Skip to main content.

Auckland City local government meeting

18 October 2005

National Environmental Standards

Air quality

  • There are problems with the definition of principal source and significance. Auckland Regional Council wants to see a definition of these.
  • Auckland Regional Council may have a problem (because of the Air Quality National Environmental Standards) with issuing consent for a new power station. It is unlikely to be able to issue the consent if the power stations will be the principal source of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in that airshed.
  • What are the implications of the significance test for renewal of significant consents and emissions trading?
  • With regard to airsheds the existing air quality management areas defined in the regional plan were used as a basis for the Auckland Airshed. However, these are not a (surveyed) legal boundary under Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) therefore it was not straight forward for Auckland Regional Council to prepare information for gazettal of the airshed.
  • There are some serious issues with home heating.
    1. Some traders have indicated that they may re-label home heaters as multi-fuel heaters so the National Environment Standards does not apply to them.
    2. Some people are installing open fires.
    3. The home heating parts of the regional plan are still under appeal in the Auckland Regional Council region.
  • How does the pre-existing part of the regional plan coincide with the subsequently introduced National Environmental Standards?
  • Auckland people do not perceive wood fires (in homes) to be a major source of air pollution.
  • Can National Environmental Standards be put on motor vehicle emissions?

Drinking water

  • How fixed is the submission deadline for submissions on the drinking water standards?
  • The definition of community supply, 25 people > 60 days will include camping grounds, hotels and transient populations. Is this realistic? Community size needs to be considered.
  • Will tanker supplies to rural communities be covered? For example, Waiheke Island water carriers. Will they be included in the community definition?
  • Will there be land management controls? For example, Otahuhu basalt aquifer has no land use controls at present so potentially contaminating activities are not being prohibited.
  • What is the level of treatment? Will this be defined? Does this mean that it is ok to pollute to a higher level because people will say that anything can be treated?
  • Some small centres such as Warkworth have a number of risks in surface catchment.
  • The second part of the Standard presupposes that the council understands the effects of activities on water quality in the catchment.
  • Does it apply to water bottling plants?

Contaminated land

  • Will contaminated land numbers be applied retrospectively (i.e. to sites that have already been investigate or remediated)? Will sites need to be re-assessed again?
  • Will policy and technical review groups have another opportunity to be involved in discussing the issues surrounding contaminated land? It might be useful to have another session after submissions have been received.
  • We need to specify a risk assessment methodology for environmental investigations. Will there be any standardised methodology for Tier 2 human health investigations?
  • Many industrial sites will exceed the proposed thresholds. There might be a need for guidance on Tier 2 investigations for industrial sites.
  • Scope of Standard: Does it include a methodology and guidance to include rules in plans etc.?
  • What is the relationship between the Standard and existing guidelines especially with respect to investigations?
  • Good to hear that the National Environmental Standards development is an iterative process.
  • The technical group was concerned that the table was being promulgated so early, that caused difficulties with consultants asking why not using the proposed numbers.
  • The soil numbers are not right for protecting the environment. Regional councils will potentially be ‘hung out to dry’ by these numbers. For example, it is hard to explain why there is an environmental issue when the Standard is for human health (e.g. Zinc in the aquatic receiving environment). This will lead to disjunction between health and the environment.
  • Total Petrolum Hydrocarbdon numbers are a problem for the oil industry. Lower chain TPH’s are not included (C7-C16). Why is BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xzylene) not included?
  • Councils cannot see territorial local authorities asking for investigations of contaminated sites with the suggested numbers. In fact they cannot see any further investigations of contaminated sites taking place in the Auckland region if these numbers are applied.
  • There is a responsibility under the Buildings Act regarding contaminated land to ensure the structural integrity of buildings. Some chemicals could affect the stability and cause building corrosion.
  • With these high numbers, what would actually trigger an investigation? There is currently no consistent policy when to require an investigation and territorial local authorities may be reluctant to require an investigation.
  • The environmental protection plan has always been for Auckland Regional Council to develop environmental numbers, show them to MFE and then release them as guidelines or put into a plan. Auckland Regional Council is happy to be involved in working groups.
  • It is too difficult to develop numbers based on the receiving environment because there are so many sources.
  • We would like to put on land titles.
  • There is inconsistency between the Building Act and the National Environmental Standards (as we saw in the Air Quality National Environmental Standards).
  • There is not a lot of knowledge in the community regarding how thresholds apply.
  • Is residential the most sensitive land use? Is another category more sensitive (e.g. day care)?
  • Do residential and soil access numbers include crop and vegetable uptake?
  • Who is liable if someone got sick (based on the applied MFE numbers)? Is the MFE liable for setting numbers or the Off Route Terrain Clearance Altitude (ORTCA) for approving consent?
  • There are concerns about lead paint used on a lot of old villas in Auckland.
  • It is inequitable that less consultation occurs on National Environmental Standards than for regional plans. There should be much more consultation. Stakeholders should be able to see all drafts (including draft regulations).

Waste

Waste minimisation

  • Could the District Plan require a Waste Minimisation Plan through the consent process?
  • Waste minimisation must have clear and robust rules and incentives in the plan.
  • MFE Waste Strategy requires 25% of new consents to have the Waste Minimisation Plan by 2012. What is the proposed mechanism for this and how do we expect it to work? We know the issues involved but would like to see some case studies that show implementation (a co-ordinated approach to building). We are unclear about MFE’s intent and vision over the 25% waste minimum rule. What does the Ministry see as barriers to the implementation of the waste strategy?
  • There are many programmes around for sustainable households, but not many are established. How does MFE support the community end of household sustainability programmes? Can MFE work these through? (Could use Sustainable Management Fund funding). It will be hard getting these started to make progress. Promoting household level change is hard to start though it is a regional issue. It often requires funding for the first 2-3 years.
  • What is MFE doing (or what is its role) in promoting action on the ground with programmes that have national importance but local focus?
  • Could there be one 0800 number to collect calls on waste minimisation and direct people to the local information source. The 0800 ‘Reduce for Rubbish’ was started and taken over by Auckland Regional Council. It was a great idea and resource. We could reinstate the 0800 reduce concept across the nation. Does the Ministry have comprehensive research programmes to ensure that the waste situation is well known and is being dealt with?
  • This causes a huge problem for local councils as councils are so close that some form of co-ordination is required and Auckland Regional Council is in the perfect position to do this. The Environment Waikato model seems to be ok. It appears as though Auckland Regional Council is not taking responsibility for waste in the region, except for HazMobile. What is happening with the Local Government Act PF31 review? Can this help? We need to take a formal leadership and co-ordination role across the region. What is happening to the regional wide waste management plan? (E.g. data collection and regional information and audits for waste breakdown – no waste survey since 1997). What is being collected?

Recycling, reuse and community

  • How much recycling is being collected and actually recycled? Access to the system might be good but what is the use rate? Is the market there? In-organic collection shows poor recycling. Where are things at with regard to Extended Producer Responsibility consultation? What is happening with the review of the Litter Act? Councils are interested.
  • The operation of an inorganic collection service is very difficult. It needs to be replaced with a resource recovery service (as all valuable material is scavenged).
  • How is the true value of composting recognised and incorporated so as to promote action and overcome cost disparity?
  • When the Ministry works in partnership with industry how do they continue to ensure that outcome is legitimate and that partners are compliant and reliable (i.e. cellphone recycling)?
  • What is being done to promote waste and sustainability within the roading industry because the industry knows and does nothing about it? It is a massive industry, with a huge impact and next to no uptake.
  • Who is pushing sustainable criteria into ‘transit’ projects? The price seems to be the main attribute that outweighs everything.

Last updated: 17 September 2007