It’s complicated. Nobody likes a landfill, right? Here is a summary of information that I have gleaned and some of my opinions regarding the matter.
Approved Smooth Hill Landfill option
The DCC approved the construction of Smooth Hill Landfill this year, with a capital works cost of $92.4 million. This included constructing the landfill, improving the road leading to the landfill, and a contingency of $20 million, or approximately 20%, to account for inflation and unforeseen events. This money would be borrowed.
The annual operational cost of the Landfill is estimated to be $4 million. The landfill operation would be contracted out; Waste Management or Environz would be the most likely contenders.
Financial modelling of 3 options by consultants Morrison Low concluded that over a 20-year operating life (actual will be more like 40 years plus) Smooth Hill, developed and owned by the DCC, would be the cheapest option at a cost of about $151 M, with a Private Public Partnership being second ($218 M), and trucking waste to AB Lime in Southland was estimated to be $296 M.
There was considerable peer-reviewed information put in front of the council before it made its decision. A reasonable summary of it can be found at this link
For any of the options, the upgrade to the Green Island resource recovery centre and transfer station will still be required.
Uncertainties and risks identified.
1) While not specifically stated in any of the information I have looked at, it is assumed that the $151 M cost for Smooth Hill includes debt servicing. Opponents state that there is no debt servicing plan.
2) The financial modelling indicates that Smooth Hill will see decreasing greenhouse gas emission charges (charged on a per tonne waste basis) after about year 3 due to gas capture. In my opinion, Smooth Hill is unlikely to achieve gas capture until after this time. It has taken AB Lime 20 years or more to capture 90% of its GHG emissions, gas that is used for lime production and electricity generation.
3) The resource consent conditions state that, due to perceived aircraft bird strike, the Smooth Hill landfill can only take waste with less than 10% putrescible (decomposable) material. Opponents believe this is impossible to achieve, especially when receiving commercial waste. Ironically, it is putrescible waste that creates the GHG, and if it is only 10%, gas production will be low and capture for energy production may take longer than estimated.
4) Opponents argue that the emissions from trucking the waste to AB Lime will be less than the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the landfill, given that AB Lime is capturing gases as above. Opponents use emissions from Green Island as a starting point, but that is an outdated landfill, and emissions from a modern, well-managed landfill are likely to be less than the Green Island baseline, especially if only 10% putrescible material is allowed (point 3 above). However, from what I understand, the greenhouse gas emissions at Smooth Hill will be more than trucking waste to AB Lime, especially in the first few years of operation, due to the gas capture at AB Lime,
5) The financial modelling assumes that Smooth Hill Landfill will get commercial waste in the order of 25000 tonnes pa. Opponents say that the gate price at Smooth Hill will be too expensive, and commercial waste will go elsewhere. However, the Morrison Low report states that the Smooth Hill landfill would still be marginally cheaper than trucking waste to AB Lime, even if Smooth Hill was just taking DCC-controlled waste.
6) Opponents argue that continuing to take 60000 tonnes pa is incompatible with a Waste Reduction Strategy.
Resource consent conditions
In general, the environmental resource consent conditions are typical of those applied to a modern landfill and are not extraordinary. There are some unique resource conditions that opponents think are impossible to meet, and some that the DCC have apparently already reneged upon. Some of the more controversial operating conditions are outlined below.
- As part of the resource consent conditions, the DCC are to have regular meetings with the Brighton community group, and apparently this has not happened.
- As indicated above, Smooth Hill can only take waste with 10% putrescible content, which may be difficult to achieve. It is intended to discourage birds. Waste that exceeds this is likely to be sent to AB Lime.
- Bird strike due to the proximity to the airport was an argument used by Opponents. Apparently, the CAA and Dunedin Airport withdrew their objections after an agreement was reached on how to manage birds and incorporated into the consent conditions.
- The bird management plan requires that the landfill operation be stopped if 20 birds greater than about the size of a blackbird (50 g) are observed, and that the airport be notified immediately. The airport will not be shut down, but the eastern airspace, used most often in southerly take-offs, will be closed, and aircraft will be directed west.
- The bird management plan also requires a shooter to be available at all times.
- The area is a habitat of the nesting eastern falcon, and provisions must be made to protect their habitat. These, along with red-billed gulls, are protected species and cannot be shot.
- Opponents say that there will always be more than 20 birds, and again use Green Island as an example. As indicated above, the Green Island landfill is a poor example of a well-managed landfill, and the more modern Kate Valley landfill in Canterbury boasts that it has no birds. “Regular monitoring reveals few pest problems at the Landfill, and seldom is a seagull seen despite the close proximity to the coast.” see https://transwastecanterbury.co.nz/landfill/operations/. Kate valley is about 0.5 km closer to the coast than Smooth Hill as the bird flies.
- If the landfill operations are adversely affected by birds, there is the option to run the operation under nets. Opponents argue that this will significantly increase the operational costs.
Future Waste Alternatives
Opponents argue that the decision to go with Smooth Hill should be put off and an interim solution of trucking waste to AB Lime should be put in place until all other options have been reviewed, and or new technology (e.g. electric/hydrogen trucks) makes exporting waste significantly cheaper with lower greenhouse gas emissions. Proponents argue that this will delay the project and will likely lead to cost increases.
Alternative Options include:
1) Trucking or rail/truck waste to AB Lime. It can take all the waste south of the Waitaki for 150 years. This has been modelled as being more expensive than Smooth Hill.
2) Rail the waste to Kate Valley in Canterbury, which has enough capacity to take all the waste north of the Waitaki for 150 years, and accommodating Dunedin’s waste would be easy. I have yet to see any convincing figures from opponents that this would be cost-effective.
3) Wait until a Waste to Energy (WtE) incinerator, like the one under consideration in Waimate, comes on stream. This would be a good solution, but it is not without environmental issues. Some toxic residue is created and must be disposed of (there is a hazardous waste landfill near Temuka that would probably take this), and some toxic/GHG might be released to the atmosphere. Modern WtE plants feature advanced air pollution control systems to remove most pollutants from the gases before they are released.
4) Wait until another technology comes along………..?
Discussion
The DCC have made a decision based on considerable, complex and peer-reviewed information put in front of them. Financial analysis indicates that Smooth Hill is the cheaper option, albeit with significant uncertainties. As with most waste disposal, you can’t get past the NIMBY factor, and it is no surprise that there is vocal opposition from communities for the Smooth Hill Landfill, as there is also opposition for the proposed Waimate WtE plant and the Te Kuiti plant in the North Island. The Smooth Hill opponents talk a lot, but their issues have already been considered as part of the resource consent process. I have yet to see any peer-reviewed analyses of the costs and other considerations from the opponents, and if their arguments are so compelling, the question must be asked why such work has not already been published.
Waste reduction is the ultimate goal, and in choosing Smooth Hill, the DCC wants to control its own waste stream (not a compelling argument in my opinion). Waste in the DCC area has increased per household in the past few years, despite a waste reduction strategy and the start of separation of household waste. More needs to be done by householders and businesses to ensure their waste is not contaminated, is well separated and recycled.
Levies and taxes on excess packaging and non-recyclable materials would help to reduce waste. This requires the central government to be brave and bold amid all the screaming from manufacturers. Consumers will quickly choose the lowest-priced item, which, coincidentally, is likely to have a lower environmental impact.
Create Your Own Website With Webador