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

3 Review of Progress against Targets continued

3.5 Construction and demolition waste

3.5.1 Introduction

Construction and demolition waste is waste generated from the construction or demolition of a building, including the preparation and/or clearance of the property or site. This definition excludes materials such as clay, soil and rock when these materials are associated with infrastructure such as road construction and maintenance, but includes building-related infrastructure. However, construction and demolition materials are not measured as a separate category at landfill and cleanfill sites. As a result, it can make it difficult to accurately separate the volumes and composition of construction and demolition waste from other wastes, such as infrastructure and land excavation wastes.

Despite difficulties in measurement, we know that construction and demolition waste makes up a significant proportion of waste to landfill. Surveys undertaken at five major disposal facilities have assessed that, on average, construction and demolition waste makes up 26 per cent of waste to landfill. This equates to an estimated 820,560 tonnes in 2006. Subsequent solid waste analysis studies separates this waste into eight categories (see Figure 14), and indicates their volumes as a percentage of the total construction and demolition waste stream.

Construction and demolition waste also makes up almost all waste disposed of to cleanfill, estimated to be between 2.7 and 3.7 million tonnes per annum (see section 2.2.3).

3.5.2 Summary of progress

There is evidence that diversion of a range of construction and demolition waste is occurring, with industry recovering an estimated one million tonnes per annum. However, there is no comprehensive data on construction and demolition waste flows, because monitoring of disposal is limited at both landfill and cleanfill sites. Very few territorial authorities have separate measurement systems for construction and demolition waste. This makes it difficult for territorial authorities to monitor the full extent of the waste stream, especially if small volumes of construction and demolition waste are produced in their locality. In addition, the majority of construction and demolition waste goes to cleanfills, which are not operated by territorial authorities.

Key findings

• Construction and demolition waste is estimated to comprise around 26 per cent of waste to landfill, or 820,560 tonnes per year.

• Construction and demolition waste makes up the majority of waste disposed of to cleanfill. This is estimated to be between 2.7 and 3.7 million tonnes in 2005, which is greater than the total volume of waste to landfill in New Zealand.

• An estimated one million tonnes of construction and demolition waste is diverted from landfills and cleanfills by industry.

3.5.3 Looking forward

There needs to be more comprehensive monitoring of construction and demolition waste, in relation to both the disposal of this waste to landfill and cleanfill and diversion rates. The full extent of this waste stream is unknown, with current figures based only on estimates provided by those that re-use or divert relevant materials. Anecdotal evidence suggests that diversion of construction and demolition waste is increasing, but there is little opportunity to measure this. If we want to know more about trends in construction and demolition waste diversion, an improved monitoring and measurement system is needed.

Given the scale of the estimates of construction and demolition waste disposed of annually, there is a strong case for focusing on increasing the reprocessing and re-use of this waste. There are excellent examples of reprocessing and re-use, but these tend to be small-scale and locality-specific. There are currently few incentives to divert construction and demolition waste materials from landfill or cleanfill because the low costs of disposal and existing waste collection infrastructure do not drive the waste generator to consider alternatives such as re-use or recycling.

One way to address this would be to strengthen the market for the recovery, re-use and recycling of construction and demolition waste. To be successful, the wider industrial sector will need to be engaged in this work. The Resource Efficiency in Building and Related Industries (REBRI) initiative is an example of a successful programme that has produced guidelines to reduce construction and demolition waste. In addition, the regulatory environment could provide greater assistance by, for example, using the Building Code to allow the re-use of building materials.

3.5.4 Review of progress

Monitoring and measurement systems for construction and demolition wastes vary among territorial authorities. This is mainly because the amount of construction and demolition waste generated in any given area depends on the amount of economic activity. In general, high levels of construction and demolition waste are the result of high levels of economic growth and population increase. In many areas the volume of construction and demolition waste generated does not justify measurement. In other areas, the majority of construction and demolition waste is disposed of to local cleanfills, most of which are not council-owned. Some territorial authorities report some roadside construction waste is used in land reclamation by local farmers, but this is not measured.

Ten territorial authorities have a formal monitoring system for construction and demolition waste. Of these, six have set local targets for the diversion of this type of waste. Figures for 2005 were provided by 16 territorial authorities, who collectively estimated that in their territories 224,581 tonnes of construction and demolition waste were sent to landfill in 2005. This is not sufficient to provide an adequate picture of the waste stream throughout New Zealand or to adequately determine progress against the 50 per cent reduction target.

There are pockets of good practice in the recovery of construction and demolition type wastes. Estimates by the Ministry for the Environment, based around direct one-to-one contact with industry, suggest that in excess of one million tonne of material is recovered.

The construction and demolition recovered materials market needs to be stimulated to encourage the recovery, re-use and recycling of construction and demolition. An example of one such initiative is the development of a series of guidelines by the Resource Efficiency in Building and Related Industries (REBRI). The guidelines were produced as a joint project between central government, local government and industry. The aim is to reduce construction and demolition waste through the efficient use of resources, using a range of activities from detailed guides suitable for policy development, to “Easy Guides” aimed at practical application.

3.6 Hazardous waste and contaminated sites

3.6.1 Introduction

A hazardous substance is defined in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 as a mixture of elements or compounds, either naturally occurring, or produced synthetically, that can readily explode, burn, oxidise (accelerate the combustion of other material) or corrode (metals or biological tissue), and/or be toxic to people and ecosystems. Minimising and properly managing hazardous wastes can significantly reduce risks to human health and the environment.

The hazardous waste targets in the Strategy were set to ensure that an integrated and comprehensive policy for hazardous waste was developed to minimise the volumes of hazardous waste produced, and to ensure improvements in the management of hazardous waste.

3.6.2 Summary of progress

A stocktake of hazardous waste policy was conducted by the Ministry for the Environment in 2004. As a result, a hazardous waste framework was developed which identified that more work was required on tracking systems and minimum standards for managing different groups of hazardous wastes. A tracking scheme for hazardous wastes is now being rolled out across New Zealand, and work is well underway to develop minimum storage, transport and disposal requirements for groups of hazardous wastes. Existing legislation and tools are considered sufficient for the comprehensive management of hazardous waste and to minimise their environmental impacts.

The Ministry for the Environment is undertaking an intensive programme of work focusing on establishing the policy and legal frameworks for the assessment, management and remediation of contaminated land. The Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) provides a comprehensive indication of where the risks areas are. Many regional councils and unitary authorities have identified sites that could cause contamination, and there are guidelines available to industry on how to manage certain activities involving the storage, transportation and use of hazardous materials. To date, seven regional councils have subjected 4,424 sites across New Zealand to rapid risk screening. The total number of contaminated sites in New Zealand is presently unknown.

Key findings

• Existing legislative tools are sufficient to ensure the safe management of hazardous waste.

• Earlier identified weaknesses in the management of hazardous wastes are being resolved. WasteTRACK, a tracking scheme for hazardous wastes, is now being rolled out across the country, and work is underway to develop minimum storage, transport and disposal requirements for various groups of hazardous wastes.

• The majority of hazardous waste is disposed of and treated through municipal waste water treatment plants.

• A total of 4,424 contaminated sites have been subjected to rapid screening by seven regional councils.

• Significant progress has been made in providing technical guidance for the management of contaminated sites.

• A review of the framework for managing contaminated land is underway.

• The Contaminated Site Remediation Fund has been valuable in providing impetus to conduct investigations and clean-ups, particularly for “orphan” sites where direct liability is not clear.

3.6.3 Looking forward

Action is still required to minimise the amounts of hazardous waste produced and to establish programmes to recycle hazardous materials. Over time, the hazardous waste tracking scheme will provide detailed information on the amounts and types of hazardous waste produced, and will help identify opportunities to reduce and recycle certain hazardous wastes.

Continued work is required to ensure all sites on the HAIL are subjected to screening and are managed appropriately.

3.6.4 Review of progress

In 2004, the Ministry for the Environment undertook a stocktake of the policy already in place or under development to manage hazardous wastes. This work led the Ministry to develop the Policy Framework to Reduce and Safely Manage Hazardous Waste, which was first published in December 2004 and was updated in June 2006.

The policy framework identified two elements required to strengthen the policy: a tracking system for hazardous waste, and regulation controlling the storage, transport and disposal of hazardous wastes. The Ministry has developed and is currently implementing a tracking system for hazardous waste (WasteTRACK) to ensure safe disposal and provide data on hazardous waste generation and disposal. Comprehensive data should start to come through in the middle of 2008. The Ministry is also developing standards for groups of hazardous wastes (Group Standards) under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, which will impose minimum storage, transport and disposal requirements.

The bulk of hazardous waste is disposed of to sewer, and so is treated at municipal wastewater treatment plants prior to discharge. A report commissioned for Environment Waikato and Environment Bay of Plenty noted that 72 per cent of hazardous waste in the Bay of Plenty region and 85 per cent of hazardous waste in the Waikato region were disposed of to sewer (Environment Bay of Plenty, 2004). Discharges from trade premises are covered by trade waste consents under trade waste by-lawss. These are explained in more detail in section 3.9.

Regional councils monitor hazardous activities and the disposal of hazardous wastes within their region. Forty-seven per cent of regional councils have indicated priority hazardous wastes for management, with the same number confirming that all known hazardous waste in their area is disposed of to licensed facilities.

The Ministry for the Environment established a list of priority hazardous wastes based on hazardous waste surveys conducted by regional councils. The following criteria were used to rank the priority hazardous wastes:

• level of potential harm to people and/or to the environment from inappropriate management

• quantity of waste produced (based on available information)

• number of generators of a particular waste

• current management practices for the wastes

• likely risk of inappropriate disposal

• where opportunities may exist or are required for more appropriate management.

Current recovery and recycling rates for priority hazardous wastes have not been established because the data is lacking, but rates and trends will become clearer once the data becomes available from WasteTRACK.

The Ministry for the Environment has undertaken an intensive programme of work focusing on establishing the policy and legal frameworks for the assessment, management and remediation of contaminated land. Significant technical guidance has been provided, and funding has been made available for investigations and clean-up through the Contaminated Site Remediation Fund. In particular, the following tools and financial assistance have been provided:

• a suite of technical guidelines to provide certainty for site owners (eg, industry) about how to identify, investigate and report on contaminated land

• allocation of funds in partnership with local government to remediate identified high-priority contaminated sites

• clarification of policy on the liability for contaminated land.

The Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) is a compilation of activities and industries that typically use or store hazardous substances that could cause contamination if these substances:

• escape from safe storage

• are disposed of on the site

• are lost to the environment through their use.

The HAIL and associated guidance provide regional councils with a process to identify and track hazardous activities and industry. Guidelines produced by the Ministry for the Environment provide consistency of reporting on the investigation, assessment and remediation of contaminated sites in New Zealand, including the processes for rapid screening of sites on the HAIL list.

Regional councils monitor contaminated sites in their region, usually via a site database. There is no standard system for collecting site information, however, so systems vary between councils. A number of councils report that they are looking to update their system in order to monitor listed sites more effectively.

The total number of sites on the HAIL list across the country is unknown. It is therefore difficult to measure progress against the target, which aims to ensure that 50 per cent of sites on the HAIL have been subject to rapid screening in accordance with the Ministry’s guidelines.

That said, some progress has been made. Seven regional councils have subjected 4,424 sites to formalised site screening through a rapid screening system. Of the 599 high-risk sites currently identified, 56 per cent have already been through a remediation programme or have a remediation or management programme in place. However, previously contaminated sites are still being identified, and progress against the target for remediation and management of all high-risk sites by 2015 will largely depend on how many “new” previously contaminated sites are identified, and when this identification occurs.

3.7 Organochlorines

3.7.1 Introduction

Certain organochlorine chemicals are classified as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) under the United Nations Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The Stockholm Convention aims to protect human health and the environment by banning the production and use of persistent organic pollutants, and minimising total environmental releases of these pollutants at the global level.

Chemicals presently listed as POPs under the Stockholm Convention are:

• nine pesticides (aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex, hexachlorobenzene and toxaphene)

• polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

• dioxins and furans (polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans).

Although the POPs pesticides of concern in New Zealand have not been used for many years, a number of sites are contaminated from this historical use and dioxins and furans continue to be released from these sites in small but significant quantities. Most stocks of PCBs have already been collected and destroyed. Measures to minimise dioxins and furan releases are set out in New Zealand’s National Implementation Plan under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Ministry for the Environment, 2006b).

A significant feature of POPs is that they bioaccumulate, or build up within the body, in humans and other mammals. Levels of build-up are known as a “body burden”. Because mothers transfer part of their own “body burden” to embryos in utero, and to infants via breast milk, it will take many generations for the presence of persistent organic pollutants to minimise. However, health experts internationally agree that the demonstrated benefits of breast-feeding for an infant outweigh the potential adverse effects of POPs exposure.

The Stockholm Convention came into force for New Zealand on 23 December 2004 when new legislation was enacted to bring New Zealand into line with the legal requirements of the Convention. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment 2003 requires that all persistent organic pollutants are banned from importation, production and use in New Zealand. Under this legislation, PCBs that are presently exempted for ongoing use must be phased out and destroyed by 2016. Another key obligation under the convention is to take measures to reduce or eliminate the release of persistent organic pollutants from stockpiles and wastes.

3.7.2 Summary of progress

Significant progress against the targets for organochlorines has been made. New Zealand’s legislation now complies with the Stockholm Convention, and the Government’s National Implementation Plan (Ministry for the Environment, 2006b) sets out in detail how our obligations under the convention will be met over the longer term.

One example of action to reduce POPs from the New Zealand environment is the agrichemicals collection programme. This multi-year programme to collect and dispose of intractable agrichemical pesticides from farms across New Zealand has been very successful, with 290 tonnes of material collected so far. Plans are in place to collect the remaining 175 tonnes by 2009.

Key findings

• New Zealand has ratified the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and New Zealand’s National Implementation Plan under the convention outlines how organochlorines issues are being addressed.

• Legacy agrichemicals are being collected and disposed of from rural areas through the agrichemical collection programme. The majority of these have been persistent organic pollutants.

• Some local authorities collect hazardous wastes to help urban communities safely dispose of unwanted agrichemicals, including organochlorines.

• Government is working with industry to complete the phase-out and destruction of PCBs and implement measures to reduce or eliminate the release of dioxin and furan.

3.7.3 Looking forward

A programme to manage and reduce organochlorines is now in place through New Zealand’s National Implementation Plan under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Ministry for the Environment, 2006). The Plan sets out New Zealand’s obligations under the Stockholm Convention and provides details on the programme of action to meet these obligations and significantly reduce environmental and human health risks for New Zealanders from persistent organic pollutants.

3.7.4 Review of progress

In 2002 the Ministry for the Environment worked with regional councils to establish a project to collect and dispose of intractable agrichemical pesticides, some of which are persistent organic pollutants, from farms across New Zealand. This programme built on agrichemical collections undertaken by regional councils from the early 1990s, with funding from rates and the Sustainable Management Fund.

Rural agricultural chemical collections are undertaken by all regional councils and unitary authorities. The collections involve trained staff visiting farms across New Zealand to record the amounts of intractable agrichemical pesticides and safely remove them. In some areas industry sectors are involved, such as in the Bay of Plenty, where kiwifruit growers participated in the collection programme. In other areas large publicity campaigns preceded the collections to raise awareness. Once collected, the chemicals are either treated within New Zealand or shipped abroad to be safely treated and disposed of.

By June 2006 the agrichemicals project had collected approximately 290 tonnes of material, of which approximately 225 tonnes is “intractable” material. It is estimated that approximately 175 tonnes of uncollected intractable agrichemical pesticides remain in New Zealand. The Ministry for the Environment will continue to support regional councils to collect the remaining agrichemical pesticides before 30 June 2009. More information on this project can be found in Intractable Agricultural Chemicals in New Zealand (Ministry for the Environment, 2006a), available on the Ministry for the Environment website.

In urban areas, agrichemicals, persistent organic pollutants and other intractable materials are collected, along with other hazardous materials, through HazMobile collections. The HazMobile is a free service for households which is provided by some local authorities. The HazMobile visits various sites throughout New Zealand several times a year so that householders can safely dispose of their hazardous wastes, including old paints, waste oil, batteries, household and agrichemical POPs and other intractable materials. In addition, a number of local authorities have created permanent drop-off points for agrichemicals, often at transfer stations.

The Ministry for the Environment and the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) are working with the industrial sector to minimise the volumes and impacts of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), as follows.

• ERMA will administer the system of exemptions for the use and storage of PCBs to achieve New Zealand’s commitment under the Stockholm Convention to withdraw from use, and dispose of exempted PCB stocks before 2016.

• ERMA and the Ministry will facilitate the ongoing collection and disposal of miscellaneous and minor PCB stocks.

As required under the Stockholm Convention, the Ministry for the Environment has prepared an Action Plan for Dioxins and Other Annex C Chemicals as part of the New Zealand’s National Implementation Plan under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Ministry for the Environment, 2006). The plan sets out how New Zealand will address its obligations under this aspect of the Convention to minimise future releases and exposures to dioxin. Research undertaken by the Ministry between 1996 and 2001 found that body burdens for most New Zealanders appears to be low, relative to many other countries. Over 90 per cent of our exposure to dioxin (and other POPs) is thought to come from eating foods of animal origin, such as meats, dairy products and fish.

New Zealand has already achieved - or is currently undertaking activities that go a long way towards meeting - the objective to minimise dioxin exposure. For example, the entry into force of the National Environmental Standard Relating to Certain Air Pollutants, Dioxins and Other Toxics specifically bans key activities that produce dioxins and other air toxins. The Action Plan for Dioxins builds on this platform and identifies a number of measures to be undertaken over the next three to five years. Good progress has also been made to identify sources of dioxin release and measures to eliminate or reduce them.

3.8 Trade waste and waste disposal

3.8.1 Introduction

Setting high environmental standards for waste disposal is a key objective of the New Zealand Waste Strategy. The targets for trade waste and waste disposal aim to ensure that policies and procedures are in place that improve performance in the management of trade waste, identify the true costs of disposal of waste and, where appropriate and practical, apply these costs directly to waste generators.

3.8.2 Summary of progress

Targets in the New Zealand Waste Strategy relating to improving standards for wastewater treatment plants, cleanfills and landfills have longer time frames than other targets. This reflects the fact that changes to standards can take time to implement. Good progress has already been made in this area, however, with significant improvement in landfill management, cost recovery and the accelerated closure of substandard landfills. Progress is being made in relation to wastewater treatment plants, with major upgrades completed or underway for a number of plants in urban areas. Upgrades to treatment plants in small communities are eligible for funding support through the government Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme. However, limited data is available for cleanfills, because cleanfills tend to be privately operated and are often classed as permitted activities under regional plans. Cleanfills that are permitted under a plan are not subject to the same monitoring as landfills.

Eighty-nine per cent of territorial authorities report that they have, or are in the process of enacting, the New Zealand Standard Model General Bylaw, Part 23 – Trade Waste. This is a significant achievement in standardising and improving the management of trade waste in New Zealand. The trade waste by-law encourages the development and implementation of waste minimisation and management plans or programmes at each permitted site, although the lack of a “recognised” trade waste plan or programme makes it difficult for a territorial authority to enforce.

Key findings

• The disposal of liquid trade waste to wastewater collection and treatment systems has improved through the model Trade Waste By-law. Eighty-nine per cent of territorial authorities have either enacted or are in the process of enacting a trade waste by-law.

• Although the model Trade Waste By-law has had good uptake, few waste minimisation and management plans or programmes for individual permitted sites are in place.

• Wastewater treatment plants have been steadily upgraded around the country, with a subsidy scheme available for upgrades in small rural areas.

• There has been an overall reduction in the number of landfills operating, from 115 in 2002 to 60 in 2006, with a further eight to 10 due to close over the next 24 months.

• Best-practice guidelines on the consent process, design and construction, full cost accounting and waste acceptance criteria have improved the management and operation of landfills throughout the country.

• Limited information is available on cleanfills because they tend to be privately operated and are often permitted under regional and district plans.

3.8.3 Looking forward

Continued work is required to ensure best practice standards are implemented nationwide for landfills and wastewater treatment plants. This includes the ongoing identification of and improved management of landfills and wastewater treatment plants. There may be significant opportunities to improve waste diversion from cleanfills if more is known about the types and amounts of materials they manage annually.

The Trade Waste By-law has provided a basis for improving waste minimisation and management at permitted sites. However, the development of a standard way to assess waste management and minimisation plans for such sites would help to improve the management of trade wastes.

3.8.4 Review of progress

A survey in 2005 identified that 89 per cent of territorial authorities have either implemented or are intending to implement the New Zealand Standard Model General Bylaw, Part 23 – Trade Waste or its equivalent. Seven small territorial authorities have indicated that they do not intend to implement the by-law because there are only a small number of dischargers of trade wastes in their localities.

The trade waste by-law imposes some costs to industry based on the types and nature of the waste streams they dispose of. This cost is in itself an incentive to minimise waste, but one of the objectives of the trade waste by-law is to improve waste minimisation. Territorial authorities encourage trade waste permit holders to develop waste minimisation and a management plan or programme. Feedback from trade waste officers in territorial authorities, however, indicates that the lack of a recognised standard for waste minimisation or a management plan or programme makes it difficult to comply with this target. Recent surveys of territorial authorities have reported that of the 6,058 known trade waste permits approved under the by-law, only 200 are known to have waste minimisation and management programmes or plans in place.

The trade waste by-law is seen as an effective way to encourage waste minimisation of trade waste from industry and business. Tools are available to assist business (eg, Quickstart, Envirosmart, the Natural Step and ISO 14001), but the lack of a nationally recognised waste minimisation and management plan or programme makes it difficult to enforce any requirement for a plan to be in place before permits are granted.

Under the Local Government Act 2002 all territorial authorities are required to produce a Long Term Council Community Plan, in consultation with their community. This process is comprehensive and transparent and is used to set priorities for funding and policy development by the territorial authority. This means that all finances are considered in conjunction with the local community, who may decide that full cost recovery is not necessary or practical for waste disposal.

Evidence suggests that all territorial authorities have implemented full cost recovery in different ways. A recent survey of territorial authorities shows that 59 per cent have a user-pays system for the collection of their residential waste, and at least 93 per cent charge for disposal at their landfill or transfer stations. In many areas the disposal of recycling or green waste at a landfill or transfer station is either free or at a reduced rate.

For all facilities operated by territorial authorities, the asset management requirement of the Local Government Act 2002 mean that the costs of running these facilities, including long-term replacement costs, are known. Most territorial authorities include costs for domestic wastewater treatment in general rates, and industrial wastewater treatment costs are charged through trade waste permits.

Charges for refuse collections are often on a user-pays basis. Fifty-nine per cent of territorial authorities operate a user-pays system to fund waste collections. In other areas, costs are built into general rates, targeted rates and/or uniform annual charges. Ninety-eight per cent of territorial authorities charge for access to landfills or transfer stations. However, in many areas there are reduced or no charges for recyclables and green waste in order to incentivise the diversion of materials from landfill. There are also some constraints on charging at rural transfer stations and for domestic rubbish collections, but these are managed at a local level.

Although the overall costs involved with wastewater are generally known, the marginal capital and operational costs attributed to an additional connection to the sewerage/sewage system may not be clear. These can be dealt with through development contributions, as laid out in the Local Government Act 2002, but this relies on an appropriate funding policy being articulated in the Long Term Council Community Plan. The costs of providing and replacing infrastructure for wastewater are addressed in detail in asset management programmes that have been implemented by local government and Audit New Zealand following the Local Government Amendment (Number 3) Act. Operational costs tend to be based more closely on historical costs and are subject to challenge from time to time, and the costs associated with domestic wastewater flows compared to commercial and industrial flows (trade wastes) are similarly unclear.

For privately owned landfills and cleanfills it is assumed full costs are recovered to ensure the businesses optimise their profit. Although it is not possible to legally require a private company to charge full costs for waste disposal, the Landfill Full Cost Accounting Guide for New Zealand (Ministry for the Environment, 2002b/2004) does provide guidance in support of this. The Guide helps decision-makers, both government sector and private, to implement a consistent, full-cost accounting approach to landfills, which incorporates landfill planning, development, operation, closure and after-care.

The Guide was updated in March 2004 to encourage landfill operators to calculate charges (or recover costs) for multiple liner design and additional reporting tools, increase charges over time to meet increasing costs, and forecast annual quantities of waste in order to set appropriate future charges.

There is very little information available on charges levied at cleanfills. Due to the commercial nature of the large majority of cleanfill operations, and the commercially sensitive nature of cost and charge information, this data is not readily available. It is worth noting that although there are no requirements on a private company to charge full costs, there are commercial drivers to recover the full costs of disposal.

The Guide to the Management of Cleanfills (Ministry for the Environment, 2002a) outlines the regulatory framework for cleanfills in New Zealand, provides a definition of “cleanfill”, and outlines siting, design and operation considerations for cleanfill sites. This Guide also defines “cleanfill material” and identifies lists of acceptable, conditionally acceptable and unacceptable materials for cleanfills.

In many parts of New Zealand the operation of a cleanfill is classed as a permitted activity in the relevant regional plan. Territorial authorities and/or regional councils use a threshold approach to determine the appropriate level of monitoring. General cleanfill is permitted at a regional level, while district plans set a threshold on an earthworks basis. This means that smaller sites are permitted with limited monitoring, but larger ones are identified and managed through the resource consent process, often with conditions that specify the range of materials that can be accepted for disposal. In general, where cleanfills are consented they are sizeable, and appropriate monitoring is undertaken.

The Guide to the Management of Cleanfills has been adopted by most regional councils and territorial authorities in New Zealand and used as a basis for permitted activity rules and resource consent conditions. In most cases there is no requirement in the permitted activity rules or consents to monitor and report tonnages. In some areas, such as Christchurch, Local Government Act 2002 by-laws have been introduced to require reporting and to put in place waste acceptance criteria for cleanfills (see boxed text below).

Information from territorial authorities and regional councils suggests that there are around 300 cleanfills in New Zealand, although there may be some duplication in these figures. Forty-three per cent of those cleanfills are reported to comply with the cleanfill disposal guidelines.

There has been a significant improvement in the management of landfills across New Zealand, especially since the publication of a suite of guidelines around the management of landfills:

• Hazardous Waste Guidelines (Module 2): Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria and Landfill Classification (Ministry for the Environment, 2004)

• Landfill Full Cost Accounting Guide for New Zealand (Ministry for the Environment 2004)

• A Guide to the Management of Closing and Closed Landfills in New Zealand (Ministry for the Environment 2001)

• Guide to Landfill Consent Conditions (Ministry for the Environment, 2001)

• Landfill Guidelines (Centre for Advanced Engineering, 2000).

Overall, there has been a reduction in the number of operating landfills, from 115 in 2002 to 60 in 2006, with a further eight to 10 due to close over the next 24 months. The landfills that are closing tend to be smaller or substandard. In line with the guidelines, larger landfills that remain open have been progressively upgraded to comply with improved standards.

General improvements in landfill management include:

• an increase in the number of sites with an engineered liner from 20 per cent in 2002 to 52 per cent in 2006 - this increase is mainly due to the number of new, purpose-built sites, and the majority of those without a liner are on natural sites which do not require a lining

• an improvement in leachate collection at landfill sites from 47 per cent in 2002 to 77 per cent in 2006

• an improvement in landfill gas management from five per cent in 1998 to 23 per cent now collecting gas for beneficial use

• 93 per cent of landfills now measure the amount of waste they are disposing of, an increase of 10 per cent from 2002.

One significant change in landfill management in New Zealand has been the increase in the number of sites accepting hazardous waste. This may reflect the increasing number of new sites, which are designed to accept hazardous materials. There have also been positive improvements in monitoring and reporting, with model hazardous waste manifest documentation now used at 85 per cent of sites.

Table 8 provides information on the changes to landfill management since 1995. The data in this table comes from the results of the Landfill Census of 1995 and 1998, and the Landfill Review and Audit in 2002. The table also includes some preliminary results from the Landfill Census 2006, which is due to be published later this year.

Table 8: Summary results from the National Landfill Census (1995, 1998 and 2006) and Landfill Review and Audit Survey (2002)

Notes

a A dash (-) indicates that information is not available.

b Two landfills replied that a natural collection of leachate occurs at their respective landfills. These two landfills have been included as having a leachate collection system.

c Landfill fires are now banned under the National Environmental Standards for air quality.

d Five landfills replied that the only hazardous waste they accept is wrapped asbestos or special waste. These five landfills have been included as accepting hazardous waste.

Adequate wastewater and sanitary treatment facilities in communities are the most effective - and usually the most efficient - means of managing the risks to public health associated with inadequate sewage treatment. There are 320 publicly owned wastewater treatment plants in New Zealand. Many have been upgraded over the past five years, including the major urban centres of Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Hamilton.

The Resource Management Act 1991 requires all treatment facilities to have consent to operate and therefore meet an appropriate discharge standard for the receiving environment. There is no overall standard for plants, because the final required effluent quality depends on the receiving environment into which the effluent is discharged. As consents are renewed, each individual plant’s performance is assessed and, where appropriate, treatment plants are required to improve the quality of effluent. This consent renewal process has significantly improved the standard of wastewater discharges around New Zealand.

The development and improvement of wastewater treatment plants and sewage facilities are mostly funded by ratepayers via rates to territorial authorities. Based on information in the national WINFO database the projected spend on infrastructure upgrade for the next 10 years is over $650 million. Based on experience with recent plant upgrades, it is estimated that between 40 and 50 per cent of these upgrades will be for purely environmental reasons.

Some small to medium-sized communities do not have a sufficient rating base to fully fund upgrades to their sanitary works. In 2002 the Government introduced the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme to help these communities. The Scheme is run in partnership with local government and is aimed primarily at enabling disadvantaged small and medium-sized communities to achieve good environmental outcomes and safe sanitary conditions. The scheme has proven very successful and is currently oversubscribed.