Skip to main content.

Nelson local government meeting

11 October 2005

National Environmental Standards

Contaminated land

  • Most Tasman District sites are historic (e.g. sheep dips) and landowners do not have to report sites.
  • What does ‘investigation mean’? (Regional council function under RMA).
  • There is no comprehensive set of guidelines for residential soil that is scientifically defensible.
  • The proposed Standard does not solve Tasman District Council problems. The Standard does not address duty to report or disclose information. National Environmental Protection Measures are not scientifically defensible (e.g. arsenic number is very high particularly in relation to UK and Holland etc). Arsenic (100ppm) is 3x too high for residential soil to avoid cancer risk. Cadmium (20ppm) is 40x too high for New Zealand Food Safety Authority standards for growing vegetables. DDT (200ppm) is 10x New Zealand timber treatment guidelines.
  • The technical reference group advised against NEPM.
  • Tasman District Council is also interested in the wider environment (e.g. volatiles and arsenic in drinking water).
  • Apple orchards, vineyards and spray sheds are hotspots.
  • We have to ask old people about history as we are losing information fast (e.g. older farmers are disappearing). How do we capture information about locations of sheep dips?
  • We need to encourage public relations to get people to disclose information regarding sites (i.e. money). For example, the government will pay half of the clean up.
  • We need a voluntary scheme for sheep dips which needs independent certification so that the council will believe it has been cleaned up.
  • When sale yards are subdivided how do we manage the removal of soil? Where do we move it to?
  • The Standard will not stand up in court. The numbers are not generated by proper international toxicological methodology. So how do you defend it in court?
  • If they will not listen to the technical reference group, will MFE even listen to submissions? If not, why would local government bother to submit?
  • Compared to the air standards process, there is no technical reference group to check the detail. This could have been easily avoided (i.e. the recent technical amendment).
  • Enabling the ability to review consents or permitted activities is good (i.e. for air discharges this would be really helpful).
  • The NEPM are not supported by the technical advisory group. The numbers relating to contaminated land are not defensible and will not stand up to a challenge in court.
  • There is currently no duty for the landowner to report contaminated sites. The community knows where sheep dips are and it would be useful for us to obtain this information before these people die.
  • We need to encourage public relations people to work on the sheep dip issue. We need to encourage disclosure and duty to report. Some compensation to help with clean up would be useful. A similar situation exists with apple tree removal and spray sheds. Another issue for concern with the sheep dips is that they run down to surface water. The council needs to manage any material coming from these sites.

Drinking water

  • Does the Standard cover groundwater as well?
  • The National Environmental Standards are not a suitable tool for drinking water issues.
  • We cannot measure drinking water accurately, so we should not use them.

Air quality

  • It is hard to enforce the Wood Burner National Environmental Standards. How will local authorities enforce the Standard? How do you enter a dwelling house? How will local authorities enter houses? Is there another way?
  • Nelson City Council has a regional rule to replace wood burners but is not sure how to enforce this as it does not have appropriate powers. We need a certification process for wood burners as soon as possible.
  • Air Quality National Environmental Standards could have been improved if they had gone through the technical advisory group. They would not have needed to make any amendments.

General comments

  • Wastewater would be a preferred National Environmental Standards.
  • Biosolids could add to the contamination burden. Regional waste officers are not impressed with biosolids progress.
  • Airport noise is more of an issue than land transport noise. Helicopters and jet skis are creating a noise problem but this cannot be currently addressed under RMA. Frost fans noise in vineyards is also a problem, when all fans are working at the same time.
  • When proposing National Environmental Standards we need to involve the local government at every level. We need to listen to technical experts. Good communication is essential. Furthermore, we need to sort out any technical issues before enacting an ‘almost there’ standard.
  • In looking at the new National Environmental Standards MFE need to think about the criteria for selection. Discretion and judgement undermine effectiveness and transfer costs.
  • We need to look at the guidance for strategic management of water utility assets. There is not much central government oversight into how local government manage assets.
  • We need clearer guidance on understanding movement of water contaminant than what is currently in the National Environmental Standards.
  • Can MFE investigate what powers the council can use to enter residential premises to check for compliance monitoring (e.g. Nelson has the removal of existing wood burners in their plan).
  • The list of wood burners is an essential tool. We need to complete it and publish it as soon as possible.
  • The importation of Japanese tyres should be stopped. A vehicle disposal levy is required to prevent dumping.

Waste

General

  • Differential pricing between the Tasman and Nelson District Councils’ landfills is resulting in cross boundary movements of waste. This is not an efficient process and makes landfill problems hard to predict.
  • Fly tipping is becoming a serious issue. End of life vehicles and rubbish is anecdotally building up in forestry land and illicit dumping is costing the council money for clean up.
  • Education on waste issues is needed but local funds are hard to come by. It needs funding from other sources (e.g. Sustainable Management Fund application).

Last updated: 17 September 2007