91av

(see Graphic)
Walking past the lush nikau palms and tall ferns that line the shores of New
Zealand’s Lake Rotorua, you could be forgiven for thinking you had found
some secret, unspoilt land. Nearby, mud pools bubble away and geysers blast
their sulphurous discharges into the sky, much as they have done for
thousands of years. It is pristine forests and lakes like these that attract
tourists to New Zealand and give the country its reputation as a part of the
world still relatively untouched by the ravages of industrial pollution.
What no tourist brochure will tell you, however, is that agriculture,
forestry and industry have left a legacy of toxic waste. According to two
reports released by the Ministry for the Environment, more than 10 000
sites may be affected. One of the most contaminated is the jewel in New
Zealand’s tourist crown – Lake Rotorua.

New Zealand’s economy relies heavily on agricultural and forestry products
and, with relatively few smokestack industries, its experience of dealing
with toxic waste and contamination is minimal. Unlike most industrialised
nations, which have been steadily accumulating expertise in dealing with
toxic substances, New Zealand now finds itself in at the deep end. But,
according to Gordon Jackman of Greenpeace, the government has yet to face
up to the problem. ‘There has been no real acknowledgement of the severe
nature and scale of the problem New Zealand faces, let alone a clear
strategy to deal with contamination,’ he says. ‘By not setting basic cleanup
levels in law, or adequately funding site investigations, the government is
putting public and environmental health in jeopardy as well as undermining
the country’s tourist and export reputations.’

Forestry appears to be the culprit for much of the contamination. Pine trees
grow three times as fast in New Zealand as in their native California, and
there are large-scale pine forest plantations. One of the most widely used
chemicals in the timber industry – until it was banned in 1991 – was
pentachlorophenol or PCP, an organochlorine pesticide which preserves timber
by killing the fungi and insects that cause decay. It now seems that
spillages, leaks and dumping have resulted in PCP entering the soil and
groundwater around the treatment plants. The PCP used in New Zealand is
known to contain dioxin and furan which, even in small concentrations, can
cause cancer, reproductive abnormalities and immunological disorders. These
chemicals also persist in the environment, enter the food chain and
accumulate in marine organisms.

Last August, a task group appointed by the Ministry for the Environment
published its report on the extent of contamination from timber treatment
plants. The task group identified up to 600 sites where PCP may have been
used to treat timber, and many of these are likely to be contaminated to at
least some degree. It also carried out a detailed study at Waipa, which lies
5 kilometres south of Lake Rotorua. When the task group tested sediment from
the lake, it found samples containing 28 parts per billion (ppb) of dioxin –
a level normally associated with heavily contaminated waterways in Europe
and North America. According to Greenpeace, the level of dioxin in the lake
is 50 per cent higher than the lower Rhine and twice as high as in Lake
Ontario. The main source of the dioxin is suspected to be the Waipa sawmill,
where PCP was in regular use.

PCP made front-page headlines again in early April, when a holiday camp
built on the site of a former timber treatment plant at Hanmer Springs,
about 100 kilometres north of Christchurch, was closed by the local health
board. Canterbury Regional Council said tests revealed unacceptable levels
of PCP in soil and groundwater around the camp. About 7000 people a year
stay at the camp, which opened in 1980. PCP contamination levels of 54 parts
per million (ppm) were found in dust, 13 ppm in wood chips in the
children’s playground, 900 ppm in soil around the site, 10.4 ppm in
groundwater and 1860 ppm in the drains. New Zealand has no legally binding
safety standards for PCP, but the levels at Hanmer Springs were well above
those set for remedial action in the Netherlands (5 ppb for soil, 1.5 ppm
for water) and Canada (0.5 ppb for soil, 0.5 ppm for freshwater).

The full extent of PCP contamination is yet to be determined. The task
group estimates that approximately 5000 tonnes of PCP were used over a
period of 40 years, and that it was used at more than 70 per cent of the 600
sites where timber was treated. It estimates that once illegally or
unsafely dumped waste sludges, incineration ash and PCP containers are
located, the final figure for contaminated sites could top the thousand
mark.

Despoiling a living treasure

The task group focused on Waipa because it is New Zealand’s largest sawmill
and few other sites are likely to be as contaminated. The sawmill, which
occupies a 120-hectare site, produces 200 000 cubic metres of timber a year
, and used up to 1000 tonnes of PCP between 1956 and 1989. The task group
found ‘significant concentrations’ of PCP, dioxin and furan in samples of
soil, dust and wood, with residues reaching 6500 ppb of PCP, 85 400 ppb of
dioxin and 46 900 ppb of furan in the worst affected areas of the sawmill.
Elevated concentrations of PCP were also found in sewage pipes (650 ppb) and
storm-water pipes (400 ppb). The task group reported that PCP has leached
into the groundwater, and it recorded levels of up to 5180 ppm immediately
below some parts of the sawmill. The report concludes that
‘PCP-contaminated groundwater is migrating towards the Waipa stream and it
appears that the site sewerage and storm-water drainage systems may be
acting as a collection system’. The Waipa stream is a tributary of the
Puarenga stream, which flows directly into the southern end of Lake
Rotorua. The level of PCP (40 ppb) in the Waipa stream is equivalent to
half a tonne of PCP flowing into Lake Rotorua each year.

To the Maori who live near Rotorua, the lake is a taonga – a living
treasure. ‘The lake has always been the source of food to the Arawa
people,’ says Bishop Kingi, an elder from the Ngati Whakaue tribe. But not
now. ‘Deterioration of the lake has not only killed a number of food
sources that used to be here but it has now also become a grave health
problem.’ He says no one in his tribe eats kakahi (shellfish) from the lake
because of pollution. ‘Kakahi are no longer present near the lake area where
I live. I would not be willing to eat kakahi from the lake now.’

The task group found residues of dioxin (28 ppb) in the sediment up to 5
kilometres from the Puarenga stream outlet. It also found evidence that PCP
and dioxin are accumulating in the Lake Rotorua food chain, with levels of
up to 2819 ppb of PCP in trout and up to 34.5 ppb in mussels up to 3
kilometres from the Puarenga stream. Beat Huser, one of the scientists on
the task group, has already warned that public health could be at risk if
people drink contaminated water or eat contaminated fish.

Although the task group believes Waipa to be the most contaminated site, it
says there is good reason to believe that large quantities of PCP were used
at up to 15 other sites in New Zealand. The government, however, will not
carry out a survey to measure the extent of contamination. Instead,
environment minister Rob Storey has sent a list of all the sites where PCP
was believed to have been used to local authorities. The Resource
Management Act, drawn up under Labour and enacted by the National government
in 1991, makes local authorities responsible for assessing contamination in
their own areas.

The scale of New Zealand’s pollution problem was emphasised with the
publication in December of another report commissioned by the Ministry for
the Environment. Prepared by Worley, an environmental consultancy firm, it
identified 7200 industrial sites where it thought there was a risk of
contamination, classifying 1580 sites as high risk and 3950 as moderate
risk. The remaining 1670 sites it classified as being a slight risk, on the
basis that any site where hazardous substances have been manufactured,
used, stored or dumped is likely to be contaminated to some extent. The
report concluded that much of the contamination was the result of poor
management of hazardous chemicals in manufacturing, spillage, leakage or
illegal disposal. Worley’s brief did not include horticultural sites,
livestock dips on farms or landfill sites. With these included, the number
of contaminated sites could reach 10 000.

The price New Zealand will have to pay to restore its clean image is still
being assessed. The Worley report calculated that the bill for surveying,
cleaning and monitoring the 5530 sites that it identified as highly and
moderately contaminated could be as much as NZ $2600 million ( Pounds
Sterling 930 million). Estimates for dealing specifically with PCP
contamination range from NZ $20 million by the timber industry to NZ
$175 million by the Worley report. Environmentalists say even the
sums quoted in the Worley report are an underestimate because they are not
based on full cleanup costs. Huser believes the huge amount of PCP used at
Waipa has resulted in contamination comparable to some of the worst sites
in the US costing the equivalent of NZ $50 million to decontaminate.

The 1991 Resource Management Act makes current owners liable for any cleanup
required at contaminated sites. John Pearce, who works for Tasman, a major
timber company, and who acts as spokesman for the timber industry on this
issue, says the widespread use of PCP for 40 years means the costs of
decontamination will hit the timber industry hard. The rising price of
unprocessed timber has already led to the closure of 200 sawmills since
1987. Financing the assessment and cleanup of PCP contamination could
force even more to close, perhaps threatening thousands of jobs.

There is also the wider question of moral responsibility. When PCP was used,
Pearce points out, it was licensed and approved by the government’s Timber
Preservation Authority. ‘There’s a feeling that, since what was done at the
time was with licensed chemicals in ways approved by the TPA, it’s perhaps
unfair that the industry should carry the total responsibility.’

Environmental groups argue for a cleanup fund administered by the government
to discourage companies from abandoning sites where the costs of
decontamination could bankrupt them. The fund, they say, could be financed
by a timber levy on the industry, matched dollar for dollar by government.

Starting the cleanup

Meanwhile the government is keen to set a good example. It has agreed to pay
for an investigation of suspected pesticide dumps near Dunedin and Nelson,
and it is dealing with the phenol contamination resulting from its creosote
and coke plant at Huntly West in Waikato. The cleanup at Huntly West, which
is in Storey’s constituency, will cost NZ $900 000. It has also said
it will pay for cleaning up the Hanmer Springs holiday camp, which is built
on former Forest Service land that is owned by the Department of
Conservation. By acting responsibly on land that it owns, the government
hopes to encourage other site owners to do likewise.

Nevertheless the only PCP cleanup that has actually begun is at Waipa, where
the sawmill belongs to the state-owned Forestry Corporation. The corporation
has started preliminary work, isolating and storing dust and timber from
contaminated areas that pose a health risk to workers at the sawmill: 30
cubic metres of material have been vacuumed up, and some contaminated
buildings dismantled and stored on-site. For the main cleanup operation,
due to start before the end of the year, the corporation estimates the cost
will be NZ $3 million.

New Zealand has no facilities for the safe disposal of hazardous waste,
however, so the Forestry Corporation has to decide how to deal with the
contaminated material it removes. The only comparable cleanup has been the
NZ $2 million operation in 1985 at a Dow Elanco chemical plant in New
Plymouth, Taranaki, which manufactured pesticides and the Agent Orange
constituent 2,4,5-T. Contaminated soil was dug up and taken to a landfill,
and some wastes were incinerated on-site.

This is a possible model for the PCP cleanup, but the Forestry Corporation
is also investigating base-catalysed dechlorination (BCD), which reverses
the manufacturing process of organochlorines. Heating the contaminated
material with caustic soda, oil and sugar in a sealed container to 350
degreeC reforms the chlorinated component into a biphenyl and salt (This
Week, 26 September 1992). BCD Technologies of Australia has introduced a
mobile version of BCD for treating contaminated soils on site. Other options
under review include soil bioremediation, washing and thermal desorption,
and groundwater treatment such as ultraviolet and oxidation, activated
carbon filtration and reverse osmosis.

The fact that New Zealand is still coming to terms with its toxic waste
problems is highlighted by the lack of legislative standards for the level
of contaminants permitted to be present in the environment. Instead, the
government relies on guidelines drawn up by the Australian and New Zealand
Environment and Conservation Council. These provide guidance on the levels
of 24 heavy metals and hazardous substances which, if exceeded, should
warrant a site being investigated. It is then up to local authorities,
working on a site-by-site basis, to carry out an assessment, decide what
action should be taken and set a cleanup standard. Unfortunately, while the
guidelines include recommended levels for substances such as benzene,
phenols, PCB, DDT and dieldrin, they do not give any guidance for PCP or its
constituents, dioxin and furan. The guidelines also have no statutory force,
and merely give environmental objectives such as ‘ensuring that public
health, local amenity and soil, air and water quality are protected’.

This has led to a fierce debate about how the country should deal with
contamination. Government and industry argue that it should stick with
guidelines for controlling the use and disposal of hazardous substances, and
rely on the threat of prosecution in courts to deter further pollution by
industry. Environmental groups want the government to introduce new
legislation setting legally enforceable standards for the levels of
contamination permitted for each hazardous substance, and for the standards
to be achieved when cleaning up contamination.

The National Party has already come under fire over its approach to
managing hazardous waste from Helen Hughes, the Parliamentary Commissioner
for the Environment, parliament’s independent environmental watchdog. In
her 1992 report she sternly criticised the government’s record and called
for standards set in law: ‘No amount of guidelines will solve the problem,
unless new legislation has the legislative teeth to give them effect. New
Zealand has to face up to the polluter pays principle. We need an equitable
formula to solve the problem, we can’t just leave it to vague guidelines.’

Storey defends continued reliance on guidelines. ‘I am amazed by the
continued insistence that unless something is written in law nobody will
act,’ he says. ‘I think we have a new environment in New Zealand of
cooperation in industry and if we can get good results and get the industry
to clean up the past mess and not require draconian intervention by
government, then that’s the way to go.’

Greenpeace disagrees. Jackman points to the inadequacy of the ad hoc
approach to PCP, and suggests that both the government and the timber
industry are trying to minimise their cleanup costs and fudging on standards
while still keeping up the appearance of doing a thorough job. ‘Guidelines
are a meaningless waste of time unless there is some statutory basis to
enforce them.’

Another bone of contention is that the 1991 Resource Management Act made
local authorities responsible for carrying out site assessments, ensuring
that owners remove hazardous substances from sites and setting environmental
standards for sites in their area. Critics say it is foolish to give the
numerous regional, city and district councils the freedom to set local
standards for hazardous substances. Hughes, too, has criticised the
gov-ernment for its lack of strategic guidance for policy on hazardous
waste. Local authorities, she says, do not have the ‘scientific information
required to control effects or set standards’.

The absence of a national standard for PCP is hampering the Forestry
Corporation in preparing for the cleanup at Waipa. Until the regional
council sets a standard for the maximum permissible levels of PCP, dioxin
and furan for the site, the Forestry Corporation will not know the full
extent of the decontamination work it must carry out, nor what the final
timetable or costs will be.

Environmentalists also question whether councils have the resources for
assessing contamination and policing the decontamination of sites. They are
also concerned that the practice of setting local standards, site by site,
could lead to a conflict of interests. How tough would a local authority be
prepared to be with a polluter if that company was the main employer in its
area? And could a local authority afford a protracted legal battle with a
multimillion dollar corporation?

What Greenpeace wants is a government strategy to deal with contamination
that includes legally enforceable cleanup standards, a coordinated national
survey of contamination, the setting up of a public database on cleanup
technologies, and for public warnings to be posted at all contaminated
sites. Jackman complains that the government has not taken up any of these
suggestions, but instead is content to let individual local authorities
decide how to proceed at each site. The opportunity is there, he says, for
New Zealand to deal decisively and prove the worth of its environmental
credentials with laws to back them up.

Storey refutes these charges. ‘We’re not just sitting around and hoping a
solution will come up.’ Throughout the debate he has said the government
intends to introduce new legislation governing all aspects of hazardous
substances, to develop a national strategy for dealing with toxic waste, and
to develop guidelines and cost-effective targets for site cleanup. After
putting the legislation on hazardous substances on hold in April, it now
appears the government is responding to pressure in the run-up to the
general election in November. Last month, Storey announced new legislation
would, after all, be introduced by the autumn. Two weeks ago, the
environment ministry let it be known that a draft of the proposed cleanup
criteria for PCP will be released during August for public comment. However,
this will not be a legally binding standard but a guideline. Furthermore, in
bringing forward the hazardous substances legislation, the ministry has had
to shelve its work on developing a policy for dealing with contaminated
sites, including the thorny issues of liability and funding.

Political opponents believe that this delay could cost the government votes
in November. A recent poll revealed that toxic waste came second only to
nuclear issues as the environmental matter of most concern to the New
Zealand public. ‘We have thousands of contaminated sites . . . with no
protocols for the sale or disposal of hazardous substances,’ says Pete
Hodgson, environment spokesman for the Labour opposition. ‘New Zealand is
sitting on a time bomb.

Michael Szabo is a freelance journalist based in New Zealand.