Latest news with #sludge
RNZ News
4 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
Wellington councillors want review of Moa Point sludge project after cost blowout
Artist impression of the new sludge minimisation facility at Moa Point which McConnell Dowell Constructors Ltd and HEB Construction Ltd will build. Photo: Supplied / Wellington City Council Some Wellington city councillors are demanding an immediate independent review into how the city's sludge minimisation plant blew out by $80 million , with one saying it is "incredibly frustating". But another is not surprised by the cost increases, claiming calls for a review now are "pure politics". Councillors were told in a briefing on Thursday the sludge minimisation facility under construction at Moa Point was now forecast to cost between $478-511m . Originally expected to cost $200m in 2021, $400m was set aside for the plant in 2022, with ratepayers levied to fund it. Councillor Diane Calvert - one of the city's mayoral candidates - said she wanted to understand why the council was only becoming aware in the last few months of the "huge increase". "It's half a billion dollars, the public rightly want answers." Calvert said she asked for a full, external review of the Wellington Town Hall cost blow-out in 2023 - which surged from $80m to over $330m - but that was voted down at the time. "Now we are back in this position again, and I would like to see a review done now, not waiting until the project is completed at the end of 2026. "Because we are intending to spend money on other projects." The facility was designed to reduce the volume of sewage sludge created through the wastewater treatment process and turn it into a reusable, dry product. It was designed to reduce the city's amount of sludge by 80 percent, and sludge-related carbon emissions by 60 percent. Piping sludge to the city's Southern Landfill will no longer be allowed in 2026. Councillor and mayoral candidate Diane Calvert is calling for an external review of the project, but some say it's just "pure politics". Photo: RNZ / Dom Thomas Council documents described it as a "complex project" with highly regulated construction of a "combination of mechanical, biological and chemical processes on a physically constrained site". Chief infrastructure officer Jenny Chetwynd said the complexity of the project, delays and changes in the design, the risk the council had taken and the costs of the commissioning process were some of the reasons for the blowout. The budget for commissioning - money used to test out the plant's functions and tweak the machinery before it opened, including bringing in international experts to do so - had grown from $2.5m to $20m alone. Councillor Ben McNulty said he was "incredibly and deeply frustrated" by the cost blow-out. "No one wanted this news, and I extend that to our officials didn't want this news, but it's happened, there have been signposts along the way, like the town hall review that may have equipped us to deal with some aspects, that we didn't take up, and now we are going to have put this forward. "There is going to be an opportunity cost, because this $80 million means there's something else that we don't do." McNulty agreed with an immediate independent review of the project. "It's not a witch-hunt, it's about actually making sure we know exactly what went wrong, we lead it with really qualified people external to the project, so they come in with fresh ideas and perspective and we learn this and so we don't do this again." But councillor Tim Brown said he was not really surprised the plant escalated in costs, because it was a project which involved a high degree of risk. "It's disappointing but not a surprise at all." He said a review should be conducted after the facility was completed, but not immediately. Brown said management had been upfront throughout the process about the complexity and challenges of the project. He said the council had chosen to take on the risk of the project from the outset. He said the blow-out of the sludge minimisation facility, was not on the same scale as the Wellington Town Hall, which he said was "genuine mismanagement" and involved an entire re-think of the project. He said calls for an external review now were politics in an election campaign. "What [Diane Calvert] is asking for now is pure politics. "The value created by doing a review at this point, is negligible. You are not going to change anything at this point going forward. "At the end of it all, once it's all done and dusted [is] a good point to say could we, and should we have done something differently." The council will meet next week to vote on additional funding for the project. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
5 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
Wellington Council's sludge plant could blow out to $500m
An artist impression of the sludge minimisation plant. (File photo) Photo: Supplied / Wellington City Council Wellington City Council's sludge minimisation plant could blow out to over $500m. The sludge minimisation facility was under construction at Moa Point and was expected to be completed next year. Initially, $400 million was raised for the plant, with ratepayers levied to fund it. Councillors had been told in a briefing on Thursday morning, the project was now forecast to cost between $478 and $511 million. Chief infrastructure officer Jenny Chetwynd said between March and June this year financial reporting began to indicate the current budget may not get them to the end of the project. She said council was first alerted of this in June and given a further heads up in August. She said key factors driving up the cost included that it was a complex project on a challenging site, that early budget approval was based on incomplete design and that the council held significant risk in the project. The primary cost changes were costs that weren't initially factored in, variations made due to design changes and delays, and a larger budget needed for commissioning. More to come... Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
CTV News
09-08-2025
- CTV News
‘Completely disgusting': Winnipeg woman finds nasty surprise in her laundry
It was a nasty surprise that has cost one Winnipeg woman hundreds of dollars after unloading her washing machine in South Winnipeg only to find her laundry covered in brown sludge. 'This was like a fresh load of laundry, completely disgusting,' said Lisa McLeod, a resident on Easy Street in Winnipeg's Normand Park neighbourhood. McLeod said it happened on June 19. She had run a load of laundry through her machine earlier that day with no issues. When she put another load in that afternoon, it came out stained and smeared brown. 'I was just in shock as to what I was looking at. It looked like it was mud,' she said, describing the stains as a kind of sludge. 'I was just kind of standing there, like tearing because I was looking at an entire load of white laundry that was completely destroyed.' She's not sure what exactly caused the brown water, but when she called 311, she heard a prerecorded message while on hold. 'It said, 'We're cleaning the lines in the south end,' which was the first time I had heard about it,' she said. When she got through to 311, she was told to make a claim to the city for the damage. That's what she did, putting in a claim for $430 to cover the cost of the clothes. 'That includes my gym workout clothing, my husband's clothing, and my kids' clothing, and basically all of their pyjamas,' she said. Less than a week later she got a letter from the city saying her claim had been denied, as the city said there was no evidence of negligence on its part. The letter goes on to say, '…the city is not liable for damages caused by the quality or content of water supplied by the city unless the water does not meet accepted standards of purity established under provincial regulations respecting health.' 'I don't have a sample of the water because I didn't keep one, but there's no way anyone in the city would want to drink that seeing what it was,' McLeod said. 'So how would that meet purity standards? Like, that just blows my mind.' A spokesperson for the city told CTV News they can't provide information on specific claims. 'What we can say is that all claims are investigated on an individual basis,' the spokesperson said in an email. 'Generally speaking, unless there is evidence of negligence on the City's part, the claim will be denied.' They did say crews were not doing any work in the area that day, and the city did not receive any reports or any other claims of discoloured water. McLeod is expecting to pay out of pocket for the damage, which she expects to be more than $400. She could appeal the city's decision, but she says that would cost her another $124, and at this point she said the whole ordeal has cost her enough. Now she's warning other Winnipeggers to keep an eye on the laundry next time they pop in a load of whites. 'I just want to get the word out, because it's principle really, like, that shouldn't happen,' she said. The city says it has information on its website outlining what residents should do if they experience discoloured water.
RNZ News
08-08-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Wellington council's planned sludge minimisation plant faces increased costs
An artist's impression of the new sludge minimisation facility at Moa Point. Photo: Supplied / Wellington City Council Wellington City Council's sludge minimisation plant, which is expected to be completed by next year, is facing increased costs. On Friday morning several councillors confirmed to RNZ they had been made aware of a budget blow-out during a public-excluded session last week. On Friday afternoon Wellington City Council said elected members had been given a preliminary briefing about the challenges faced with building the new Te Whare Wai Para Nuku sludge minimisation facility currently under construction at Moa Point, with several factors driving increased costs to complete the project. The project is expected to be built to a $428 million budget. Initially up to $400m was raised for its construction, with a levy introduced to ratepayers in August last year to fund the the facility without affecting council funding for other important infrastructure and community projects. The levy will be collected for a period of 33 years commencing 1 July 2024. A council spokesperson said while staff were still investigating the situation, several key themes that were driving increased costs to complete the project had emerged. "These include a later practical completion date than anticipated, changes in design, identification of historical costs which weren't originally included, and re-assessment of risks with the pathway and process for commissioning the plant," the spokesperson said. A more detailed report on cost and funding implications will be outlined to elected members in a briefing on Thursday 14 August. The matter will also be considered at the council's long-term plan finance and performance committee on Wednesday 20 August. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The Guardian
08-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘Like fly-tipping': ministers ignoring pleas to cut sludge fertiliser use
Government ministers have ignored Environment Agency pleas to tighten rules on the use of sludge fertiliser for three years, despite the regulator having said that water company attitudes towards the substance are 'akin to fly-tipping on to agricultural land', it can be revealed. Sludge, sometimes referred to as biosolids, is a byproduct of the sewage treatment process that is sold by water companies to farmers as a low-cost fertiliser. The product has faced heightened scrutiny in recent years as scientists have found sludge to contain a wide range of contaminants, including Pfas – known as 'forever chemicals' – at levels in excess of those considered safe in emerging science, and microplastics. However, under existing regulations, water companies are largely only obliged to test for a number of heavy metals. In 2019, the Environment Agency (EA) was given the green light to develop a sludge strategy which proposed bringing use of sludge on farms under tighter rules that govern other potentially environmentally harmful activities, such as sending waste to landfill and running incinerators. Last year, lawyers representing the campaign group Fighting Dirty took the EA to court over whether its decision to remove a deadline for bringing in this regulatory reform was unlawful. The group lost its case, but documents and emails submitted by the agency to the court – obtained as part of an Ends Report investigation – have revealed the extent to which the EA sought to persuade the government to implement its plans to tighten the regulatory net on sludge, and how it was ignored. This includes multiple emails and briefings sent three years ago, when the EA was asked by officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for information for a ministerial submission. The emails reveal that one EA staff member described how the current rules allow water companies to take an attitude to sludge spreading 'akin to fly-tipping on to agricultural land'. The EA also warned Defra that practically all microplastics that enter sewage treatment works end up in sludge that is bound for farmland, and that current rules mean the practice of 'sludge trading' – where water companies move sludge around to different companies and catchments – is making it almost impossible to 'allow tracing of any contaminated sludge to the fields where it is to be spread on to food-growing (or grazing) agricultural land'. However, later in 2022, a special adviser to the environment secretary, who was then George Eustice, told officials that work on bringing sludge spreading under tighter regulation should be paused because ministers had not been 'sufficiently updated on it' – despite the email chains showing regular engagement on the issue between EA and government officials. Defra's water quality and agriculture policy team leader told the special adviser: 'I apologise for the messaging around the sludge work, which has been confused – I should have been more on top of it. The source of this confusion is a difference of view between us and EA about Defra Group's readiness to implement any reforms.' They added: 'Due to an understandably incomplete understanding of the process for political decisions and legislative implementation of the reforms, the EA seem to think the process is straightforward and attempted to hurry things up a couple of years ago by publishing a sludge strategy.' The emails obtained by Ends show that the EA scrambled to express its concern and surprise, with staff stating they had been having fortnightly meetings with the department about its work on sludge. In an attempt to emphasise the need for reforms, briefing material provided by the EA's land contamination manager at the time said that the Chemicals Investigation Programme (CIP), which is funded by the water industry, 'is revealing that sludge going to agriculture (843,343 tonnes dry weight) contains an estimated 8,096 tonnes dry weight of microplastics'. 'This is thought to be virtually all of the incoming microplastics in wastewater given there is close to 100% partitioning into the sludge,' their briefing stated. The most recent CIP report, obtained by Ends, not only supports this assertion but gives a slightly higher figure. The report states that extrapolation of sample data 'suggests that 8,304 tonnes of microplastics were exported to land through the application of biosolids in England and Wales in 2020 (equivalent to 22 tonnes/day)'. Three years on, there have been no changes made to sludge spreading rules. Richard Benwell, chief executive of the nature coalition group Wildlife and Countryside Link, said that 'inaction from the previous government, in the face of advice from the EA on the need for tighter rules, is completely unacceptable'. He added: 'The current government must swiftly bring in new regulation to prevent harmful levels of pollutants ending up on fields, alongside measures to reduce toxic chemical production and use at source, to protect people and nature.' In the US state of Maine, the practice of sludge spreading has been banned after officials discovered high levels of Pfas in water, crops, cattle, soil – and in farmers – from farms where sludge had been spread. The discovery of Pfas contamination on some of these farms has resulted in farmers being put out of business, and last year the US Environmental Protection Agency was taken to court for allegedly failing to regulate the spread of Pfas-contaminated sludge. Martin Lines, chief executive of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, said: 'Any farmer receiving sewage sludge or cake [a form of treated sludge] needs to have a serious think about unintended consequences, and will they have the access to their soil to grow food for the future because of the risk.' A National Farmers' Union spokesperson said that addressing contaminants 'at source', alongside clear regulatory standards and continued investment in treatment technologies, were 'critical to protect soil health and ensure biosolids remain a high-quality and safe resource for agricultural use.' The farming employers' association added that using sludge helped farmers 'reduce their reliance on synthetic fertilisers while giving water companies a sustainable outlet for their byproducts'. However, George Monbiot, the journalist and co-founder of Fighting Dirty, said: 'Farmers are being deceived by the water companies … they're being misled, and this could have very serious implications for their future livelihood, that their land could become unusable, the farmers themselves could suffer serious health impacts, as we've seen with certain dairy farmers in the US.' A spokesperson for the water industry body, Water UK, said: 'Using bioresources on land is a long-established and independently regulated process that provides a useful source of nutrients for farming and saves farmers money. 'Any standards and assessment techniques are a matter for the government and the regulator and need to be based on firm evidence and detailed scientific research.' The spokesperson said water companies were conducting trials to see if sludge could be used for 'other purposes, such as an alternative fuel for aviation'. They added: 'The UK government has banned the sale of some products containing microplastics and we need the same action on Pfas. We also need a national plan to remove it from the environment, which should be paid for by the polluting manufacturers.' A spokesperson for the EA said the regulator remains 'committed to the safe and sustainable use of sludge in agriculture and will ensure water companies can contribute to productive farming whilst meeting their environmental obligations to clean up waterways and promote soil health'. The spokesperson added that the EA would 'continue to work closely with Defra to improve the regulatory framework for the use of sludge'. A Defra spokesperson said: 'We need to see the safe and sustainable use of sludge in agriculture to help clean up our waterways. The Independent Water Commission will explore a range of issues, including the regulatory framework for sludge spreading, and we continue to work closely with the Environment Agency, water companies and farmers in this area.'
