Biosolids case study Final report Community involvement in decision-making for the beneficial re-use of biosolids by Virginia Baker, Annabel Ahuriri-Driscoll, Jeff Foote, Maria Hepi, Ann Winstanley September 2009 Client Report FW 09086 Biosolids Case Study Final Report Community involvement in decision-making for the beneficial re-use of biosolids Human Dimensions Programme FRST – C03X0304 Science Programme Manager Alistair Sheat Project Leader Peer Reviewer Virginia Baker Jan Gregor DISCLAIMER This report or document (“the Report”) is given by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited (“ESR”) for dissemination amongst end-users. This research was conducted under the Sustainable Development - Human Dimensions project (C03X0304) and is public good science, funded by the Foundation of Research, Science and Technology, Neither ESR nor any of their employees make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability for the use of the Report or its contents by any other person or organisation. Biosolids Case Study: Final Report September 2009 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research team would like to acknowledge the support of our key research partner organisations. Special thanks to Ng āti Toa (Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira), Porirua City Council (PCC), Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC), the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), and Hutt Valley District Health Board for their participation in the Local Guidance Group and support of this research. We thank Tom Speir and Jacqui Horswell for recognising the need for social science research to be supported and included as integral to the biosolids biophysical science research. Thank you to Shirley Simmonds for her analysis of the Living Earth Environment Court and the Biosolids Guidelines submissions. Thanks also to Keriata Stuart, Felicity Marriot and Tammy Hambling for their involvement in the earlier stages of the project. Our special thanks to staff and councillors from the Porirua City Council and to those in the wider Porirua community who gave generously of their time for interviews, or to attend the community focus group. Special thanks also to staff and councillors from the Rotorua District Council, and others from the Rotorua area who gave their time to participate in the interviews. Finally, we acknowledge the financial support for The Human Dimensions programme (FRST-C03X0304 ) provided by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FRST). Biosolids Case Study: Final Report September 2009 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................I 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1. The Human Dimension Project and the Biosolids Case Study ............................ 1 1.2. Biosolids re-use: Background and Context......................................................... 1 1.2.1. Drivers and Barriers for Cnsultation for Beneficial re-use in New Zealand ................................................................................................... 3 1.2.2. The Living Earth Test Case.................................................................... 4 2. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Research Rationale and Methodology.................................................................. 6 2.1.1. Upstream Value-based Consultation...................................................... 6 2.1.2. Cultural and Social Acceptability........................................................... 7 2.1.3. Participatory Action Research Principles............................................... 7 2.2. Methods................................................................................................................ 8 2.2.1. Background and Scoping........................................................................ 8 2.2.2. Porirua-based Fieldwork ........................................................................ 9 2.2.3. Rotorua ‘Comparative pair’ Interviews................................................ 10 2.3. Limitations.......................................................................................................... 10 2.3.1. Low Community Interest and Participation ......................................... 10 2.3.2. Tenuous Linkages to Action................................................................. 11 2.3.3. Timing and Salience............................................................................. 11 3. FINDINGS..................................................................................................................... 11 3.1. Porirua Interview Data........................................................................................ 12 3.1.1. Council Waste Management and Community Engagement................. 12 3.1.2. Council and Community Involvement ................................................. 12 3.1.3. Community Involvement in Sewerage Issues ...................................... 16 3.2. Porirua Workshop Data ...................................................................................... 18 3.2.1. Workshop 1: LGG Quadruple Bottom Line (QBL) Visioning ........... 18 3.2.2. Workshop 2: Community Focus Group .............................................. 21 3.3. Rotorua Comparative Interviews........................................................................ 24 4. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 42 5. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 45 6. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 48 6.1. Key Dilemmas.................................................................................................... 49 7. RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................. 50 7.1. National-level ..................................................................................................... 50 7.2. Porirua-specific................................................................................................... 50 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................... 51 APPENDICES: ...................................................................................................................... 58 Biosolids Case Study: Final Report September 2009 INDEX OF TABLES Table 1: Drivers and Barriers for the Composting Vision ..................................................... 20 Table 2: Barriers to Land Application..................................................................................... 29 INDEX OF FIGURES Figure 1: The Action Research Cycle ...................................................................................... 8 Figure 2: Model of Mismatching Concerns ............................................................................ 45 Figure 3: Cycle of Containment............................................................................................... 47 Biosolids Case Study: Final Report September 2009 Definitions and Terms Sewage – Water-carried wastes, in either solution or suspension, which flow away from a community. Typically 99% of the waste entering the sewage system is water. Sewerage – sewerage infrastructure – The plumbing, drainage and pumping system for the removal, treatment and disposal of chiefly liquid wastes and of rainwater, which are collectively called sewage. There is currently a move to separate storm water (rainwater and run off) from the sewerage system as peak high volume increases the pressure on the system and the risk of overflow or failure. Biosolids – Sewage sludge that has been treated or stabilised to the extent that it can be safely applied to land. Terminology for this Report The term biosolids is used predominantly in this report, largely due to the shorthand title of the research project being the Porirua biosolids case study. The research was designed to explore social and cultural acceptability for the beneficial re-use of biosolids. We acknowledge that biosolids is a word created by the US industry as a less emotive term than sewage sludge. For this reason when talking about the issue of beneficial re-use in the abstract or scenario development phase we do use biosolids and sewage sludge interchangeably. When talking about current practice in Porirua we refer to sewage sludge. Currently 100% of Porirua’s solid sewage waste is untreated and transported to landfill for disposal. Biosolids Case Study: Final Report September 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Land application of treated sewage or biosolids is only viable on the proviso that local government is able to secure suitable land, gain resource consent approval from the regional council under the 1991 RMA, and/or secure commercial end-users from the horticulture or agricultural sectors for a biosolids compost product. That these factors align rests on a number of uncertainties and variables in costing, changing technologies, and social and cultural perceptions. The early involvement of stakeholders and community in dialogue and decision-making can help minimise these uncertainties, by providing an opportunity for local government to test and develop the alignments