• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us|
• Jobs

Working Towards a Comprehensive Policy Framework for Managing Contaminated Land in New Zealand: Report on Submissions

Executive summary

1 Introduction

2 Overview of submissions

3 Key elements and work priorities

4 National environmental standards

5 Roles and responsibilities

6 Guidance

7 Liability

8 Accreditation

9 Capability

10 National information

11 Additional research areas

12 Additional opportunities

13 Workshop overview

Appendix A: Index of submitters

Abbreviations

References

12 Additional opportunities

A wide range of additional opportunities were suggested, with the most common relating to:

• how sites are identified and information is collected and reported

• preventing land contamination and the role of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (1996)

• observations and comments on the WasteTRACK system

• cleanfill and landfill controls

• the definition of contaminated land.

Identification and reporting of sites

Seventeen submitters (27%) commented on the difficulties faced by local government in identifying, obtaining information and reporting on land. Most considered that the main barrier is a lack of duty or incentive for landowners to report information to councils.

Suggestions for improvements to how information is collected and reported included:

• requiring mandatory reporting of contaminated land or hazardous substances by owners (7)

• prioritising HAIL list activities, to help councils to prioritise their work programmes (5)

• amending the Local Government and Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) to enable all HAIL sites to be identified on land information memoranda (LIMs), because the current interpretation of “the likely presence of contaminants” by some councils is considered to be restricting the inclusion of HAIL information on LIMs (2)

• ensuring there are nationally consistent registers/systems for collecting and reporting information publicly (2)

• providing incentives to landowners to identify sites (1).

Prevention of contamination and HSNO

Table 25: Suggestions for improving the identification and reporting of sites, by submitter ID

The discussion document did not signal any changes associated with the prevention of contamination. In response, 12 submitters (19%) commented that the existing Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO) and RMA regime were still allowing land to be contaminated by hazardous substances. Submitters suggested improving how the HSNO and the RMA are implemented and enforced, and the links between the acts and their administering agencies (Ministry for the Environment, Environmental Risk Management Authority - ERMA). These are summarised in Table 26 below.

Table 26: Suggestions for improving the management of the prevention of contamination, by submitter ID

Notes: EEL = environmental exposure limit; TEL = toxic exposure limit

WasteTRACK

Ten submitters (16%) commented on the WasteTRACK system. Although most considered that a tracking system is useful to prevent fly tipping, they made a number of observations and criticisms of the WasteTRACK system, including:

• it is only able to be used for sites identified on council records, or for activities that require consent

• it discourages remediation by increasing the cost and effort required

• it is a barrier to on-site treatment and innovative methodologies.

Table 27: Observations and comments on WasteTRACK, by submitter ID

Cleanfill and landfill controls

Nine submitters (15%) provided comments, observations and suggestions on landfill and cleanfill disposal controls. Submitters suggested that cleanfill definitions vary between regions and are over-restrictive, resulting in large volumes of slightly contaminated soil being sent to landfill. Landfill waste acceptance criteria were also criticised for not being aligned with contaminated guideline criteria.

Solutions included providing cost-effective disposal options, including relaxing cleanfill controls and land banking for later use within less sensitive land uses.

Table 28: Observations and comments on cleanfill and landfill controls, by submitter ID

Contaminated land definition

Eight (13%) submitters considered that the current RMA definition of contaminated land provides too much room for interpretation. This has led to uncertain and inconsistent application by local government and practitioners. Submitters also highlighted that there are inconsistent definitions across legislation (specifically the LGOIMA and the HSNO Act). Solutions suggested included legislative amendment and new legislation specific to contaminated land.

Table 29: Suggestions for improving the definition of contaminated land, by submitter ID

Other opportunities

Submitters identified a wide array of other opportunities to improve contaminated land management. Where apparent, these have been grouped according to common themes.

Agricultural (diffuse) contamination

Four submitters (6%) highlighted concern over increasing agrichemical residues in soil from common agricultural and horticultural practices. While all considered that the continued use of agrichemicals (eg, fertilisers: copper, chrome and arsenic sprays) is fundamental to the viability of the primary sector, they considered that there needs to be better management and monitoring of this issue. Suggestions included:

• clarifying the relationship between agricultural land and the management of contaminated land

• implementing a comprehensive national management regime to sustainably manage productive activities (eg, education, tier-based guidance system, permitted activity rules, NES, research)

• considering additional measures to prevent agricultural land from becoming classified as contaminated as a result of changing to a more sensitive land use

• developing a pan-industry contaminated site property evaluation checklist and information support package to alert land managers to potential risks from chemical residues

• encouraging the fertiliser and farming industries to initiate an education and awareness programme to show land managers practical ways of managing cadmium in soils and food

• compiling a national soil inventory, combining existing data from councils with new information collected using consistent sampling and analytical methods.

Table 30: Suggestions for managing agricultural contamination, by submitter ID

Agrichemical collection programme

Four submitters commented on the agrichemical collection programme. Although they all supported the programme, they also made a number of observations and suggestions for improvement, including:

• the volume collected is only the tip of the iceberg, and it will need continued and increased funding to meet government Stockholm Convention obligations

• primary industry should combine to undertake a national rural polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) retrieval, and pharmaceutical and personal care pollutants should also be targeted for retrieval.

Table 31: Suggestions for the agrichemical collection programme, by submitter ID

Community understanding

In addition to measures suggested to improve the capability of local government and consultants (see section 9), submitters suggested education and communication campaigns within the community to raise awareness of contaminated land issues. Suggested target groups for education and communication included investors, developers, lawyers and landowners.

Table 32: Suggestions for raising community awareness, by submitter ID

National policy statement

Three submitters called for the development of a national policy statement to create cohesion, forward progression and national consistency. Submitters suggested using Figure 1 of the discussion document as a starting point for developing objectives.

Table 33: Suggestions for a national policy statement, by submitter ID

Waste Strategy

Table 34: Suggestions for the New Zealand Waste Strategy, by submitter ID

Sheep dips

Table 35: Suggestions for managing sheep dips, by submitter ID

Miscellaneous

Table 36: Miscellaneous suggestions, by submitter ID

[ Previous | Next ]