fish, Dr Margaret Larder, SIRRL director Paul Taylor, and Paul Duder from Babbage Consulting held a Zoom meeting, during which the doctors had the chance to ask SIRRL questions.
Doctors questions to SIRRL.
The doctors provided SIRRL with a list of questions before the Zoom meeting, giving the company ample time to source the answers from the appropriate sources.
The questions put to SIRRL included concerns relating to dioxins, furans, heavy metals, particulates, etc.; emission monitoring; feeder fuel effects; storage of waste and associated risk; diesel use; dispersion modelling of emissions; landfilling of untreated bottom ash; plasma technology; conflicting technology claims; employment; water consumption; plant failures; and many more.
The full list of the Doctor’s questions and SIRRL’s responses can be found below.
Waimate GPs 'far from reassured' after meeting about proposed waste-to-energy plant
Waimate doctors opposed to plans for a waste-to-energy plant in their district say they are “far from reassured” following a three-hour meeting with the company behind the proposal and are still waiting for answers more than a week on.
Dr Langston said one major question SIRRL had yet to answer was which aromatic chemicals they would be monitoring.
“They say online monitoring of dioxins, but not whether they mean dioxins only or the whole group of dioxins, which includes dioxins, PCBs, furans and PAH.
“They also said there would be intermittent measurement of actual amounts, but have declined to say how often.”
Another question the doctors have is what SIRRL would do if dioxin levels exceed permissions, giving an example of a UK plant which is allowed up to 4 hours over the accepted level.
“There was no comment on long-term accumulative danger of dioxins, or heavy metals.
“This is a major concern as we know they accumulate over time, and become toxic at certain thresholds.
He said SIRRL has “studiously avoided” any engagement in ash disposal, saying only that at present the only allowed option is landfill.
“But the lifetime assessment for the plant states that it will be recycled, and also that it will be relatively local, whereas landfill is another 280 km of truck journeys.
“They decline to comment on washing the ash before disposal, to decrease the leaching of heavy metals (a recognised problem), and that also raises questions about non-ferrous metal reclamation, which usually involves copious washings.
“They won’t indicate what non-ferrous metals will be retrieved, nor give an indication of quantity, making us suspicious that this will be minimal, and mostly just to give the impression of recycling.”
Langston said SIRRL does admit it wants to resubmit its resource consent before changes in the Resource Management Act, and the “reason is that the present form severely limits the extent to which a regional authority can assess greenhouse emissions.
“This is hardly a green endorsement,” he said.
“So the doctors are far from reassured, and feel there needs to be a lot more answered before this application can be considered complete for consideration.”
"SIRRL intends testing only so far as is absolutely necessary, making use of the fact that regulation can only follow several years, or even decades, behind science; no long-term nor indirect harm is considered, and the applicant takes advantage of lax regulation to distance itself from any proven harm. The underlying reason can only be to favour an incomplete application and minimise costs."