www

Self-proclaimed waste-to-energy expert and SIRRL director Herman Sioen claims Project Kea is “Best of the best.” “It goes one step beyond what would be normal practice in Europe. For every potential risk, there is a double system; if one would fail for some reason, there is always a second system that takes over and ensures the emissions are ok.” When SIRRL returned to Waimate in March 2023, they hosted what they termed “information sharing sessions” to provide more information about the Project Kea incineration plant proposed for Waimate. Mr Sioen repeatedly referred to W-t-E practices in European cities, providing incentives for W-t-E in Europe that don’t exist in little old Waimate. Incentives for building plants in highly populated areas, servicing central heating requirements, proximity to waste sources, and the scarcity of land for landfilling. Mr Sioen said, “If you take a hot shower in Paris, the chances are the rubbish from the day before has provided the hot water.” Comments like these underscore the Significant discrepancy between the European and Waimate contexts. Read more

When SIRRL director Paul Taylor recently described Project Kea as the “Rolls Royce” of W-t-E plants, it resurrected the story of the Geely GE. The Chinese-built GE was widely regarded as a knock-off of the Rolls Royce Phantom, offered for a fraction of the price of the Phantom. Sound familiar?  Was the GE built to the same exacting standard as the Phantom? Did it carry the same level of engineering and componentry? Of course not!   Project Kea’s budget of NZ$350 million is significantly lower than similar-sized W-t-E plants in Europe, which can cost up to three times as much. This stark contrast raises concerns about the potential risks and feasibility of the project. SIRRL consistently assures us that the Waimate plant will not just meet but exceed European standards. The Project Kea website showcases the Amager Bakke Waste to Energy plant, with its rooftop ski slope, in an attempt to show how well W-t-E plants can integrate within the community. However, it’s important to note that the Copenhagen plant, which serves as a benchmark, costs over NZ$1 billion to build. Amager Bakke is not without its failings and highlights how over-capacity-built plants without available waste feedstocks lead to the importation of waste and the burning of recyclable material. It’s a stark reality that New Zealand lacks specific regulations for Waste-to-Energy (W-t-E) plants. The 33-year-old Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) still regulates NZ’s air emission standards, highlighting the urgent need for updated and specific regulations in this sector. The $350 million budget is suggested to be well below what is required to adhere to the standards of European plants. Can we expect that SIRRL will provide more than is legally required in NZ? There is no evidence to suggest that the plant will be required to adhere to any standards that don’t exist in NZ. 

Well over 100 Waimate residents took to the streets to show their disapproval of a proposal to build a rubbish incinerator in the Waimate district. The weekday march, which started at the Basilica carpark and concluded at the Waimate Event Centre, where SIRRL held information-sharing sessions, was a testament to the community’s determination to be heard. With slogans like ‘TRUCK OFF’ and ‘SHIT IN YOUR BACK YARD’, the community’s message was loud and clear.

SIRRL representatives returned to Waimate in March 2023, giving the Why Waste Waimate (WWW) committee and other concerned residents of the Waimate district a long-awaited chance to ask questions of the company behind Project Kea. In an almost three-hour private meeting with SIRRL, WWW asked many questions of the company; some of their responses were quite frankly bizarre. READ MORE

In what some described as an attempt to screen participants, people wanting to attend information-sharing sessions were first required to register and provide the company with their personal details. The requirement has now been removed following complaints from the community. “We asked for names and contact details when people registered so we could follow up with project information, but we appreciate that some people felt uncomfortable providing this information, so we’ve dropped the requirement to register attendance. People can now just turn up at any of the sessions.”—Paul Taylor, SIRRL.  READ MORE

It’s only been 18 months. SIRRL announced plans to return to Waimate for what they are calling information-sharing sessions six months after lodging a resource consent application. However, in an unpopular move, the company requested attendees to register for the sessions by providing the company with their full name and email address. Dr Crispin Langston, one of five Waimate GPs opposing the plant, said the group believed the information sessions must be a “truly open and accessible forum.” “We do not believe that the proposed series of self-contained, essentially private meetings will achieve that goal.”   Langston was concerned the requirement for people to register for the meetings would “inhibit free speech”. “It is well recognised that the best way to genuinely hear a community’s concerns is to have a larger public meeting with questions initially sorted and presented on behalf of the audience, before opening to the floor.” Langston also said a “truly open public meeting” also means that, more specifically, informed participants can follow the answers and help others achieve a better understanding.

Despite withdrawing his support for Bioplant’s proposal to build a pyrolysis plant in Feilding, Andrew Curtis has signed off on two air quality assessment reports for SIRRL’s Waimate incinerator proposal. However, the proposal has faced challenges. The first resource consent application, which included an air quality report provided by Tara Hutchins from Paddle Delamore Partners (PDP) and reviewed by Andrew Curtis, was returned due to a lack of information, including emissions to air. SIRRL lodged a second application that again included a report by PDP, which was also returned due to a lack of information. ECan has assessed the air quality report and stated that the information provided is inconsistent. MORE ON ANDREW CURTIS & PDP