Albany local government meeting
19 October 2005
National Environmental Standards
Contaminated land
- Will the discussion document specify assumptions used in deriving soil contaminant levels? Why would New Zealand want to adopt much higher levels (as specified in the NEPM numbers) when the international guideline levels are much lower?
- The soil limits are not specific to New Zealand and most Australian and New Zealand Conservation Council (ANZECC) data is based on Australia which has different soils and vegetation.
- Auckland Regional Council found that the Canadian guidelines are closest to the New Zealand environment and contain both health and environment numbers.
- How acceptable are the huge differences in numbers to the community between the protection of people versus the environment? If the public perception is that the environment will not be protected, the Standard may not be accepted.
- The Standard will disrupt the relationship between territorial local authorities and regional councils. Territorial local authorities will be expected to refer to regional councils regarding off-site discharge and regional councils will look like the ‘bad guys’. Also territorial local authorities will not pick up off-site environmental effects because they will think that they have satisfied the environmental requirements by complying with the Standard. Currently the territorial local authorities are a major source of information for regional councils on contaminated sites. This will stop with the introduction of the National Environmental Standards.
- Can there be some guidance in the National Environmental Standards about when soil testing is required and when it is not, i.e. a risk assessment pathway (e.g. sensitive land use). Some people could interpret the Standard as to have a soil test done for every change in land use.
- Why has not the whole system of NEPM been proposed to be adopted as a standard? One should talk to consultants in Australia who use NEPM to see how they apply it because it is not used in a ‘black and white’ way.
- Is the NEPM being reviewed? We need to check this and integrate any resultant changes into the Standard before it is finalised.
- The policy and technical reference groups did not like the proposed numbers and approach. It would have been better if distributed prior to the roadshow to have a heading on the table saying, ‘for Territorial Local Authority use only.’
- We need to look deeper than just at the number. The pathways are important and it is risk based. It is suggested to start with a trigger level and then consider the pathways. Using only one number over simplifies the issue and we could have different numbers where environmental receptors are included.
- The initial number should be the trigger for involving regional councils.
- The proposed National Environmental Standards could result in community perception problems (them versus us) if MFE says the site is ok and the regional council says it is not.
- If a trigger number is not specified in the Standard, all regional councils will have to do plan variations to allow them to manage contaminated sites.
- In Auckland all territorial local authorities have adopted and agreed on Jo Cavanagh’s numbers for horticultural soil. Those numbers have been peer reviewed and accepted. If all have agreed on these numbers why do we need to bring in the NEPM?
- It is a liability for the Minister if we use NEPM numbers because they are much higher (e.g. 200 mg/kg for DDT in the National Environmental Standards versus 25 mg/kg in the Auckland Regional Council guidelines).
- There may be effects on property values (e.g. land owners who sold land that was previously undervalued under the previous numbers applied)
- The definition of contaminated land in RMA needs to be clarified. How is ‘applicable’ interpreted? If it means that the Standard is primarily for a particular contaminant (rather than a pathway or receptor), then it could mean that the site is not contaminated even if it has environmental effects. There would be no contaminated site investigations under this definition with the proposed numbers. Does this mean that the regional council’s plans and definitions regarding contaminated land no longer apply?
Drinking water
- What are the effects of previous activities on drinking water catchments (e.g. Onehunga) and contaminated sites? Will this be captured by National Environmental Standards?
- Will there be any protection for small, low socio-economic communities who cannot connect to a pipe and get water supplies?
- Are there risks from transport? Should we route traffic and have transport routes for hazardous substances outside the drinking water catchments and wells etc.?
- It is good to see the concept of protecting drinking water sources.
- How do we deal with cumulative effects? For example, from contaminates in groundwater sites.
- There may be cumulative effects arising from the equity of refusing consent for the consent applicant whose activity leads to exceeding the threshold at plant take.
Waste
Product stewardship
- The construction and demolition waste is related to product stewardship.
- What is the progress with Extended Producer Responsibility consultation? What is the relationship of this process to the construction and demolition waste issue?
Landfills
- What is MFE’s position at present on how costs associated with the New Zealand Waste Strategy target of biosolid removal from landfills could be dealt with? Where is the target at with respect to implementation? (2007 target 95%).
Education and information
- There are opportunities to incorporate education and available tools into the consent process to tie the objectives to an enforced process or even get the information and tools into building codes as it is easier than a by-law to implement.
Recycling, reuse and community
- There are requirements for waste and recycling services associated with residential sites. Guidance would be useful for higher density living projects (e.g. access, area, equipment and frequency). North Shore County Council has multi unit development guides.
- We need to ensure that changes in design practice are required to consider waste and recycling issues and needs as a priority so that it does not get missed out (e.g. new small roads for stormwater quality limits rubbish track access).
- Could multi unit developments be required to collect rainwater or recycle greywater? Can we link financial contributions to levels of sustainable practice incorporated?
- Is there a legislative opportunity to include waste and recycling requirements within the Building Act? (E.g. service courts and composting of waste collection etc.)
Last updated: 17 September 2007
