Whangārei plastic burning hearing against Warren Sinclair raises questions over NZ recycling reality

A judge has questioned what meaningful difference there is between burning plastic in a pyrolysis unit and sending it to landfill, as he heard allegations against a man running a plastic-burning plant without the required consent.

Environment Court Judge Jeff Smith questioned where New Zealand’s recycled plastic goes, suggesting most of it “quite probably” ends up in landfill, releasing toxins for centuries, the very outcome Warren Sinclair says he is trying to avoid.

“What’s the difference?” the judge asked during the recent hearing into Sinclair’s latest venture, Black2Green.

The Northland Regional Council (NRC) served four abatement notices on Sinclair late last year after an off-duty enforcement officer noticed discharge coming from his Kioreroa Rd industrial property in Whangārei.

The plant was discharging an unknown substance into the air from a pyrolysis unit that burns plastic waste and converts it into substances such as diesel and gas.

Pyrolysis heats material to a high temperature, in the absence of oxygen, which then breaks down into substances such as gases, oils or charcoal.

Sinclair failed to comply with the abatement notices, forcing the case to the Environment Court with the NRC.

Judge Smith said his understanding was that the plant was processing a combustible liquid, the exact nature of which remained unclear, and the substance was then used to fire another unit, triggering the next ignition cycle.

Sinclair’s lawyer, James Gardner-Hopkins, said the plant had two burners, one running on diesel and the other an enclosed system running off its own regenerated fuel.

“The process reduces liquid fuel and gas and some carbon. The gas that comes out is almost identical to LPG or LNG therefore, the use of that gas to continue the heating process makes the process mostly self-sustainable,” Sinclair told the court.

He said the unit was from a Chinese manufacturer and submitted the instruction guide for use as evidence.

Sinclair also submitted his own diagram to the court of how he put the plant together.

Lawyer for the NRC, Anna McConachy, asked Sinclair whether he had carried out any air quality testing or independent testing.

“No, we have not,” he responded.

Sinclair said he used test results from similar plants around the world and said it was “known science, it’s not something that’s brand new”.

He acknowledged he had not put any of that evidence before the court.

McConachy asked Sinclair whether he was an air quality expert or an engineer, to which he responded, “I am not”.

She also asked him whether he had any information from the manufacturer about what comes out of the system once it is cooled and opened.

“No, I don’t believe anyone’s ever asked me that question,” he responded.

Sinclair told the court that although he had consent from the Whangārei District Council to use graphite in burning tyres, he did not apply to the regional council for the plastic-burning operation.

“We asked a planner for a resource consent and their opinion was there was none required,” Sinclair said.

Resource management commissioner Lou Wickham said their primary concern was the combustion of pyrolysis gas, which requires a consent.

“If it doesn’t get burned off, it raises questions of what happens to it? He said he would bottle it and sell it and that would require a different plant that’s not currently there,” Wickham said.

“A bottling process is entirely different.”

Wickham said the plant was discharging an unknown waste stream horizontally into a vegetated hillside, rather than vertically, as is standard.

“The reason we put them straight up to air is so we get dispersion, so by the time it comes down, it’s much more dilute. Putting it straight out sideways into a hill is not best practice,” Wickham said.

‘Landfill doesn’t solve the problem’

Sinclair had told the court that the plant was producing bio-gas, to which Wickham laughed.

“Bio-gas is produced by biological matter, food waste, plants, trees and sewerage. It’s not plastic or e-waste, so no, I don’t agree with Mr Sinclair.”

Wickham said no testing had been done by the NRC and this would be something that needed to be done if a consent was applied for.

Judge Smith pointed out Northland permitted activities that produced toxic byproducts that other regions had already clamped down on, including coal, diesel and other combustion‑based discharges.

“Northland has a whole series of permitted activities producing toxic byproducts - coal, fire plants, diesel. I’ve got to suggest coal and oil have contaminants,” he said.

The court heard Sinclair’s plant could burn about 45 cubic metres of plastic a day, diverting it from landfill.

The judge pushed back on the council’s alternative, which was landfill.

“Putting them in a landfill doesn’t solve the problem. It does heat, and that I assume contains some of the same things, a more diverse range than yours; nevertheless it doesn’t disappear,” the judge told to the council.

“It’s still in the environment, that has to be dealt with or they would just sit and deteriorate over the next few hundred years.

“I’ve got to say, the court understands what you’re trying to achieve and there are [plants] like this around the world,” the judge said to Sinclair.

Judge Smith then spoke with Wickham about the mystery of New Zealand’s recycled plastics.

“We have our plastic waste every year and I am yet to find out where it goes apart from landfills,” Judge Smith said.

“Where does it go? I certainly don’t believe it’s recycled in any way. How are they dealt with?

“I suggest all of it goes to landfill.”

“Yes, quite probably,” Wickham conceded.

Judge Smith then drew a direct comparison between Sinclair’s proposed emissions and what already escapes from landfills.

“What is the difference?” he asked.

The council maintained that Sinclair still required a resource consent.

Northland’s new regional plan bans the burning of plastics, rubber and treated timber but allows most other gas discharges provided they don’t create an “offensive or objectionable” effect beyond the boundary.

Judge Smith has reserved his decision.

This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.