Adelaide’s Adbri cement company has received approval to increase its burning of plastic waste for fuel at its Birkenhead facility starting this Tuesday. This decision is part of a six-week trial that faces opposition from a local mayor, the city council, and a group of residents.
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has stated that comprehensive monitoring will be conducted throughout the trial, with a report anticipated within 90 days after its conclusion. The Adbri plant in Port Adelaide has long been a focal point of local debate concerning emissions, which health officials claim remain within safe limits.
Last week, the South Australian EPA sanctioned a trial that allows Adbri to utilize increased amounts of “refuse-derived fuel” (RDF), primarily obtained from the construction industry. The facility’s calciner is permitted to burn up to 32 tonnes of RDF per hour, with a maximum plastic content of 20 percent. From Tuesday, the cement kiln will operate with a maximum of 10 tonnes of RDF per hour, with up to 50 percent of this being plastic; however, the EPA has indicated that this rate is not expected to be sustained indefinitely.
The Port Adelaide Enfield Council has voted to seek immediate legal counsel regarding a potential injunction against the trial. Additionally, the council is advocating for independent oversight of the process, alongside the EPA’s final decision, which includes round-the-clock monitoring of emissions.
Mayor Claire Boan of Port Adelaide Enfield expressed concerns from residents regarding the potential long-term health impacts of the trial. In an interview with 891 ABC Adelaide, she stated, “We have not seen any national data that confirms this is safe for our community, and that raises significant concerns.” She emphasized that the intention is not to shut down the facility, noting that it has been operational for over a century, but that community considerations should also be taken into account.
Adbri has been utilizing RDF since the early 2000s, claiming that this practice has diverted over 2.7 million tonnes of waste from landfills while decreasing dependence on fossil fuels. A company spokesperson noted, “The RDF proposed for this trial is a highly processed engineered fuel that must comply with stringent EPA standards before usage.”
Tony Bazeley, a member of the Port Adelaide Residents Environment Protection Group, pointed out that the factory is located only 50 meters from residential areas and that there have been complaints regarding odors emanating from the site. He argued that the usage of RDF is driven primarily by financial incentives for the company. “The company is not transparent about its operations; while they do provide some information, it tends to be vague,” he added, expressing a desire for more clarity about the factory’s long-term plans.
According to Steven Sergi, the EPA’s compliance director, monitoring of pollutants will occur at various locations, including the facility’s emission stack, and air quality assessments will be conducted in the surrounding community. He stated that data would be gathered on various particle emissions, as well as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. “Given the kiln’s operating temperature of 1,400 degrees Celsius, we expect complete combustion of the RDF, including any plastics, paper, cardboard, and timber,” he noted. “We do not anticipate detecting any plastic emissions.” Furthermore, he assured that if any emission limits are exceeded, the trial would be halted immediately.
Sergi also mentioned that the EPA would carry out unannounced inspections of the facility and expects to release a report detailing the monitoring data and evaluating the trial’s outcomes within 90 days. “We are particularly interested in community feedback, plant stability, and emissions control, as maintaining stability at the plant is crucial for ensuring compliance with emission limits,” he said.
SA Health has acknowledged awareness of the trial and reiterated general health recommendations for residents. In a statement, they advised those with access to mains water in areas potentially affected by industrial emissions to refrain from drinking water collected in tanks, as it may be contaminated. “While rainwater in tanks typically contains minimal chemicals, airborne pollutants from nearby industrial activities may increase contamination levels,” it explained.
