Skip to main content.

Wellington local government meeting

19 October 2005

National Environmental Standards

Drinking water

  • We are forcing Drinking Water National Environmental Standards on communities and it costs money, especially private schemes.
  • How are not consented activities controlled? What are the monetary requirements? Where do we monitor?
  • The permitted water take is regulated as a right. Is that threshold workable e.g. 20cm3/ day/ person. Where is the right cut off – 25 households?
  • Non-point sources may lead to re-considering permitted activities.

Contaminated land

  • The RMA amendment definition does not include contaminated groundwater. The Contaminated Land National Environmental Standards should also cover contaminated water. If the site passes the National Environmental Standards, it cannot be called a contaminated site, but it may still be one. What is contaminated land called that passes the standard for protection of human health, but not for the environment?
  • If there is an increase in land value via remediation through the fund - Where does the money go to? Does it go back into the fund?
  • The National Environmental Standards do not meet environmental concerns (e.g. soil biota).
  • Discharges can be managed by regional councils under the RMA already.
  • Why did we choose the National Environmental Protection Measures (NEPM) – what is this? numbers and not use existing guidance numbers? National Environmental Standards contaminants which are not included need to be taken from overseas anyway. The accepted way to derive soil values should be followed for the Standard instead of adopting the HILS Health Investigation Levels from the NEPM without accompanying framework (e.g. quality procedures). Ratios of numbers are not defensible (e.g. arsenic was far too high).
  • Guidance 4 sheep dip guidelines should be released as soon as possible.
  • Best practice processes need to be implemented.
  • It would be desirable for a National Deposit Site was to receive contaminated soil.
  • The ingestion pathway is not adequately considered in the National Environmental Standards.
  • Numbers have been calculated in different regions which follow the guideline approach and this is a nationwide accepted approach.
  • The waste tracking of contaminated materials is important.
  • The understanding and expertise to address contaminated sites issues is often missing in district and regional councils
  • Other NEPM frameworks need to be looked at.
  • An auditor system like in Australia to issue a certificate to prove that ‘land is clean’ would be useful. It would also be good to set incentives for the clean up of contamination sites. Tax legislation changes may also be required. The Standard should provide the yardstick.

Air quality

  • Airsheds differ in detail from region to region. Is there a greater risk in having a big airshed in contrast to a smaller one?

Waste

Waste management

  • There was a wide ranging discussion about the potential benefit of regional rather than local approaches to waste management including the use of landfills and approaches to by-laws etc. Can the Ministry facilitate or encourage regional approaches?
  • Local authorities find it difficult to manage and monitor wastes because of "lack of ownership" and mechanisms and powers to have waste companies report information as information is seen as commercially confidential. It is difficult to manage what cannot be measured, so consistent approaches are needed to waste use licensing (i.e. model by-laws). Would waste and recycling apply to all solid wastes? The Hutt had a by-law requiring the registration of operators collecting waste off roads but has not used it.
  • There was considerable discussion about local waste levies and debate over whether there should be a levy at the point of generation and disband and some consideration as to the use of levy revenue for waste minimisation activities.

Product stewardship

  • Schemes fail unless there was legislation. Product stewardship can contribute to waste reduction.

General comments

  • There is limited ability to control litter and illegal dumping through the Litter Act or other mechanisms. Powers available to councils are inadequate for some forms of waste like old cars (tyres) and waste oil.
  • High temperature incinerators should not be banned by the National Environmental Standards. This technology is now not harmful to the environment. Converting waste to energy should still be an option.

Last updated: 17 September 2007