Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee

Transcription

1 Petition 2011/67 of Margi Martin, Amanda Austrin, and 31 others, and Briefing from the Ministry for the Environment on the Management of Contaminated Sites Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee Contents Recommendation 2 Introduction 2 Kopeopeo Canal 3 Potential health hazards 3 Consent application process 3 The management of contaminated sites 4 Conclusion 5 Appendix 6

2 Petition 2011/67 of Margi Martin, Amanda Austrin, and 31 others, and Briefing from the Ministry for the Environment on the Management of Contaminated Sites Recommendation The Local Government and Environment Committee has considered Petition 2011/67 of Margi Martin, Amanda Austrin, and 31 others, and Briefing from the Ministry for the Environment on the Management of Contaminated Sites, and recommends that the House take note of its report. Introduction The Local Government and Environment Committee has considered Petition 2011/67 of Margi Martin, Amanda Austrin, and 31 others, and received a briefing from the Ministry for the Environment on the management of contaminated sites. Petition 2011/67 of Margi Martin, Amanda Austrin, and 31 others requests that the House inquire into and prevent the dredging, transporting, storing, and bioremediation of dioxin and PCB contaminated sediment from Kope Canal in Whakatane. The petitioners concern was sparked by a resource consent application by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council in March The application sought permission for the removal and storage of contaminated sediment from the Kopeopeo Canal, a project financially supported by the Ministry for the Environment s Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund. The project would use bioremediation, in which naturally occurring organisms break down hazardous substances, to treat the contaminated sediment. Public submissions on the application closed in May The Local Government and Environment Committee of the 50th Parliament received Petition 2011/67 of Margi Martin, Amanda Austrin, and 31 others in June The petitioners strongly opposed the application on the grounds of potential unknown dangers from interference with the contaminated sediment. The committee invited the petitioners, and also the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the Ministry for the Environment, to give evidence on the petition. In the light of this evidence, the committee decided that the petition raised larger issues about the consequences of shifting contaminated sediment than the petition specified. A briefing from the Ministry for the Environment on its role in the management of contaminated sites was initiated. The committee could not conclude these items within the Parliament s term, so presented an interim report to the House on 1 August 2014 encouraging the next committee to investigate the issues further. 2

3 We received further evidence on the petition from the Bay of Plenty Regional Council in 2015, and were briefed orally by the ministry on 19 March Kopeopeo Canal The Kopeopeo Canal is located near Whakatāne in the Bay of Plenty, and was constructed to take drainage and floodwaters from low-lying farmlands in the Rangitaiki Plains into the Whakatāne Estuary. The canal is owned and managed by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. The canal was contaminated from the 1950s to late 1980s by stormwater mixed with Pentachlorophenol (PCP) from timber treatment at a local sawmill. The PCP residue included highly toxic dioxins, which have been associated with many health issues, including cancer. Whilst the PCP from the sawmill has now been washed out to sea, the dioxins are bound to sediment in the canal, and will remain unless they are removed. The council decided that bioremediation was the best solution available. Potential health hazards The petitioners were convinced that the removal of contaminated sediment from the canal would have unforeseen health consequences. They stressed the lack of research and data on the removal of contaminated sediment, and argued that the council s proposed process was flawed. For example, the petitioners disputed the council s ability to prevent spillage during the transportation of sediment. The petitioners claimed that the removal of contaminated sediment would cause widespread disruption to local residents, animals, and the environment. They argued that the interaction between these impacts could have a cumulative effect, and that dioxins could also potentially contaminate aquifers. The petitioners were unconvinced that all of the contaminated sediment could be removed, and doubted that current testing methods could detect whether toxins had been completely eliminated from the canal. Whilst the petitioners admitted that their conclusions were based on limited research, they remained adamant that their concerns were valid, and that the remediation project should be stopped. The petitioners suggested several alternative solutions to the bioremediation project, including leaving the canal undisturbed, using in-situ bioremediation, and digging a new drainage canal. They also suggested some changes to the resource consent application in the event of its approval. Notably, the petitioners urged the removal of Containment Site 1, one of the proposed sites to which contaminated sediment from the canal would be shifted, from the remediation project. Consent application process A public hearing on the council s consent application was held in December In February 2014 the independent commissioners advised of their decision to grant the resource consent subject to conditions. The commissioners said they were satisfied that the effects on the environment had been considered, and that any potential impacts would be 3

4 avoided, remedied, or mitigated. However, this decision was appealed to the Environment Court in March On 14 November 2014 the Environment Court made its final decision to endorse the commencement of the bioremediation project. The court noted that the affected parties had reached a compromise solution, including that a new site had been proposed in place of the original Containment Site 1. The court said that it was satisfied with the solution, which appeared to balance the interests of all parties. 1 The management of contaminated sites We invited the Ministry for the Environment to talk to us about the management of contaminated sites in New Zealand. We heard that the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund, managed by the ministry, contains $2.63 million per annum for expenses incurred in investigating contaminated sites and planning and executing their remediation. The ministry prioritises funding according to the risk that sites pose to human health. Its top ten priority list includes the Kopeopeo Canal. The ministry emphasised that the fund has finite financial resources, but affirmed that any land owner can apply to the fund for help. We asked about the definition of a contaminated site, as some sites appear to have arbitrary boundaries. The ministry informed us that they were considering this issue. Role of local authorities The identification of contaminated sites is the responsibility of local authorities. Local authorities are required to comply with the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011, with reference to the Hazardous Activities and Industries List of likely causes of contamination. These regulations are designed to ensure consistency between local authorities. The ministry said that some local authorities have proactively upskilled staff on the regulations, but that others have been struggling to implement them, particularly in Christchurch. The ministry agreed that it could provide more guidance in this area. We heard that local authorities differ in their practices for identifying and remediating contaminated sites, and in the ways they measure, monitor, and collect site data. The ministry also acknowledged that some authorities are more transparent with information than others. We are concerned about these inconsistencies, but were pleased to hear that the ministry is working with local authorities to improve their public communication strategies. However, some of us believe that inconsistency around identifying, measuring, monitoring, remediating, and collecting data remains a concern. Christchurch We asked about facilities such as schools on potentially contaminated land in Christchurch. The ministry said that land owners can apply to the remediation fund, but that otherwise they must cover the cost of remediation themselves. Some of us are concerned that the fund might not be adequately resourced or publicised so that it can cover important 1 Environment Court of New Zealand, MacGregor v Bay of Plenty Regional Council, November 2014, as at 13 May 2015, p. 7. 4

5 remediation needs. We note that individual land owners are responsible, but some may not have access to the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund. Despite these difficulties in Christchurch, the ministry cited progress, and specifically a decreasing number of resource consent applications since the adoption of global consenting. This process allows a single consent to be applied to multiple properties with the same conditions; we heard, for example, that an insurer has applied for a single consent to cover 2,500 properties, exponentially speeding the consent process. We were assured that these consents are granted only under certain conditions, and safety is paramount. Conclusion We are pleased that the opposing parties arrived at a compromise on the Kopeopeo Canal remediation project. We would like to acknowledge the petitioners bringing to our attention the potential issues regarding the management of contaminated sites. We remain concerned about the inconsistency of local authorities management of contaminated sites, and support the ministry s steps to address this. 5

6 Appendix Committee procedure Petition 2011/67 of Margi Martin, Amanda Austrin, and 31 others was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee of the 50th Parliament on 12 June The committee decided to investigate wider issues stemming from the petition by initiating the Briefing from the Ministry for the Environment on the Management of Contaminated Sites on 17 October An interim report was presented to the House on 1 August We received written evidence from the petitioners, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, and the Ministry for the Environment, and heard from the ministry. Committee members Scott Simpson (Chairperson) Matt Doocey Paul Foster-Bell Julie Anne Genter Joanne Hayes Tutehounuku Korako Ron Mark Todd Muller Eugenie Sage Su a William Sio Dr Megan Woods 6