Skip to main content.

Christchurch local government meeting

12 October 2005

National Environmental Standards

Contaminated land

  • We need National Environmental Standards for contaminated land. We may need a review of the guidelines as well.
  • In the proposed criteria there are some radical moves up and down (i.e. National Environmental Protection Measure NEPM numbers). There has been an over-emphasis on human health to date in Christchurch.
  • The criteria should be New Zealand based and we should know why and where we are coming from.
  • Christchurch City Council work done by Graeme Proffitt and Jo Cavanagh is brilliant and will be superseded.
  • There is a bit of acceptance out there that the levels are ‘God.’ We need a different approach from north to south.
  • The current Information Sheet wording is better regarding risk based approach.
  • There are some tension surrounding the social, economic and ecological impacts of the standard.
  • Numbers are good to have but other issues are important, such as historical orphan sites, government activities, no duty to, crown is not bound by RMA and owns contaminated sites and
  • Pin-pointing the polluter is difficult.
  • Some numbers are not there that are useful for current Canterbury work (i.e. missing from NEPM table).
  • NEPM is not risk based. So why use it? Numbers are not good enough. New Zealand’s involvement with NEPM is very small. Are we using it for Trans-Tasman relations and trade? If so, justify it and make it clear. Surely there are other ways to make relations better.
  • The policy and technical groups have not recommended the NEPM and this advice has not been listened to. What are the benefits of choosing something that is technically flawed? Some numbers are too high (arsenic and DDT) and some are too conservative (benzopyrene). The zinc level from the NEPM is far too high and would be eco-toxic (i.e. plants would not be able to grow).
  • The scenario for residential use allowing people to consume 10% of their fruit and vegetables from their own garden is inaccurate.
  • The land use scenarios from the NEPM and the National Environmental Standards proposal should have soil numbers calculated for each one, not multiples of each other.
  • A lay person or an environment court judge they will look at the number as absolute.
  • The guidelines and standards for water and contaminated land need to be inter related, e.g. landfill disposal standards (arsenic 12 or 24, cleaner than land around it at 100).
  • We need to use a consultant accreditation system for contaminated land remediation (like Victoria, Australia with training that provides certainty).
  • Will the Contaminated Land National Environmental Standards include effects on groundwater? What about the wider environment or other receptors? For example, a site that is cleaned up to standard but with groundwater that is contaminated. What do you do with it? Will the Standard cover groundwater for people drinking it, for example, individual properties? The proposed Standard does not cover all the pathways (i.e. groundwater).
  • The Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund is not large enough.

Drinking water

  • The Drinking Water National Environmental Standard does not seem to be linked in properly with historically or existing activities that are contaminating groundwater.

Air quality

  • Manufacturers are concerned that when the Wood Burner Standard was developed no one from MFE looked at installation issues or worked with the Department of Building and Housing on it.

Waste

Product stewardship

  • Tyre track is not really product stewardship. Where are tyres going? Are there any ‘waste to energy’ plants here?
  • Treated timber will become a real issue. Councils are struggling with treated timber and its shavings. Kate Valley landfill has waste acceptance criteria that are strictly enforced creating extra problems. Previously treated timber shavings went to Burwood landfill. Product stewardship should work for treated wood shavings.

Hazardous waste management

  • Subsidising of AgChems has been successful. 40% of the region is still to collect from (e.g. Canterbury has a lot to collect). Where does the 20% figure come from? We need to keep the funding because if it stops, then collection will not be able to continue. People inherit hazardous chemicals but sometimes they are found buried or in shelter belts or in old sheds.
  • We need national support for domestic hazardous wastes. It would be good to get the New Zealand Fire Service behind the issue for a combined approach.

Waste minimisation

  • There are national messages regarding recycling and waste minimisation. Councils need the ability to levy private companies for waste minimisation. If they turn it over we will lose the ability to address waste issues. How can we get the council (elected) to allocate funding and rates for recycling?
  • What happened to ‘Reduce your Rubbish’? We need more social marketing to create more awareness of the issues. This belongs at national level.
  • New Zealand Waste Strategy targets need to be revisited. When will we see a review? You cannot get all new (industrial) resource consents to have a waste minimisation strategy. Many council’s are not adopting it. Some targets are unattainable and we need some other mechanisms to deliver on targets.
  • Specific waste legislation may be needed (e.g. hazardous wastes, product stewardship etc.)
  • Waste officers would like to have the ability to ask people and industries where they are putting their waste.

Recycling, reuse and community

  • How can we ensure that private rubbish collectors provide recycling facilities to their customers? We need to look outside council control at private, trade and office.
  • Just having one recycled glass processor is not acceptable. We need a South Island location to dispose of excess glass. Roading is not really an option because aggregate is so cheap and glass ruins crushers.
  • Landfill will not accept flock (paint and plastic etc.) and this could seriously compromise car and scrap metal recycling.

General comments

  • Waste oil prices have risen from between 15¢ to 20¢. The waste oil collection network is not working. Councils are carrying the burden of collection costs. Councils want access to a levy. Used oil guidelines gave container specifications but many old style waste oil collection containers did not meet the specifications so stations are used as an opportunity to get rid of containers.
  • There is a lot of work to be done on the packaging issue. Manufacturers of bad packaging should have to take responsibility for it.
  • 67% of residents supported consumer charges.
  • Economic concerns seem to have much more strength than environmental and social considerations when dealing with environmental waste issues.
  • New Zealand does not appear to be taking the waste strategy seriously (e.g. organic waste).
  • Organic waste is not being measured nationally. Have commercial organisations reported on organic waste diversion? There needs to be national co-ordination for organic markets.
  • MFE, other Kiwi companies and the western world need to lead the way and show people how things can be done differently.
  • It is human nature that we will be forced into changes by collapse of societal and economic systems.
  • We need national statutory requirements to force people and local government to act appropriately and in the right direction.
  • We need to establish a register of contaminated sites (e.g. sheep dips). Is there a problem? What is the nature and extent of the problem?
  • The Local Government Act has specific requirements with regard to sustainability that are not being followed through.

Last updated: 17 September 2007