Proposed National Environmental Standards for Landfill Gas

• 1 Introduction
• 2 Overview of Submissions
• 3 Detailed Submission Summary
• Appendix A: Public Notice
• Appendix B: Submitters
• Appendix C: Proposed Landfill Gas Collection and Destruction Standard - Fact Sheet

3 Detailed Submission Summary

The following sections summarise the submissions received. Key comments by submitters are summarised under the headings used in the Ministry for the Environment's information sheet Proposed Landfill Gas Collection and Destruction Standard, dated October 2003 (see Appendix C).

3.1 Proposal

Eighteen submissions were received on the proposed landfill gas collection and destruction standard. Thirteen submitters supported, or conditionally supported, the proposal to develop a standard for the collection and destruction of landfill gas (Taranaki Regional Council, Christchurch City Council, University of Canterbury, Envirowaste, Environment BoP, Waste Management NZ Ltd, Ecologic, Hawke's Bay Regional Council, Auckland Regional Council, Environment Canterbury, NIWA, New Zealand Aluminium Smelters, Greater Wellington).

One submitter (Rotorua District Council) opposed the development of a standard, and four submitters made no specific comment on the development of a standard (Gas Association of New Zealand, Dunedin City Council, David Renouf, EECA).

Support

The Christchurch City Council supports the concept of a standard and believes that consideration should also be given to large landfills on the brink of closing. However, the Council considers that the requirement for beneficial uses to achieve equivalent or better destruction efficiency, when compared to flaring, is too restrictive. It suggests that some leniency should be provided in respect of the equivalency of methane destruction with flaring for projects that have potential benefits, such as electricity production.

Envirowaste supports the intent of the standard to create a level playing field for all those involved in landfill management and considers it important to encourage certainty and consistency throughout the country. However, Envirowaste is concerned that the standard may effectively render the Government's project for emission reductions redundant for landfill gas projects, because the standard will be used to define business as usual. It states that the standard needs to complement the project by leaving sufficient scope for marginal collection projects to apply for project funding.

Waste Management NZ Ltd supports in principle the concept of a national environmental standard governing landfill gas, but has concerns relating to:

• the impact the requirement that landfill gas be destroyed will have on "additionality" for climate change mechanisms
• the need for a level playing field across the waste management industry in regard to refuse landfill standards.

Waste Management NZ Ltd is opposed to any mandatory requirement to destroy landfill gas. It considers that if destruction is required it will be considered business as usual, and therefore not additional for the purposes of climate change projects' incentive awards and/or emissions trading. It also states that there are a number of methods of treating landfill gas. Waste Management NZ wants the "destruction" requirement deleted and replaced by the term "treatment". Alternatively, it seeks clarification of the impact of the standard on claims for additionality.

The Hawke's Bay Regional Council notes and supports the provision enabling the beneficial use of methane (if collected) such as for electricity production.

The Auckland Regional Council generally supports the standard, but states that there is no definitive answer to whether combusting landfill gas for electricity generation achieves an equivalent, or better, level of destruction of methane than flaring. However, the Council considers that utilisation of gas has a number of net benefits that must be considered, and should not be subject to a process of demonstrating equivalence to destruction.

Oppose

The Rotorua City Council opposes the development of the standard. The reason given is that the Council has a landfill in the over 1 million tonnes category, but is going to manage emissions voluntarily and feels that the introduction of a mandatory standard would result in the loss of value of carbon credits. The Council seeks an extension of the timeframe for implementation to ensure that carbon credits are held locally.

3.2 Apply to operational landfills that accept municipal solid waste

Three submissions addressed the issue of the standard applying only to municipal solid waste landfills. Two (Taranaki Regional Council and New Zealand Aluminium Smelters) support the proposal, and one (Waste Management NZ Ltd) opposes limiting the standard to municipal solid waste landfills and would like to see it extended to other types of landfill.

Support

The Taranaki Regional Council supports the application of a standard to operational municipal solid waste landfills only, noting that cleanfills and construction and demolition landfills accept negligible amounts of organic material.

New Zealand Aluminium Smelters supports a standard being applied only to operational landfills that accept municipal solid waste.

Oppose

Waste Management NZ Ltd does not consider that a standard will achieve the objective of creating a level playing field, as the proposal does not apply to cleanfills, or to construction and demolition landfills.

This submitter states that the proposed standard does not contain a definition of "cleanfill". It is concerned that different regions define "cleanfill" differently and that what is considered cleanfill in some regions may produce landfill gas that should require management.

Waste Management NZ Ltd states that a standard should include a definition of "cleanfill" and that an appropriate definition is that contained in A Guide to Management of Cleanfills, published by the Ministry for the Environment in 2002. Waste Management NZ Ltd states that construction and demolition landfills do emit landfill gas and should be subject to the standard in the same way as municipal solid waste landfills if they meet the 1 million tonnes capacity criterion.

3.3 Apply to landfills that are designed to accept over 1 million tonnes of refuse throughout their design life

Seven submissions addressed the issue of a threshold design capacity for the application of the standard. Five (Taranaki Regional Council, Environment BoP, Waste Management NZ Ltd, Auckland Regional Council and New Zealand Aluminium Smelters) support and one (David Renouf) opposes using landfill size alone as the primary measure used for a threshold, and one (University of Canterbury) neither supports nor opposes the application of a threshold.

Support

The Taranaki Regional Council supports, in particular, the application of the standard only to operational landfills that accept municipal solid waste and that are designed to accept over 1 million tonnes of refuse throughout their design life.

Environment BoP requests that all landfills with a projected capacity of over 1 million tonnes have landfill gas collection and destruction systems as a compulsory requirement of resource consent.

Waste Management NZ Ltd is concerned that an applicant will not be required to collect landfill gas if they can demonstrate that surface emissions will be limited. It states that while some flexibility is desirable, the discretion not to require compliance also creates the potential for inconsistent application of the standard between regions and between projects.

Waste Management NZ Ltd considers that flexibility could be achieved by creating a two-tiered system of application. The standard would be mandatory for all municipal solid waste landfills and construction and demolition waste landfills with a design capacity of over 1 million tonnes. In addition, it seeks the introduction of a "flexible" category (municipal solid waste landfills and construction and demolition waste landfills with a design capacity of between 200,000 and 1 million tonnes) where regional authorities may, or may not, require compliance with the standard, dependent upon satisfying conditions to be specified in the standard.

The Auckland Regional Council believes that, on a best practice principle, it is inappropriate for landfills exceeding 1 million tonnes not to install appropriate collection and destruction systems. The Council wants the standard to require all landfills exceeding 1 million tonnes to install landfill gas collection and destruction systems.

Oppose

David Renouf disagrees with the projected total capacity of over 1 million tonnes for the standard. He states that the production of landfill gas is not entirely based on total capacity and that the volume of gas produced by landfills can, and should, be based on the percentage of organic material. A standard for gas production should mainly be determined by the percentage of organic material in the landfill, not by size. David Renouf also considers that the proposed individual size of 1 million tonnes is too large when there is more than one cell in the landfill area.

Neither support nor oppose

The University of Canterbury submission argues that the economic viability of gas collection is not the issue. It considers that the statement that landfills smaller than 1 million tonnes will not be included in the standard because gas collection is not economically viable is misleading. The point of the standard is to decrease methane emissions in the most cost efficient method possible. The University suggests that the higher cost of collecting methane (per tonne of methane) from smaller landfills should be given as the reason for not including them. Smaller landfills could still need gas control in order to meet health or resource consent conditions.

3.4 Apply to sites that are currently operating

Three submissions addressed the issue of applying the standard only to currently operating landfills (Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury and Auckland Regional Council), and all were opposed.

Oppose

The Christchurch City Council believes that consideration should be given to large landfills on the brink of closing. It states that big landfills like the Burwood landfill will be producing gas for at least 30 years and that a retrospective requirement for gas extraction would be worthwhile.

Environment Canterbury questions why many closed landfills will not be covered by the standard. It states that, based on information in the 2002 Landfill Review and Audit, there may be fewer open landfills to which the standard will apply when it becomes operational. Environment Canterbury seeks a change to apply the standard to both operating and closed landfills that exceed the 1 million tonnes threshold.

The Auckland Regional Council considers that closed landfills can be a significant source of methane long after closure date and can cause significant issues where residential dwellings are located close to the landfill site. The Council recommends that some form of requirement should be applied to landfill gas collection and destruction systems for closed landfills.

3.5 Apply to proposed sites immediately

One submission (University of Canterbury) addressed the issue of immediate application to proposed sites, and neither supported nor opposed the proposal.

Neither support nor oppose

The University of Canterbury argues that the standard would likely lead to changes in the design of proposed landfills. For example, landfill designers will consider installing gas collection for sections of the landfill where gas recovery would not be economically attractive in order to reduce the overall costs.

3.6 Apply to existing operational sites after a transitional period of three years if a site does not currently have a landfill gas collection system

One submission (Taranaki Regional Council) addressed the issue of a transition period for the application of the standard, and supports a transition period.

Support

The Taranaki Regional Council supports a transition period that provides operators of existing landfills time to fund, design and install a landfill gas collection system. However, it suggests that the transition period should be extended from three to five years, as this would minimise the economic consequences and align the transition period with the first benchmark period of the Kyoto Protocol (beginning in 2008).

3.7 Specify flaring standards based on international best practice, which would include a minimum flare temperature of 750 degrees centigrade for a resonance time of 0.5 seconds

Five submissions addressed the issue of flaring standards. Four (Envirowaste, Environment BoP, Auckland Regional Council and NIWA) support and one (Dunedin City Council) neither supports nor opposes the adoption of a flaring standard.

Support

Envirowaste believes that the flaring limits are generally appropriate and reflect international best practice.

Environment BoP supports the proposed flaring standard as stated.

The Auckland Regional Council notes that, on the principle of best practice, it has required the operation of an enclosed flare and a minimum flare temperature of 750 degrees Celsius for a residence time of 0.5 seconds.

NIWA states that the best practice standard in the corresponding UK documents recommends a higher temperature for best control of NO_x, and VOCs. (The paper Guidance on Best Practice Flaring of Landfill Gas in the UK, attached to the submission, recommends a minimum of 1000 degrees Celsius and 0.3 seconds' retention time.)

Neither support nor oppose

The Dunedin City Council considers that the landfill gas burner needs to be handled with care. It argues that if you go into too much detail in terms of temperature and time, it can affect other possible uses of the gas, such as gas-engine-driven power generators.

3.8 Specify a methane emission limit at the landfill surface and at monitoring points around the landfill

Ten submissions addressed the issue of a methane emission limit at the landfill surface. Eight Taranaki Regional Council, University of Canterbury, Envirowaste, Environment BoP, Auckland Regional Council, Environment Canterbury, Dunedin City Council, New Zealand Aluminium Smelters) support and one (NIWA) opposes a methane surface emission limit at the landfill surface.

Support

The Taranaki Regional Council agrees that gas collection efficiencies are variable and measurements relatively inaccurate and unreliable. It seeks clarification on where surface emission measurements should occur on the landfill, and suggests that the standard will need to provide certainty and consistency throughout New Zealand on how and where methane levels at landfills should be monitored.

The University of Canterbury wishes to keep the standard focused on landfill emissions. It supports the view that a standard based on collection efficiency would be impractical, and states that although it will be expensive and contentious to develop clear methods for assessing methane emission rates, it will be the best way to achieve clear outcomes.

Envirowaste supports the inclusion of the proposed surface methane emission limit as an alternative means of meeting the standard.

Environment BoP and New Zealand Aluminium Smelters support the emission level of 1% methane by volume.

The Auckland Regional Council considers that an appropriate level of monitoring to ensure that surface emissions do not exceed 0.5% (or 1%) is considered best practice and should not be viewed as a substitute for installing collection and destruction systems. The Council highlights the fact that the 0.5% methane surface emission limit placed on the region's landfills is typically considered a trigger level only, and frequent exceedances can occur.

Environment Canterbury notes that a report commissioned by them indicated that regulatory authorities are using a limit of 0.5% (5000 parts per million) methane at the ground surface, not 1%. It seeks a standard of 0.5% methane.

The Dunedin City Council believes that using surface emissions limits for methane seems to be a reasonable approach. However, it considers that a range of landfills needs to be looked at to determine a practical figure, bearing in mind that gas production varies according to moisture, temperature, time of year, barometric pressure, organic content and draw-down of gas. The Council also states that surface emissions should be used to determine whether or not gas bores are worthwhile in older parts of landfills.

Oppose

NIWA argues that methane emission limits are not usefully specified as a concentration, particularly a concentration of a mixture with an undetermined amount of air added. Lower concentrations could be found by choosing suitable times or places to measure, and better emission estimates would come from knowing the mass of organic matter being processed.

3.9 There may be situations where a landfill exceeds the refuse quantity threshold of 1 million tonnes but through the effective diversion of organic matter, or shallow landfill cells, methane emissions are below the surface methane emission limit

Five submissions addressed the issue of exemption to threshold requirements for some landfills. Two (Taranaki Regional Council and Envirowaste) support and three (Environment BoP, Waste Management NZ Ltd and Auckland Regional Council) oppose an exemption to threshold requirements.

Support

The Taranaki Regional Council strongly supports the standard recognising and taking into account situations where a landfill exceeds the refuse quantity threshold of 1 million tonnes, but where through effective diversion of organic matter, or shallow landfill cells, methane emissions are below the surface methane emission limit. They note that in such cases the effective operation of a methane collection and destruction system may not be warranted or feasible.

Envirowaste supports the inclusion of the proposed surface methane emission limit as an alternative means of meeting the standard. It states that some landfills, like the Fairfield site, have a very long design life and relatively low waste disposal rates, which means that gas production is slow and occurs over a long period. It states that landfill gas collection and destruction is not an appropriate or viable method to manage methane emissions from these sites.

Oppose

Environment BoP is concerned about the provisions allowing landfill operators not to install landfill gas collection and destruction systems where surface methane emissions are less than 1% methane by volume. Its concern relates to the high potential errors in the methods used to determine surface emissions.

Waste Management NZ Ltd does not consider that the objective of creating a level playing field will be achieved if there is uncertainty over the applicability of the standard to landfills with over 1 million tonnes capacity and which claim to achieve "effective diversion of organic matter", have "shallow landfill cells", can demonstrate "methane emissions ...below the surface emissions limit" or call themselves "dry sites".

The Auckland Regional Council considers that an appropriate level of monitoring to ensure that surface emissions do not exceed 0.5% (or 1%) is best practice and should not be viewed as a substitute for installing collection and destruction systems.

3.10 Issues not raised on the information sheet

The following issues were raised by submitters in addition to those addressed on the information sheet.

3.10.1 A certificate scheme for resource recovery

Ecologic proposes a system of transferable certificates to encourage recycling and resource recovery, arguing that this would promote the composting of organic material and thereby reduce the amount of methane produced by landfills. It states that a national standard for landfill gas would complement such a certificate scheme by setting a minimum performance standard for landfills with a capacity in excess of 1 million tonnes.

3.10.2 Landfill gas quality

The Gas Association of New Zealand raised the issue of landfill gas quality in respect of reticulation systems. A key requirement would be to ensure that any gas injected into the existing natural gas distribution network is compatible with the existing supplies.

previous | next