NCI Packaging Limited
Report to the Hearing Committee on a limited notified resource consent application
Summary of application
Activity: To discharge contaminants to air associated with the operation of a steel and aluminium can manufacturing and painting plant.
File Reference: WGN110219
Applicant: NCI Packaging (NZ) Limited 80 Mount Wellington Highway Panmure Auckland 1060
For: Stuart Shepherd
Consent Sought: [30888]: Discretionary activity Discharge permit to discharge contaminants to air associated with the operation of steel and aluminium can manufacturing and painting plant.
Location: 60-66 Montgomery Crescent, Clouston Park, Upper Hutt
Map Reference: At or about map reference NZTM 1775130.5445749
Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 30717 and Lot 1 DP 28552
Background: The application was limited notified on 3 April 2012.
Recommendation: I recommend that the above consents be granted for the reasons outlined in this report, subject to conditions in Appendix 1.
Consent duration: [30888]: 6 years
Subject to conditions: Attachment 1
Report prepared Hugh Dixon- Resource Advisor, 25/06/13 by: Paver Environmental Regulation Report peer Ashlee Farrow Resource Advisor, 25/06/13 reviewed by: Environmental Regulation Report reviewed Jeremy Team Leader, 25/06/13 by: Rusbatch Environmental Regulation Report approved Alistair Cross Manager, 25/06/13 by: Environmental Regulation
Qualifications of reporting officer
My name is Hugh George Leonard Dixon-Paver.
I have held the role of Resource Advisor at Greater Wellington Regional Council since July 2008. In this role I have been responsible for processing applications for resource consents, mainly discharge consents to water, land and air.
Prior to this role I was employed by the South African Department of Water Affairs for 25 years, involved in all aspects of water quality management. My primary functions were in a regulatory role over mines, industries, municipal wastewater treatment plants and municipal landfills, and their discharges to the environment.
I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Biology and Cellular Biology (University of Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa, 1982), a Bachelor of Science (Honours) degree in Cellular Biology and Plant Growth and Development (University of Kwa- Zulu Natal, South Africa, 1986), and a Bachelor of Science (Honours) degree in Water Utilisation (University of Pretoria, South Africa, 2006). The latter degree was specifically focussed on water treatment plant design and operation, including domestic and industrial wastewater treatment and disposal.
In addition to the above, I have over time attended various water quality related training courses at graduate and post graduate level, including physical, chemical and biological effects on the receiving environment. Since coming to New Zealand I have also attended similar training courses, including air quality management.
Contents
1. Purpose 1
2. Background 1 2.1 General 1 2.2 Site history 1 2.3 Residential areas 2
3. Location 2 3.1 NCI packaging plant 2
4. Consent application documentation 3 4.1 Consent application 3 4.2 Peer review process 3
5. Proposal/description of activities 4 5.1 Overall concept of NCI Packaging plant 4 5.1.1 Forming steel paint cans 4 5.1.2 Drawing aluminium cans 4 5.1.3 Printing and lacquering of the formed aluminium cans 4 5.2 Discharges to atmosphere 5 5.2.1 Stack discharge characteristics at the time of submission of the application 6 5.2.2 Changes to stack discharge characteristics 6
6. Notification and submissions 6 6.1 Notification 6 6.2 Submissions 7 6.3 Issues raised by submissions 7 6.3.1 Issues raised by submissions in support 7 6.3.2 Issues raised by neutral submissions 7 6.3.3 Issues raised by submissions in opposition 8
7. Further information, reports, reviews and pre-hearing meeting 8 7.1 Reports and reviews 8 7.1.1 Technical Reports 8 7.1.2 URS 2011a report dated 31 January 2011 8 7.1.3 GOLDER 2011a report dated 19 May 2011 8 7.1.4 URS 2011b report dated 9 August 2011 9 7.1.5 GOLDER 2011b report dated 2 November 2011 9 7.2 Changes to discharge stacks implemented by NCI by 16 April 2012 9 7.3 Pre-hearing meeting 9 7.4 Further reports and reviews 10 7.4.1 Technical review by Regional Public Health (RPH) report AQM 2012 dated 10 October 2012 10 7.4.2 URS 2013a report dated 11 January 2013 10 7.4.3 GOLDER 2013 report dated 5 March 2013 10 7.4.4 URS 2013d report dated 22 January 2013 10 7.4.5 AQM 2013 dated 31 May 2013 10
7.5 Changes to discharge stacks implemented by NCI on 26 April 2013 10 7.6 Summary 11
8. Resource consents required 11 8.1 Resource Management Act 1991 11 8.2 Regional Plan Rules 12
9. Statutory reasons for requiring resource consent 12 9.1 Planning instruments and other matters 13
10. Assessment of actual and potential effects 104(1)(a) 13 10.1 Existing environment 13 10.2 Environmental effects of the discharge 14 10.3 Technical peer review 15 10.4 Basis for discussion 15 10.5 Nature of the discharge and potential effects of contaminants 15 10.6 Dispersion modelling 15 10.7 Particulate matter (PM10) 16 10.8 Other products of combustion: Oxides of Nitrogen and Carbon Monoxide 17 10.9 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 19 10.10 Odour 20 10.11 Adaptive Management Odour Plan (AMOP) 25 10.12 Summary 27
11. Recommended conditions 28
12. Objective and policies of the relevant planning instruments 104(1)(b) 29 12.1 National planning instruments 29 12.2 Regional planning instruments 30 12.2.1 Regional Policy Statement (RPS) 30 12.2.2 Regional Air Quality Management Plan for the Wellington Region 30
13. Matters relating to the grant of discharge permits 32 13.1 Section 105 of the Act 32 13.1.1 Ultraviolet (UV) treatment of stack gas 33 13.1.2 Installation and operation of an afterburner 33 13.1.3 Stack configuration changes 33 13.1.4 Consideration of alternatives 33
14. Part 2 of the Act 34 14.1 Section 6 – Matters of National Importance 34 14.2 Section 7 – Other Matters 34 14.3 Section 8 – Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi 34 14.4 Section 5 – Purpose and Principles 35 14.4.1 Odour 36 14.4.2 Submitter concerns 36 14.4.3 Consideration of health effects 36 14.4.4 Commitment by the applicant to address problems 36 14.4.5 Uncertainty 37
14.4.6 Consideration 38
15. Conclusions 38
16. Recommendation and duration of consent 39
Application WGN110219 [30888] by NCI Packaging (New Zealand) Limited, to discharge contaminants to air associated with the operation of a can manufacturing and painting plant
1. Purpose This report provides an analysis of the resource management issues in respect of an application by NCI Packaging (New Zealand) Limited (NCI, the applicant) for resource consent to discharge contaminants to air associated with the operation of a packaging plant.
The assessment and recommendations contained in this report are not binding on the Hearing Panel. This report has been prepared without knowledge of the content of any evidence or submissions that will be made at the hearing; consequently it cannot be assumed that the Hearing Panel hearing the application will reach the same conclusions as those provided in this report.
2. Background 2.1 General NCI has applied to the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) for resource consent to discharge contaminants to air associated with the operation of a steel and aluminium can manufacturing plant at Clouston Park, Upper Hutt.
2.2 Site history NCI has operated a manufacturing plant in at this location for over 20 years, as well as another, similar but larger, plant in Auckland. The plant produces a range of steel and aluminium cans, and in 2006 NCI acquired Impact Manufacturing and transferred machinery and processes from Lower Hutt to the NCI plant. The applicant states that at that time a due diligence study was undertaken, which found that resource consent was not required.
From early 2010 GWRC’s Environmental Protection Team have received notifications of offensive and objectionable odour from residential areas, particularly Mountbatten Grove (north of the NCI site), and Fergusson Drive (northwest of the NCI site). Investigations into the odour source(s) were unable to conclusively identify the source of the odour.
As part of the investigation process, GWRC identified that NCI required resource consent as production had increased relative to 2006 levels such that the permitted activity rules (specifically rules 13 and 15) in the Regional Air Quality Management Plan (RAQMP) no longer applied (see Section 8 (Resource consents required) of this report). Several other industries have also been identified as requiring resource consent, which are the subject of other resource consent applications.
1224986-V1 PAGE 1 OF 39
2.3 Residential areas Immediately north and northwest of the NCI plant are residences along Mountbatten Grove. Further to the northwest is Fergusson Drive, a main access road through Upper Hutt. As noted in Section 2.2 (Site history) of this report, notifications of odour have been received from residents in these areas. GWRC Environment Protection Duty Officers have historically experienced difficulty in confirming NCI as the source of a particular odour. This is due to the delay in reaching the site, number of potential sources of odour in the area, intermittent nature of the odour experienced at the residences, and the local meteorological microclimate. Residents and GWRC enforcement officers report that the odour generated by NCI is characteristic, and different in nature to other industrial odours which may be present in the area.
3. Location 3.1 NCI packaging plant The NCI plant is located at 60-66 Montgomery Crescent, Clouston Park, Upper Hutt as shown in Figure 1. Surrounding land use to the east, south and west is mainly commercial and industrial, zoned “Business Industrial Area” in the Upper Hutt District Plan. As noted in Section 2.2 of this report, residential areas are located immediately along Mountbatten Grove and Fergusson Drive. Several residences in Mountbatten Grove back directly onto the NCI property (as shown in Figure 1). Fergusson Drive is one of the major access routes through Upper Hutt.
The land in the immediate vicinity of the site is relatively flat; however, the land rises steeply to the east and south of the site (approximately 200 metres from the site). The relatively flat Hutt Valley floor extends west, northeast and southwest of the site.
The prevailing wind direction in this area is predominantly from the northwest, although southerly winds are also frequently experienced. The local topography and buildings may have significant effects on the local wind patterns.
PAGE 2 OF 39 1224986-V1
Figure 1: Location of NCI at 60-66 Montgomery Crescent, Clouston Park, Upper Hutt
4. Consent application documentation 4.1 Consent application Following the process detailed in Section 2.2 (Site history) of this report, NCI lodged a consent application to discharge contaminants to atmosphere with GWRC on 31 January 2011.
4.2 Peer review process NCI commissioned URS New Zealand Limited (URS) to undertake specialist technical studies and provide an Assessment of Adverse Effects (AEE). GWRC commissioned Golder Associates (Golders) to perform a technical peer review and provide specialist input and advice. Regional Public Health (RPH), commissioned Air Quality Management Limited (AQM), to provide similar input in consideration of public health issues.
NCI has implemented changes to the discharge characteristics, specifically the discharge stacks, in order to reduce the effects of the discharge. This has complicated the process somewhat as the new discharge characteristics have had to be quantified and computer dispersion modelling conducted to assess the effects. The effects of the discharges are discussed in Section 10 (AEE) of this report.
This assessment is based on the most recent information provided, although some information has been derived from more than one of these reports. The discharge characteristics from the original and interim stack layouts are not considered further in this report as they are now irrelevant.
1224986-V1 PAGE 3 OF 39
5. Proposal/description of activities The applicant has provided a detailed description of the NCI Packaging plant in the application (URS 2011a), which I have chosen to adopt pursuant to section 42A(1B)(b) of the Act. I discuss significant aspects of the proposal in the sections below.
5.1 Overall concept of NCI Packaging plant There are three main operations at the NCI plant:
1. Forming steel paint cans
2. Drawing aluminium cans; and
3. Printing and lacquering the formed aluminium cans
Once printed and lacquered, the cans are packaged and despatched. The cans are not filled with products on the NCI site.
5.1.1 Forming steel paint cans Pre-painted steel sheets are rolled and creased to form paint cans. Lacquer is applied to the thin strip of exposed metal inside the can to prevent any potential reaction between the contents (paint) and the can when filled. On most product lines the lacquer is dried using radio frequency curing ovens.
5.1.2 Drawing aluminium cans Circular aluminium blanks (resembling ice hockey pucks) undergo a sequence of drawing operations which stretch and mould the can. Lubrication in the form of oil is used, although the applicant states that this process does not result in a discharge to air. The cans are then cleaned and dried in a large “dishwasher”, before being printed and lacquered (see below for detail).
5.1.3 Printing and lacquering of the formed aluminium cans The dried aluminium cans from the above process are sprayed with an internal coating of solvent-based lacquer to form a barrier between the can and the contents when filled. Printing is then applied to the outside of the can, and then an external lacquer coat is applied. At each stage the cans are dried in an oven prior to applying the next coat.
PAGE 4 OF 39 1224986-V1
Figure 2 (Figure 3-1 in URS 2011a submitted with the application) showing stack layout relative to building perimeter at NCI plant. Note in particular the position of stacks 0, 1, 9 and 11.
5.2 Discharges to atmosphere Two manufacturing lines operate for the printing and lacquering of the aluminium cans, and these lines differ slightly in the method of heating the ovens to temperature. Line 1 (stacks 9 and 11) uses natural gas to heat the ovens to temperature, then maintains temperature using electricity. Line 2 (stacks 0 and 1) uses electricity to heat the ovens to temperature and to maintain temperature.
Discharges to air from each step in the process are ventilated via individual stacks to the outside of the building. The layout of the various production lines and stacks are shown in plan form In Figure 2 (Figure 3-1 submitted with the application), which shows the stack layout at the time the application was submitted to GWRC.
URS assessed the discharges from the stacks in report URS 2011a submitted with the application, and determined that the majority of the stacks discharged either water vapour, or products of combustion from factory space heating units. These discharges were considered minor and are not considered further in this report.
Four stacks (Stacks 0, 1, 9 and 11) discharge contaminants from the can coating and curing process. These stacks are commented on below and the discharges assessed in Section 10 (AEE) of this report.
1224986-V1 PAGE 5 OF 39
5.2.1 Stack discharge characteristics at the time of submission of the application The stack discharge characteristics were described in report URS 2011a. Of note, stack 0 discharged horizontally at roof level through the east wall of the building, towards Montgomery Crescent. All other stacks discharged vertically through the building roof as shown in figure 2. All vertical stacks had conical rain protectors, to prevent the ingress of rain to the stack.
5.2.2 Changes to stack discharge characteristics In 2012 NCI implemented changes to stack characteristics following a review of the stack discharges. These changes affected stacks 0, 1, 9 & 11, and involved the removal of the conical rain protectors to increase vertical discharge velocity and dispersion, changes to stack diameter to increase efflux velocity, and overall stack height. These changes were implemented by 16 April 2012.
Following the provision of updated dispersion modelling and further information in URS 2013a and URS 2013d, further stack extensions were implemented on 26 April 2013. These changes consisted mainly of stack extensions of stacks 0, 1, 9 & 11 to 25.3m above ground level.
As such, the assessment of effects discussed in Section 10 (Assessment of effects) of this report is based on the stacks at the height of 25.3 metres. The dispersion modelling of the discharges from these stacks was submitted on 27 March 2013 in report URS 2013d and superseded all other information.
6. Notification and submissions Under section 95A of the Act, GWRC must determine whether to give public or limited notification of an application. GWRC determined that there are a number of persons potentially affected by this application.
6.1 Notification Accordingly, the application was limited notified on 3 April 2012. Notice of the application was served on 74 potentially affected/interested persons, and additionally on:
Regional Public Health
Iwi
The potentially affected/interested persons included all property owners/occupiers within a 200 metre radius of the discharge stacks. This radius included all addresses from which odour notifications regarding “NCI odour” had been received. GWRC considered that odour notification was a representative measure to determine the extent of adverse effects of the discharge.
PAGE 6 OF 39 1224986-V1
6.2 Submissions At the close of submissions on 3 May 2012, 7 submissions had been received, of which 1 submission comprised a joint submission representing 12 residential properties, 1 of which also submitted individually. To avoid duplication or double-counting, the latter submission has been treated as an individual submission rather than as one of the joint submitters. All 11 of the joint submitters agreed to a single submission on their behalf (organised by one of the residents) as they objected on common grounds.
5 submissions were received in opposition (including the joint submission) and 2 neutral submissions were received. No submissions were received in support of the application.
A summary of all submissions received and the issues raised is attached as Appendix 3 (Summary of submissions) to this report.
Ngati Toa Rangitira, Wellington Tenths Trust and Te Runanganui O Taranaki Whanui Ki Te Upoko O Te Ika Maui Inc. were notified directly of the application.
Wellington Tenths Trust and Te Runanganui O Taranaki Whanui Ki Te Upoko O Te Ika Maui Inc. responded that they had no issue with the application, while Ngati Toa Rangitira chose not to respond.
No late submissions were received.
6.3 Issues raised by submissions 6.3.1 Issues raised by submissions in support There were no submissions in support of the application.
6.3.2 Issues raised by neutral submissions 2 neutral submissions were received.
The submission of Jigsaw Properties, representing 1056 Fergusson Drive, was neutral to the application. The submission stated that odour was noticeable at the property from time to time, but did not comment further on this issue. These premises operate on a business hours basis only, and so may be less susceptible to odours than the adjoining residential properties.
The submission of Regional Public Health (RPH) was neutral to the application. The submission was limited to the potential effects of the proposal on public health. RPH stated that discharges to air, such as proposed in the application, can result in potential health risks for exposed persons. RPH requested that the issues raised by their technical expert be addressed. RPH recommended that if consent was to be granted, appropriate conditions will be required that will minimise the potential health risks from discharges of respirable particulate matter (PM10) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).
1224986-V1 PAGE 7 OF 39
6.3.3 Issues raised by submissions in opposition 5 submissions were received in opposition to the application, including the joint submission referred to above.
These submissions included 13 residential properties on Mountbatten Grove, 1 residential property on Fergusson Drive and 1 commercial property on Montgomery Crescent.
All of the submissions in opposition raised the issue of O&O odour, with the added concern that the odour could be indicative of contaminants that may affect human health by long term exposure. In particular the residents objected that the odour had an adverse effect on their quality of life in that they could not enjoy their gardens, and on occasion they had to shut their windows and remain indoors. The nature of these submissions is discussed again in Section 10 (AEE) of this report.
7. Further information, reports, reviews and pre-hearing meeting 7.1 Reports and reviews The protracted consent process including the provision of reports, reviews, stack changes and further reports is described below to provide a timeline and provide reference. Effects of the discharge are discussed in Section 10 (AEE) of this report.
7.1.1 Technical Reports The reports are listed below in order of receipt by GWRC to identify the documentation and provide reference. In order to reduce confusion, the nomenclature adopted by GWRC’s technical reviewer is adopted, although the authors of the reports may reference the reports differently. The date of the report as referenced is as detailed on the cover page of the report, as a report may have been received by different organisation on different dates.
7.1.2 URS 2011a report dated 31 January 2011 The application lodged with GWRC on 31 January 2011 contained an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) of Air Discharges by URS New Zealand Limited (URS, report referred to as URS 2011a).
7.1.3 GOLDER 2011a report dated 19 May 2011 GWRC commissioned a technical peer review of URS 2011a by Golder Associates (Golders, report referred to as GOLDER 2011a dated 19 May 2011).
As a result of GWRC reservations and requests for further information and explanations recommended in the Golders 2011a report, GWRC requested further information under section 92(1) of the Act, dated 30 May 2011.
PAGE 8 OF 39 1224986-V1
7.1.4 URS 2011b report dated 9 August 2011 NCI provided further information to GWRC pursuant to section 92(1), which was forwarded to Golders for review (URS 2011b, received by GWRC 10 9August 2011).
7.1.5 GOLDER 2011b report dated 2 November 2011 Golders reviewed the further information provided in URS 2011b. In general, the further information provided was adequate; however, Golders recommended that the dispersion modelling needed to be done with a local meteorological dataset. In addition, Golders did not concur that offensive and objectionable odours experienced by nearby residents were from sources other than NCI.
7.2 Changes to discharge stacks implemented by NCI by 16 April 2012 As a result of the concerns raised in the above reports, NCI commissioned various changes, in particular to the stack layout.
Changes to stacks included the removal of conical rain covers, extensions to stacks 0, 1, 9 and 11 to 15.6m, and reduction in stack diameter from 450mm to 325mm (which changed efflux velocities). These changes were all implemented by 16 April 2012.
7.3 Pre-hearing meeting A pre-hearing meeting was held on 4 September 2012 to clarify issues regarding the application. All submitters were invited to the pre-hearing meeting. 7 residential submitters attended, as well as representatives of the two neutral submitters including RPH.
The applicant described the plant and its operation. The residents identified two major issues: odour and concern about health effects; and the effects on the residents of the O&O odour regarding their quality of life and amenity value. GWRC described its actions to date tracing odour sources in the immediate area, culminating in formally identifying NCI as the source of the O&O “NCI odour”, which was likened to the smell of train brakes – a hot, metallic/solvent odour. The odour was not always present, and varied in intensity although it could become choking at times.
Until this point in time NCI had not realised, or accepted, that they were they source of the residents’ complaints, as their own investigations as well as those of URS had indicated that the odour-generating potential of the site was low. The odour survey performed by URS had not recorded the characteristic odour.
A way forward was agreed, with NCI to commission further studies by URS. The results of these studies were to be forwarded to RPH for review in terms of potential health effects. NCI would investigate the source(s) of the odour, and investigate solutions. Further odours noted by the residents would be notified per the GWRC protocol. In due course GWRC would advise of further
1224986-V1 PAGE 9 OF 39
information and progress. The pre-hearing meeting report is attached to this report as Appendix 4 (Pre-hearing meeting report).
7.4 Further reports and reviews Following the pre-hearing meeting and comments from the technical reviewers, NCI undertook stack testing based on emissions, another odour survey and further dispersion modelling.
The further reports following from the above (URS 2013 a, b, c, d; Golders 2013; AQM 2013) are discussed in Section 10 (AEE) of this report.
7.4.1 Technical review by Regional Public Health (RPH) report AQM 2012 dated 10 October 2012 In addition to the above technical reviews requested by GWRC, Regional Public Health (RPH, as a submitter) requested copies of the technical reports so that it could perform its own technical review to satisfy itself that potential public health issues had been adequately addressed. RPH commissioned Air Quality Management (AQM) to assess the reports on their behalf. This process has continued in parallel to the GWRC review process. RPH provided GWRC with a copy of report AQM 2012 on 13 November 2012.
7.4.2 URS 2013a report dated 11 January 2013 As a result of the changes to the stack characteristics and the review process, URS performed stack testing to measure the actual discharges, and further modelling based on possible scenarios (URS 2013a). This information was forwarded to Golders for review. Golders requested further information, which URS provided (URS 2013b). URS also provided a report on odour surveys around the site (URS 2013c).
7.4.3 GOLDER 2013 report dated 5 March 2013 Golders reviewed the further information provided in URS 2013a, b and c in report GOLDER 2013.
7.4.4 URS 2013d report dated 22 January 2013 URS performed further odour dispersion modelling on further stack height increases in increments of 1m from 20m up to 25m above ground level. Although the report is dated 22 January 2013, GWRC only received this report on 27 March 2013, by which time Golders had completed their review and so Golders did not review this report.
7.4.5 AQM 2013 dated 31 May 2013 AQM also reviewed the URS 2013 reports in AQM 2013.
7.5 Changes to discharge stacks implemented by NCI on 26 April 2013 As a result of the discharge modelling, NCI implemented further stack extensions on stacks 0, 1, 9 and 11 to 25.3m on 26 April 2013.
PAGE 10 OF 39 1224986-V1
7.6 Summary As a result of the above process the AEE considered in Section 10 (AEE) of this report represents a summation of the information provided to date, with particular emphasis on information contained in URS 2013a and d, and on GOLDER 2013.
8. Resource consents required 8.1 Resource Management Act 1991 Section 15(1)(c)of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) places restrictions on the use of the discharge of contaminants into the environment. The activity proposed by the applicant is not permitted as of right under this section of the Act or by the regional plans; therefore, resource consent is required
Section 15(1)(c) of the Act relates to the discharge of contaminants into the environment. Section 15(1)(c) states:
(1) No person may discharge any - …
(c) Contaminant from any industrial or trade premises into air…
…unless the discharge is expressly allowed by a national environmental standard or other regulation, a rule in a regional plan as well as a rule in a proposed regional plan for the same region (if there is one), or a resource consent.
Section 2 of the Act defines contaminant as:
“includes any substance (including gases, odorous compounds, liquids, solids and micro-organisms) or energy (excluding noise) or heat, that either by itself or in combination with the same, similar, of other substances, energy, or heat –
(b) when discharged onto or into land or into air, changes or is likely to change the physical, chemical or biological condition of the land or air onto or into which it is discharged.
Potential discharges to air of contaminants associated with the operation of a steel and aluminium can manufacturing plant include hazardous compounds that will change the physical nature of the air into which it is discharged, and can therefore be classed as contaminants under the Act.
Section 2 defines an industrial or trade premises as:
“(a) any premises used for any industrial or trade purposes: or
(b) any premises used for the storage, transfer, treatment, or disposal of waste materials or for other waste-management purposes, or used for composting organic materials; or
1224986-V1 PAGE 11 OF 39
(c) any other premises from which a contaminant is discharges in connection with any industrial or trade process...”
The applicant’s proposal therefore will result in contaminants being discharged to the environment from an ‘industrial or trade premises’.
As discussed in Section 8.2 (Regional Plan Rules) and Section 10 (AEE) of this report, the discharge to air of contaminants associated with the operation of a steel and aluminium can manufacturing plant is not expressly allowed by a national environmental standard or other regulations, a rule in a regional plan (as well as a rule in a proposed regional plan for the same region) or an existing resource consent. Therefore, resource consent is required.
8.2 Regional Plan Rules The relevant regional plan is the Regional Air Quality Management Plan for the Wellington Region (RAQMP). The proposed discharges to air of contaminants associated with the operation of a steel and aluminium can manufacturing plant cannot meet the requirements of Rules 1 to 22 (permitted and controlled rules) and therefore defaults to Rule 23, which provides for all remaining discharges to air, as a discretionary activity.
9. Statutory reasons for requiring resource consent This section sets out the framework that has been used to assess the application.
The requirements of the Act that relate to the decision making process are contained within sections 104-116. The sections of particular relevance to this application are listed below.
The matters to which a consent authority shall have regard when considering applications for resource consents and submissions are set out in section 104(1) of the Act as follows:
When considering an application for resource consent and any submissions received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to –
(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and
(b) any relevant provisions of –
i. a national policy statement,
ii. a New Zealand coastal policy statement,
iii. a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement; and
iv. a plan or proposed plan; and
PAGE 12 OF 39 1224986-V1
(c) any other matters the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.
The provisions of sections 104 are all "subject" to Part II, which means that the purpose and principles of the Act are paramount. An assessment of the application against Part II is provided in Section 13 (Matters relating to the grant of discharge permits) of this report.
9.1 Planning instruments and other matters The following planning instruments and documents are relevant to this application:
National
Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004
Regional
The Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region 2013
Regional Air Quality Management Plan for the Wellington Region 2000
The relevant provisions of the above-mentioned planning instruments are discussed in Section 12 (Objectives & Policies of the relevant planning instruments) of this report.
Section 105 of the Act lists additional matters that a consent authority must have regard to when considering applications for discharge permits to do something that would contravene section 15 of the Act. These matters are addressed in Section 10 (AEE) of this report.
10. Assessment of actual and potential effects 104(1)(a) 10.1 Existing environment The applicant’s site is located at 60-66 Montgomery Crescent, Clouston Park, Upper Hutt, as described in Sections 2 (Background) and 3 (Location) of this report. The area is a mixture of residential, mixed industrial, commercial and business activities, and is zoned “Business Industrial Area” in the Upper Hutt District Plan. The location is shown in Figure 1 and described in Section 3 (Location) of this report; however, the immediate proximity of NCI to residences to the north of the site bears repeating in terms of adverse effects. Residences along Mountbatten Grove back directly onto the applicant’s northern site boundary.
The relatively flat Hutt Valley floor extends west, northeast and southwest of the site. The land in the immediate vicinity of the site is relatively flat; however, the land rises steeply to the east and south of the site (approximately 200 metres away).
1224986-V1 PAGE 13 OF 39
Kingsley Heights is a relatively recent residential subdivision and lies approximately 300m south and southeast of the site, somewhat elevated above the plain.
The prevailing wind direction in this area is predominantly from the northwest, although southerly winds are also frequently experienced. Local topography and buildings may have significant effects on the local wind patterns.
The nearest meteorological station with suitable data for dispersion modelling purposes is located at Wallaceville, approximately 3.8km west-southwest of the applicant’s site. The site is located in the Upper Hutt airshed.
10.2 Environmental effects of the discharge The application and AEE report URS2011a described the site, surrounding area and manufacturing processes, and broadly characterised the discharges to atmosphere from the site. The key characteristics of the discharge and necessity for resource consent were identified.
The applicant identified that there are negligible discharges to air from the process of forming steel cans. The applicant has also stated that the discharges to air from the drawing and washing of the aluminium cans consist only of water vapour, with negligible effects.
Four stacks arising from the two aluminium can production lines were identified as being the major sources of contaminants, being stacks 0, 1, 9 and 11 as shown in Figure 2. Stacks 0 and 1 arise from Line 2, and stacks 9 and 11 from Line 1 of the aluminium can manufacturing and coating processes. Other stacks discharge water vapour or products of combustion (of natural gas) from the process as well as space heating areas, and were not considered of significance in relation to the discharge.
The report detailed the major contaminants of concern in the discharge, namely Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Odour. The modelled Maximum Ground Level Concentrations (Maximum GLCs) of these contaminants were compared against the relevant guidelines. Particulate discharges (PM10) were discounted as a major contaminant as they arise only from the burning of natural gas and so the report considered them of less than minor importance as a contaminant. The potential effects of these contaminants are discussed in Sections 10.5-10.10 of this report.
I have accepted this description which I have chosen to adopt pursuant to section 42A(1B)(b) of the Act. The technical aspects of the application required specialist technical evaluation (peer review) which is detailed below.
The consent process underwent several iterations of the report and review process, influenced by changes to the discharge stack configuration implemented by NCI.
PAGE 14 OF 39 1224986-V1
10.3 Technical peer review GWRC commissioned a technical peer review of the AEE, atmospheric dispersion modelling and predicted results as compared against the relevant guidelines. Mr Myles McCaulay of Golder Associates was commissioned under section 92(2) of the Act to undertake the peer review. Mr McCaulay’s comments and recommendations are presented in the relevant sections below.
RPH commissioned Air Quality Management Limited (AQM, Mr Duncan Backshall) to undertake a similar review to address their concerns about public health issues. These comments and recommendations are also presented where relevant.
10.4 Basis for discussion Golders and AQM presented their reviews respectively in GOLDER 2013 and AQM 2013, and together with URS 2013a, c and d these documents form the main basis for discussion of the effects below in Sections 10.5 – 10.10.
I have incorporated the assessments and conclusions reached from the peer reviews in the wider assessment of environmental effects below.
10.5 Nature of the discharge and potential effects of contaminants The main contaminants of concern identified in the application are:
Particulate matter (PM10) and other products of combustion
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and, of most concern to residents
Odour
10.6 Dispersion modelling This formed the basis of the assessments which were the subject of the URS reports and reviews by Golder and AQM. The assessments are discussed briefly below.
Applicant’s assessment
The applicant conducted computer-based dispersion modelling for a number of contaminants discharged from the site. The applicant used the Gaussian AUSPLUME dispersion model version 6.0 to predict the Maximum Ground Level Concentrations (Maximum GLCs) which are likely to result from their operations. The applicant has stated that the dispersion modelling takes into account a number of factors including the emission rate of the contaminant, the height of the discharge, building downwash effects, local topography and meteorology (wind speed and direction, ambient temperature, atmospheric mixing height and atmospheric stability). The applicant stated that the model was used to predict the 1-hour, 24-hour and annual average maximum ground level concentrations for key contaminants.
1224986-V1 PAGE 15 OF 39
Peer review assessments and GWRC consideration
Both Golders and AQM assessed the effectiveness in using the AUSPLUME dispersion model and commented that it is likely to be reasonable given the close proximity of the Wallaceville meteorological station (which was used to derive the meteorological information for the 2013 URS a and d modelling reports) and the likely effects as confined to the flat area of the Upper Hutt airshed in close proximity to the site. AQM added a proviso that further VOC dispersion modelling should be repeated if residents in Kingsley Heights experience odour from the site, using a computer model appropriate for complex terrain.
I concur with these assessments and consider the AUSPLUME dispersion model to be an acceptable model to predict Maximum GLCs in close proximity to the applicant’s site, which are likely to occur from the applicant’s activity.
10.7 Particulate matter (PM10)
PM10 is an air pollutant that the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) has recognised as harmful to human health. Health effects include the irritation of the lungs, throat and eyes. The MfE website1 states that these health effects are particularly concerning for the elderly and infants, people with asthma and other respiratory diseases, and sufferers of other chronic diseases, such as heart disease.
PM10 regularly occurs at high levels in New Zealand urban areas, particularly during winter in areas where solid fuel heating is common. The NESAQ 2004 3 place limits on acceptable daily levels for PM10 at 50 µg/m and an annual 3 average PM10 level of 20 µg/m which takes into account both peak and low pollution periods in an airshed, giving an important long-term picture of air quality. The short-term daily average limit and long-term annual average national guideline value are both designed to minimise adverse health effects associated with PM10 exposure - these concentrations are shown in table 1 in Section 10.8 of this report.
Applicant’s assessment
In report URS 2011a the applicant stated that the potential for the discharge of PM10 was low as all appliances on site burn natural gas. Accordingly PM10 was not considered in the dispersion modelling of the discharge.
Peer review assessments and GWRC consideration
Given the health effects that can be associated with PM10, Golders and GWRC were concerned that insufficient information had been provided about the potential for PM10 discharge(s). Golders identified three potential sources of PM10:
Overspray of lacquer coatings which may be discharged through the discharge stacks
1 http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/air/air-quality/pm10/
PAGE 16 OF 39 1224986-V1
Products of combustion in the drying/curing ovens in particular – while natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel, it still gives rise to discharges of PM10, and in the case of large appliances such as the ovens, or poor dispersion, this has the potential to be a significant discharge; and
From drying and curing processes, irrespective of the type of heating used – these discharges can occur as a result of the heating of organic compounds in the ovens, which vaporise and then re-condense in the cooling stack gases (often following discharge from the stack)
All or some of these sources could lead to elevated PM10 concentrations beyond the site boundary. As such, Golders recommended that further information be requested regarding the above, which was addressed in the section 92(1) request for further information.
The applicant responded in report URS 2011b, providing details of the gas- fired appliances, and stating that particulate matter discharges from lacquer spraying, the wash plant dryer and the natural gas-fired combustion plants are expected to be low. Golders agreed with this assessment, so these matters have not been considered further.
The total rating of the gas-fired appliances is a sum of 820kW. Rule 6 of the RAQMP allows discharges from gas-fired appliances up to a total of 2MW as a permitted activity, provided that the discharge occurs at a point that avoids building downwash effects. At the time of application the discharge point did not comply with this requirement, although the subsequent extension of the discharge stack has meant that discharge from the gas-fired appliances can comply with the requirements of this permitted activity rule, and are well below the maximum power rating allowed by the rule. Accordingly, I have considered the discharge of PM10 from the gas-fired appliances to be minor under normal operating conditions.
However, Golders did not agree with the statement in URS 2011b that “the lacquer drying ovens are not expected to have particulate discharges”, and recommended that this aspect requires further investigation. Although this matter was not carried forward in the later URS modelling, I consider this discharge of PM10 to be minor, as all modelled results show Maximum GLCs that are well within acceptable guidelines. I also note that the site is not located in an air shed that is in breach of the air quality standards in the NES.
10.8 Other products of combustion: Oxides of Nitrogen and Carbon Monoxide 2 The MfE website contains information regarding nitrogen dioxide (NO2). It states that NO2 gas is highly reactive, is corrosive to metals and is a strong oxidising agent. Emissions of NO2 can occur directly from combustion processes and as a result of the conversion of NO gas in the atmosphere. Concentrations of NO2 within the Wellington region have been measured since 1998. Monitoring for NO2 in Upper Hutt, Lower Hutt and Masterton indicates
2 http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/air/air-quality-tech-report-43/html/page6.html
1224986-V1 PAGE 17 OF 39
concentrations are typically within the 'excellent' or 'good' air quality categories, ie, 1 hour averages are between 10% and 33% of the standard. No exceedance of the 24 hour guideline value for NO2 have been measured in the Wellington region.
Applicant’s assessment
The applicant provided an assessment of NO2 and CO in Section 5.2 and Table 5.2 of the application report URS 2011a. Gaseous products of combustion were monitored using a Testo 350 XL combustion gas analyser on stacks which discharge products of combustion. These results were then incorporated into the AUSPLUME dispersion modelling to derive Maximum GLCs, presented in Table 8.2 of the application.
The applicant considered that the Maximum GLCs were well below the NOx and CO limits in the NESAQ and therefore no further assessment was required. The national standard and national guideline concentration thresholds are designed to protect children, asthmatics and adults with chronic respiratory and cardiac conditions – these concentrations are shown in table 1.
Table 1: National standard and guideline values Contaminant Threshold Averaging Permissible concentration period exceedances per year
3 PM10 Standard 50 µg/m 24-hour mean One 24-hour period Guideline 20 µg/m3 Annual - Carbon Standard 10 mg/ m3 8-hour moving One 8-hour period monoxide CO average Guideline 30 mg/ m3 1-hour - average Nitrogen Standard 200 µg/m3 1-hour 9 hours dioxide NO2 average Guideline 100 µg/m3 24-hour - average
Peer review assessments and GWRC consideration
After further information was provided, Golders was satisfied that the conclusions drawn by URS addressed this matter sufficiently. No concerns have been raised about CO levels, and it has not been considered further.
RPH raised a concern that nitric oxide (NO) emissions were not considered, as this is a major component (up to 95%) of NOx emissions from gas-fired appliances. However, in report AQM 2013, RPH considered it unlikely that ambient levels of NO2 would exceed the limits in the NESAQ. RPH did not raise any concerns about CO levels.
PAGE 18 OF 39 1224986-V1
I agree with the assessments undertaken by the applicant and peer reviewers, and consider that the discharges of NOx and CO from the site will not exceed limits in the NESAQ.
10.9 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) The MfE website contains information regarding Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). VOCs are a range of hydrocarbons, the most important of which are benzene, toluene, xylene, 1,3-butadiene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. The potential health impacts of these include carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects.
The discharge of VOCs and Odour are linked, as many of the VOCs are odorous compounds. A number of VOCs were identified in the application in report URS 2011a, and subsequent reports and reviews have not changed this assessment although the concentrations have been revised due to measurement of stack discharges, discharge stack changes and dispersion modelling as detailed above.
Due to these changes, the dispersion modelling in report URS 2013a is taken as the most accurate, although it is accepted that the later extensions of the stacks have changed the likely VOC Maximum GLCs since the modelling was undertaken. Both technical reviewers concluded that the effects of the stack extensions would be to lower both Odour and VOC Maximum GLCs.
Applicant’s assessment
A range of VOCs was measured during stack monitoring on 1 November 2012, using two different methods – adsorption onto coconut shell adsorbent tubes and collection of whole gas samples in bags for Selected Ion Flow Tube Mass Spectrometry as described in Section 5.2.1 of report URS 2013a. The results of these test were incorporated into the AUSPLUME v6.0 computer dispersion model using a meteorological data set from Wallaceville (approximately 3.8km south-southwest of the applicant’s site) to obtain Maximum GLCs of the VOC contaminants. Testing was undertaken with both Line 1 and Line 2 running (ie, at full capacity to provide worst-case concentrations). The Maximum GLCs were compared with the relevant guideline values.
A detailed assessment can be found in Section 5 “Stack Monitoring 1 Nov 2012” of report URS 2013a, with results in Section 6 of the same report. In summary the stack testing demonstrated that, in contrast to the earlier computer dispersion modelling (on a mass balance basis):
Total alcohol mass discharges were a little higher than previously modelled
Two compounds (Total PGMME and acetate combined) mass discharge rate was significantly higher than previously modelled, and
Other chemical species including xylenes, formaldehyde and toluene mass discharges were all lower than previously modelled
1224986-V1 PAGE 19 OF 39
The applicant stated the following (in Section 6.5 Discussion of the report):
Predicted total VOC and PGMMEA concentrations are higher than those assessed originally in the application AEE, but are still well within the guidelines
Other compounds modelled are either at a similar level or less than those originally modelled and still well within the guidelines
Predicted off-site benzene concentrations are well within the guideline values
Maximum GLCs are predicted to occur to the north and east of the site, and concentrations reduce rapidly as distance increases from the site
Due to the mass higher discharge rates, a limited number of chemical compounds were remodelled against changed discharge stack configurations to develop scenarios for mitigation and decide on stack extension options.
Peer review assessments and GWRC consideration
Golders requested that further information be provided regarding queries of a technical nature, which the applicant provided in report URS 2013b. Further comments and conclusions are discussed following Section 10.11 (Odour) of this report as many of the comments are equally applicable to both VOCs and Odour.
10.10 Odour The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) provides advice on acceptable ways to undertake odour assessments in a publication ‘Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing Odour in New Zealand (June, 2003)’ (the MfE guide). As the applicant has a history of Offensive and Objectionable Odour (O&O odour) discharge notifications, and adverse odour effects have been found to be occurring, it was accepted by GWRC that changes to the discharge would be required. During the consent process this also became clear to the applicant, as evidenced by the different changes the applicant made to the discharge stack configuration during 2012, and again in 2013. The MfE guide also describes assessment methodology and recommends appropriate odour levels for sensitive (ie, residential) and less-sensitive (ie, industrial) areas, based on a concentration level of the number of “Odour Units” present in a specified volume of air. I have discussed the relevance to this under GWRC consideration of VOC and odour later in this section.
Concerns of submitters
All of the submissions in opposition raised the issue of O&O odour, which can be intense at times, and on occasion has been described as “choking”. As each person experiences odour differently, submitters have described the odour variously as hot metal/solvent/chemical/like hot train brakes. The O&O odour experienced by submitters varies in strength and duration, as well as frequency,
PAGE 20 OF 39 1224986-V1
and is different in nature to other industrial (including solvent) odours experienced by submitters.
In particular the residents objected that the odour had an adverse effect on their quality of life in that they could not enjoy their homes and gardens, and on occasion they had to shut their windows and remain indoors, or bring in damp washing to avoid it smelling of the odour. Submitters also raised the added concern that the odour could be indicative of contaminants that may affect human health by short or long term exposure.
Confirmed Offensive and Objectionable odours and Enforcement History
Since the systematic logging of odour notifications on GWRC’s incident database began in 2010, GWRC has received numerous notifications of Offensive and Objectionable (O&O) odour from local residents who live in Mountbatten Grove and Fergusson Drive, as outlined in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this report and described above. The residents have ascribed these odours to NCI, and state that, at times, the odours are extremely strong.
On 23 August 2012 a GWRC Enforcement Officer confirmed that NCI was the source of an O&O odour, and traced the source to one of the aluminium manufacturing lines operating at the time. NCI staff described the specific odour detected as “curing odour”. This was the first occasion that GWRC had confirmed NCI as the source of the distinctive “NCI odour” reported by the local residents. GWRC issued an Abatement Notice (to cease discharge of O&O odour) and a Warning Letter to NCI for this discharge of confirmed O&O odour.
GWRC Enforcement Officers confirmed further discharges of O&O odour from NCI on the following dates, with enforcement actions as specified:
4 September 2012 Infringement Notice (fine) issued to NCI
23 October 2012, 29 October 2012, 6 November 2012. Although three confirmed O&O odour incidents, these were treated as one representative incident for enforcement purposes. 2 Infringement Notices (fines) were issued to NCI, 3 individual Warning Letters were issued to the directors of NCI
22 February 2013 2 Infringement Notices were issued to NCI, 3 individual Infringement Notices were issued to the directors of NCI
3 March 2013 2 Infringement Notices were issued to NCI, 3 individual Infringement Notices were issued to the directors of NCI, 3 individual Abatement Notices were issued to the directors of NCI
Ms Trudy Richards, GWRC Senior Enforcement Investigator, Environment Protection, will attend the hearing and will be available to discuss any issues relating to the site history, investigation of odour notifications and confirmation of O&O odour, and enforcement action.
1224986-V1 PAGE 21 OF 39
Applicant’s assessment
The applicant undertook dispersion modelling to assess the effects of odour and VOCs from their site as reported in report URS 2011a in support of the application. This report concluded that the site was unlikely to be responsible for any O&O odour discharges experienced by local residents.
Initially the applicant did not consider that there were any adverse odour effects caused by discharges from the site. This view persisted until the pre- hearing meeting on 4 September 2012, when the applicant heard first-hand the experiences of the residents (see Section 7.3 (Pre-hearing meeting) of this report). After the pre-hearing meeting the applicant addressed the odour issue by further odour surveys, stack testing and dispersion modelling.
During the consenting process changes were made to stack configurations as detailed in Section 7.5 of this report. The odour complaint history was also considered to assist in assessing the effects of odour from the site. The MfE guideline values of 2 Odour Units /m3 (OU/m3) for residential areas, and 10 OU/m3 for industrial areas, were used for comparison with the dispersion modelling to derive stack extensions to meet this guideline.
Odour monitoring surveys were conducted in conjunction with the stack testing in 2012, and coupled with dynamic olfactometry odour testing and further computer dispersion modelling performed with a local meteorological data set resulting in reports URS 2013 a, b and c. These reports indicated that the MfE guideline for residential areas of 2 OU/m3 would be breached in close proximity to the site. As a result of this, further modelling was performed (reported in report URS 2013d), which explored some scenarios of different stack configurations. The results of this modelling indicated extending the stack height of all 4 individual stacks to 25.3m would result in a maximum odour concentration of 1.2 OU/m3 at the boundary of the site. This meets the MfE requirement for compliance in residential areas of 2 OU/ m3 for 99.5% of the time. In accordance with these results, the applicant extended the stack to 25.3m above ground level on 26 April 2013.
The applicant stated that the emission testing programme was designed to capture the worst case scenario from the processes (full production, both lines running for 24 hours per day) and that at other times odour emissions are expected to be lower.
Peer review assessments in consideration of VOC and Odour
Both Golder and AQM reviewed the URS 2013 reports and made several comments and recommendations. The URS 2013d report was not available at the time Golders performed their review, so Golders comments refer to stack extension to 20m only.
Main points raised in report GOLDER 2013 include:
PAGE 22 OF 39 1224986-V1
The monitoring methodology in the URS 2013 reports is a substantial improvement on that in the previous reports, and should provide an accurate odour assessment
Individual chemical species modelling of VOCs indicates that predicted concentrations from the site discharges comply with the relevant guideline values, in particular short-term acute health effects are likely to be very low, and chronic health effects are also likely to be low
Based on the testing and modelling, increasing stack height to above 20m should reduce odour concentrations to comply with the MfE (2003) guideline value of 2 OU/m3 – this guideline value is applicable in residential areas and for consideration of this application
The assessment indicates that odour effects are likely to be minor. Compliance at least 99.5% of the time with the 2 OU/m3 MfE guideline does not imply a total lack of industrial odours, and residents should probably expect some odour from the plant from time to time, reflecting their location close to an industrial area. However, odour from the site should not be at a frequency or intensity that could be classified as offensive and objectionable, and
Changes to stack height are an appropriate mitigation measure in this case, and the extensions to 25.3m after this review should lower Maximum GLCs further. High Maximum GLCs can often be adequately mitigated by changes such as stack height and efflux velocity. If doubt exists as to the ability to meet these requirements, further mitigation measures should be considered such as filtration or the installation of an afterburner
Main points raised in report AQM 2013 include:
The methodology was considered adequate to determine potential health effects beyond the site boundary, and there should not be acute or chronic adverse health effects resulting from VOC emissions beyond the site boundary as Maximum GLCs were generally well below the guidelines
Mitigation measures proposed in the report (ie, raising the stacks to 25m) are unlikely to completely eliminate odour from the plant, and further consultation between the submitters, GWRC and NCI is likely to be necessary
GWRC consideration of VOC and Odour
I consider that the assessment undertaken by the applicant in reports URS 2013 a, b, c and d and as reviewed by Golders and AQM, is adequate for consideration of the application.
Submissions raised concerns of the health effects of the discharge. In terms of health effect, the dispersion modelling shows that the contaminants of concern from a principally health perspective (VOCs) are all well below the relevant
1224986-V1 PAGE 23 OF 39
NZ or international standards and therefore the levels proposed to be discharge from the site are acceptable.
The other principal concern for residents (who have complained to GWRC) and submitters, is that the odours have an overall nuisance effect – preventing them from enjoying their homes and gardens and disrupting their quality of life (amenity value).
Stack measurements of the discharge as reported in report URS 2013a indicate the discharge of relatively high levels of odorous compounds (Line 2 Stack 0 4,623 and Line 2 Stack 1 5,677 OU/m3 respectively, Line 1 Stacks 9 & 11 concentrations were inferred from these results – Table 5-5 in report URS 2013a). The dispersion modelling indicates that, as a result of dispersion of the plume, Maximum GLCs are reduced to 1.2 OU/m3 (ie, less than the 2 OU/m3 MfE guideline for residential areas) at the nearest residences in Mountbatten Grove. The applicant and both reviewers agreed that this was an appropriate assessment.
However, it is not possible to measure the presence of odour at this concentration. In addition, some odorous chemical compounds may be considered offensive and/or objectionable at this level, depending on their chemical characteristics, site-specific parameters and the sensitivity of the individual person smelling the odour. For this reason the MfE guideline is appropriate to use as an indicator and as an assessment tool; however, it cannot be used as a practical or meaningful monitoring tool for determining O&O odour. The confirmation of O&O odour depends on a number of parameters (FIDOL factors), including Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness/character and Location (MfE Guide, table 2.1). Local weather conditions at the time of the assessment contribute to the variability of factors complicating such a determination. Due to these considerations, the MfE guideline has been used as an assessment tool although it cannot be used to determine that O&O odours will/not occur at any particular site at any particular time.
The applicant and both reviewers have advised that compliance with the MfE guideline should provide adequate protection for the residents from O&O odour discharges from the site. The modelling indicates that odour from the site may still be noticeable on occasion, but should not be at a frequency or intensity that could be classified as offensive and/or objectionable. However, as odour dispersion modelling cannot give a high degree of confidence that odour will be at or below the O&O odour threshold all the time, I consider that there remains a residual risk for the community. This risk is not acceptable without further odour mitigation options. To this end I recommended that the applicant investigate additional measures that they could implement, particularly in terms of the “Best Practicable Option” ie, industry best practice.
The applicant has already assessed potential alternatives to the stack extensions, resulting in the increase in stack height to 25.3m. Both reviewers considered that stack extension was a valid method for mitigating odorous discharges, and that the increase in stack height should reduce the incidence, frequency and concentration of odour.
PAGE 24 OF 39 1224986-V1
The applicant has also trialled a UV treatment on the stack discharge (reported in URS 2013a), and found it to be not feasible. In addition, the applicant reported (during a teleconference on 5 April 2013), that consideration had been given to the installation of an afterburner to treat the discharge. This option had been rejected on practical and economic grounds.
The applicant has invested considerable time and effort to understand and reduce the effects of the discharges, and has committed to a strategy of Adaptive Management to prevent and reduce the potential for the discharge of O&O odours beyond the boundary of the site. The Adaptive Management Odour Plan (AMOP) is discussed further in Section 10.11 (AMOP) of this report. This AMOP forms the backbone of why I consider this proposal can be granted resource consent and it is intended that this recommended condition be discussed further at the hearing.
I have also recommended a condition that no O&O odour should be discharged beyond the boundary of the site. Given the nature of these odours, and the time it takes for GWRC to get to the site, I consider that the O&O condition should not be the primary odour control condition. It is a relatively ‘blunt’ tool – with the adaptive management condition being the ‘scalpel’.
As is common with odour discharging sites, I have recommended a condition that a Community Liaison Group be established, to which all submitters should be invited. This group may serve as a method of communicating concerns, issues and plans in the future.
10.11 Adaptive Management Odour Plan (AMOP) The dispersion modelling reported in report URS 2013d was performed prior to NCI extending the four discharge stacks to 25.3m. As such, the present discharge of odour and VOCs has not been modelled, and the AEE is based on expert opinion of inferred effects. These opinions expect the Maximum GLCs for both odour and VOCs to be lower than the levels modelled; however, both reviewers identified that uncertainty exists and that there is a residual risk of O&O odour from operation of the plant.
In addition, there are a number of uncertainties regarding production rates and whether one or two manufacturing lines are operating, and what hours may be operated by each (or both) lines. Monitoring and dispersion modelling to date have focussed on normal operating conditions with both lines operating for 24 hours per day, although this is not typically the case and this also requires clarification with regard to actual discharge levels.
As a result, the effects of the discharge are not fully understood, principally due to uncertainty about the dispersion and effects of the odour. This may only become apparent over time. The discharge has the potential for adverse effects on the residential areas near the site, in particular from O&O odour.
I consider that the residual risk to the community, without further mitigation options, is not acceptable, and therefore proposed to the applicant an adaptive
1224986-V1 PAGE 25 OF 39
management strategy as an innovative solution that can specify actions to reduce effects if specified triggers events occur. This will allow continued production (and therefore discharge) for the applicant, while at the same time providing certainty for the residents that odour issues are being addressed. Linked to this is involvement with the residents through establishment of a community liaison group which will serve to facilitate a two-way information flow, and have input into the adaptive management strategy.
As a result GWRC has proposed, and the applicant has agreed to, an adaptive management strategy incorporating an Adaptive Management Odour Plan (AMOP). This approach relies on an agreed (ie, GWRC approved) AMOP which defines responsibilities, emissions monitoring, defined trigger levels with response actions and/or further mitigation required if adverse effects persist.
The applicant has supplied a document outlining an adaptive management strategy, giving clear commitment to the strategy and outlining their approach should odour issues persist. The document provides some actions which the applicant has committed to undertaking, specifically reducing the discharge levels via reducing the number of manufacturing lines operational at any given time, reducing the speed of the manufacturing processes (and thus the volume of contaminants discharged at any one time), and reducing the number of hours the manufacturing line(s) work (and thus the volume of contaminants discharged per day). Shutting down production completely if O&O odour is experienced has also been proposed by the applicant.
However, the document does not provide details of trigger levels at which specific actions will be implemented. GWRC considers that waiting until an O&O odour is confirmed beyond the boundary by a GWRC Enforcement Officer is too blunt an instrument to achieve suitable odour management, and actions need to be triggered prior to this event since this will indicate failure of mitigation measures.
In order to achieve finer control before an O&O odour event beyond the site boundary, the applicant will need to compile detailed responsibilities, actions and triggers into a formal AMOP, to include:
Establishment of a weather station on site to determine under which weather conditions O&O odours may be experienced by local residents, and adjusting (if necessary ceasing) production while these weather conditions are experienced
Options for reducing the volume of emissions if odours are experienced, including a reduction in the number of production lines operating, a reduction in the operating speed of the production line(s), and/or a reduction in operating hours; and
Evaluation and implementation of increased emission dispersion equipment (including stack extensions and changes to the stack discharge characteristics to achieve increased dispersion, although stack extensions and changes have already been implemented). Further investigation of
PAGE 26 OF 39 1224986-V1
treatment options and/or equipment may be indicated, and industry best practice will be considered
The AMOP will also be required to address issues which may arise, such as the potential for odours to occur at Kingsley Heights, and follow on actions such as further monitoring and/or dispersion modelling, as required.
I have recommended a condition requiring the submission of an AMOP for approval to GWRC for approval, which defines these requirements. It is anticipated that the applicant will submit a draft to GWRC for consideration prior to the submission of the final AMOP. The AMOP will undergo an annual review and amendment as required.
In addition, I have recommended a condition requiring the establishment of a Community Liaison Group including all submitters, such that issues can be discussed and plans formulated in a co-operative manner.
It is further intended that this recommended condition be discussed further at the hearing such that all present will have a full understanding of how it addresses the issues, specifically the potential for, and mitigation of, the residual risk of offensive and objectionable odour.
10.12 Summary I concur with the assessments undertaken by the applicant in provided in reports URS 2013 a, b, c and d; and the reviews, comments and recommendations made by Golders and AQM detailed in Sections 10.10 and 10.11 of this report. I consider that the assessments undertaken by URS on behalf of the applicant, Golders and AQM to be robust and generally satisfy the requirements of a comprehensive evaluation of the likely environmental effects.
Where uncertainty remains, conditions can be applied to ensure that the discharges from the site, when combined with ambient air quality, are not likely to result in O&O odours beyond the boundary of the applicant’s site.
Despite the stack extensions undertaken by the applicant, there remains a residual risk of the discharge of O&O odour from the plant, although the technical peer reviewers considered that these discharges should reduce in frequency and intensity from the levels experienced prior to the stack extensions. Although well within the relevant New Zealand and international health and odour guideline limits, some industrial odour can be expected from the plant on occasion, although this should not be of a frequency, duration or intensity that would classify it as an O&O odour. However, the complete prevention of a discharge of O&O odour from the plant cannot be guaranteed. As such, some residual risk to the community still exists.
In order to mitigate the residual risk the applicant has undertaken to develop an adaptive management strategy in the form of a GWRC approved AMOP, which will incorporate a reduction or, if necessary, a cessation of the discharge (ie, slowing down or stopping plant production) under defined scenarios or
1224986-V1 PAGE 27 OF 39
environmental conditions, or if the residents or GWRC Enforcement Officers confirm incident(s) of O&O odour beyond the plant boundary.
Overall, I consider that the discharge of contaminants to air from the site will be adequately mitigated or managed by the recommended set of conditions in a way that effects beyond the site boundary will be at an acceptable level.
11. Recommended conditions I have recommended a condition of consent which states there shall be no O&O odour discharges to the air at or beyond the boundary of the consent holder’s premises. The recommended conditions discussed below are intended to give effect to this condition. The AEE conducted by the applicant has shown that adverse health effects should not be experienced due to discharge from the site; however, odour on its own can be unacceptable, and is the main concern raised by submitters.
I have recommended a condition that the applicant provide documentation which describes the responsibilities, equipment, processes and purpose of the plant, in an Operation and Maintenance Manual (OMM). This document will detail all actions on site which result or affect the discharge of contaminants to air from the site, including fugitive emissions. The OMM will address plant maintenance issues where they are relevant to potential discharges to air of contaminants, including the trialling, installation and operating of treatment equipment.
The main discharge of concern from the site is odour, and I have considered the need for monitoring of the stack discharges with reference to odour testing. No in-line stack testing of odour methodology is available, and if an O&O odour is discharged or confirmed by GWRC, even immediate stack testing may not procure a sample representative of the conditions at the time of the discharge. As such, I have decided not to recommend a condition requiring testing of the discharge under normal operating conditions.
However, in case O&O odour discharges occur, or are confirmed by GWRC, I have recommended a condition requiring that, on request by GWRC, an approved Emissions Monitoring Programme (EMP) shall be implemented within a specified timeframe. This condition shall be actioned within a specified timeframe on written request by GWRC, with the testing requirements specified in the request. The intent of this condition is to enable monitoring such as stack testing, and/or odour surveys, and/or further studies such as dispersion modelling if unacceptable discharges occur from the site. The specific testing requirements may vary based on the incidents which give rise to GWRC requesting the testing.
I have required a condition detailing the keeping of detailed records of manufacturing line operating parameters, including chemical consumption related to the discharge. The intent of this condition is to provide a proxy for discharge volume as contaminant testing for odour is difficult and if performed, would only relate to the time and conditions of testing. I have required that this
PAGE 28 OF 39 1224986-V1
data be supplied to GWRC in spreadsheet format on a quarterly basis, with summary data to be provided in an annual report.
I have recommended a condition requiring an approved AMOP as discussed in Section 10.11 of this report. The AMOP requires the identification and availability of a responsible person at the plant with the authority to make on- the-spot decisions relating to production, including plant shutdown as/if necessary, for inclusion in the AMOP. This person will also serve as the on-site liaison for GWRC and the community.
I have recommended a condition that a Community Liaison Group (CLG) be established to facilitate information transfer between the applicant and the community, including the submitters. The intent of this condition is that the CLG shall have input into the AMOP (in an advisory capacity).
I have recommended a condition that GWRC may review the consent in order to review the requirements of the consent, to deal with any adverse effects of the discharge, and to enable consistency with any Regional Plans or National Environmental Standards or Regulations.
12. Objective and policies of the relevant planning instruments 104(1)(b) 12.1 National planning instruments The National Environmental Standard (Air Quality) (NESAQ) are regulations made under the Act which set a guaranteed minimum level of health protection for all New Zealanders. It came into effect on 8 October 2004. These were revised and the amended regulations came into force on 1 June 2011.
The NESAQ places constraints on the granting of resource consents to discharge PM10, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) where the discharge, if permitted, is likely to be a principal source of any of these contaminants and the airshed either breaches, or the discharge is at any time likely to cause the airshed to breach, the ambient air standard for one of these contaminants.
The ambient concentrations that are likely to be experienced during the manufacturing of aluminium cans are discussed in Section 10 (AEE) of this report. As discussed, the applicant’s contribution to the airshed together with the ambient concentrations of PM10, CO, and NOx are unlikely to cause the concentrations to approach the threshold values.
Although the application is for a new consent, it is for an existing discharge, and the effects are already included in ambient monitoring levels. The site is located in an area that does not breach the NES, and as such, I consider that there is no impediment under the NES to the granting of this discharge permit.
1224986-V1 PAGE 29 OF 39
12.2 Regional planning instruments The relevant regional planning instruments are the RPS and the RAQMP. The applicant’s proposal has been assessed against the relevant objectives and policies contained within the RPS and RAQMP.
12.2.1 Regional Policy Statement (RPS) The RPS outlines the resource management issues of significance to the region and provides a framework for managing the natural and physical resources of the region in a sustainable manner. Further to this, the RPS identifies objectives, policies and methods which are designed to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the whole region.
The relevant chapter of the RPS to this application is Chapter 3.1, Air quality. I consider that the proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of this chapter. In particular:
Policy 2: Reducing adverse effects of the discharge of odour, smoke, dust and fine particular matter.
This policy has been given effect to as discussed in Section 10 (AEE) of this report, and have been addressed via the adaptive management odour plan as discussed in Section 10.11 of this report, and the recommended conditions in Section 11 of this report. Section 4.2 of the RPS contains no regulatory policies regarding air quality.
I consider that the application is consistent with the objectives and policy as discharges of VOCs and odour from the site will be managed, so that the discharge concentrations will be at an acceptable level, provided conditions of consent are adhered to. The discharge is also well within the NESAQ guidelines and the MfE residential odour guideline.
Overall, I consider that the application is consistent with the objectives and policy of section 3.1 and 4.2 of the RPS.
12.2.2 Regional Air Quality Management Plan for the Wellington Region The RAQMP contains several objectives, policies and rules which are relevant to this application. This plan provides for the discharge of contaminants to air from the operation of the aluminium can manufacturing plant as a discretionary activity. I have expanded only on the main objectives and policies of interest in this plan.
Policies 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 require regard to be given to the Regional Ambient Air Quality Guidelines (RAAQG) when managing the region’s air resource. These guidelines set out the desired levels of specified contaminants in the air, and reflect the cumulative effects of all activities. The guidelines have two categories of assessment – ‘maximum acceptable levels’, and ‘maximum desirable levels’. Desirable levels are appropriate guidelines for rural areas and other areas with good air quality, while maximum levels are appropriate in areas where existing activities have a significant effect on air quality. In this case, the applicant’s site is relevant to the maximum desirable levels as it is in
PAGE 30 OF 39 1224986-V1
an area of good air quality. I consider the application meets these policies as air quality will not be adversely affected by contaminants as predicted maximum ground level concentrations are well within guideline levels.
As discussed in Section 12.1 of this report, the NESAQ have been in force since September 2005. Given that the NESAQ have been derived and implemented as national limits for certain contaminants, I consider that both the RAAQG and the NESAQ should be considered when considering the application.
I note that the RAAQG defines ‘maximum acceptable limits’ as either the same or greater than the NESAQ for the same contaminants (with the NESAQ permitting certain exceedances for short periods of time across a 12-month period). The applicant’s proposed discharge is well within both the RAAQG and the NESAQ, and is thus consistent with Policies 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.
Policy 4.2.4 seeks to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect of the discharge of contaminants to air that is noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable. The operation on site does have the potential to generate offensive and objectionable discharges given the nature of the activity and should good practice not be followed and poor operating conditions prevail. I consider that if the recommended conditions are adhered to, and if good management practices are put in place by implementation of the AMOP, the proposed discharge will be remedied and mitigated to a level that ensures the effects will not cause odours that are offensive and objectionable beyond the boundary.
Policy 4.2.7 seeks to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect of the discharge of contaminants to air on amenity values. The discharge has the potential to generate offensive and objectionable odours, and had done so prior to the implementation of the mitigation measures now in place. I consider that if the recommended conditions are complied with, and if good management practices are put in place via the Adaptive Management Odour Plan, the proposed discharge will be remedied and mitigated to a level that ensures the effects will not cause odours that are offensive and objectionable beyond the boundary.
Policy 4.2.9 To give particular consideration, where relevant, to the volume, composition and characteristics of the discharge, including the maximum ground level concentration of significant contaminants in the discharge, especially hazardous contaminants identified in Appendix 1 and any contaminants listed in Appendix 2. Several of the contaminants in the discharge are listed as a hazardous air contaminant in Appendix 1. Particulates, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide are listed in Appendix 2 as there are Regional Ambient Air Quality Guidelines which relate to these contaminants. The discharge has been robustly assessed and modelled, and reviewed through the peer review process, and the results indicate that all Maximum GLCs will be well within the NES and relevant health guidelines; these being more relevant and more conservative than those in the RAQMP.
1224986-V1 PAGE 31 OF 39
Policy 4.2.10 seeks to promote the Best Practicable Option (BPO) for discharges (as defined in section 2 of the Act), to minimise emissions, especially of hazardous air contaminants identified in Appendix 1, to require an operations manual and contingency plans, and to require appropriate effects- based monitoring. The conditions include a requirement for the applicant to annually review the need for additional emission reduction equipment to address the BPO. I consider that if the recommended conditions are adhered to, and if good management practices are put in place through the Adaptive Management Plan, the proposed discharge will be remedied and mitigated to a level that ensures the effects will not cause odours that are offensive and objectionable beyond the site boundary.
Other relevant policies are:
Policy 4.2.6 Policy 4.2.8 Policy 4.2.12 Policy 4.2.13 Policy 4.2.14 Policy 4.2.15 Policy 4.2.16
Formulation and implementation of the adaptive management plan by the applicant, as well as monitoring of the discharge by the emissions monitoring programme, will provide for a regular check on compliance with the recommended consent conditions as well as these objectives and policies.
Overall, I consider that the proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of the RAQMP, provided the recommended conditions are complied with.
13. Matters relating to the grant of discharge permits 13.1 Section 105 of the Act Section 105 of the Act must be considered when an application is made for a discharge permit to do something that would contravene section 15 of the Act.
Section 105 requires regard to be given to:
(a) the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects;
(b) the applicant’s reason(s) for the proposed choice; and
(c) any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any other receiving environment.
The nature of the discharge is discussed in Section 10 (AEE) of this report, respectively.
PAGE 32 OF 39 1224986-V1
The receiving environment is the local atmospheric environment surrounding Clouston Park, Upper Hutt. Further details of the receiving environment are described in Section 10.1 of this report.
Consideration of alternatives The applicant has not considered an alternative location for the discharge, as the discharge occurs from an existing factory.
Various mitigation options have been considered, including:
Ultraviolet treatment of stack gas Installation and operation of an afterburner Stack extensions in various different configurations
13.1.1 Ultraviolet (UV) treatment of stack gas The applicant considered the use of UV treatment of the discharge in order to treat the contaminants, specifically odorous compounds (primarily Volatile Organic Compounds VOCs). A pilot UV system was trialled and rejected. (report URS 2013a).
13.1.2 Installation and operation of an afterburner NCI operates a similar (although larger) plant in Auckland, which uses an afterburner to treat stack discharges. During a teleconference on 5 April 2013, NCI stated that they had considered the installation and operation of an afterburner as an alternative. However, they had rejected this option based on practical and economic grounds.
13.1.3 Stack configuration changes As previously stated, NCI implemented changes to the discharge stack configuration in 2012 and again in 2013. The changes implemented on 26 April 2013 included extensions of stacks 0, 1, 9 and 11 to 25.3m (above ground level).
13.1.4 Consideration of alternatives Changing the location of the plant is the only possible alternative for the discharge. However, given that the aluminium can portion of the manufacturing plant has been operating at this location since 2006, and that the effects of the discharge on the environment have been assessed as being acceptable, I consider that the location is appropriate in order to make use of an existing facility.
Given the nature of the operation involved in the manufacturing of aluminium cans, there are no viable alternatives to the discharge or the receiving environment and this provides the reason for the choice of the receiving environment.
1224986-V1 PAGE 33 OF 39
14. Part 2 of the Act Consideration of an application under section 104 is subject to Part 2 of the Act. “Subject to” gives primacy to Part 2 and is an overriding guide when applying the provisions of the Act.
Part 2 of the Act sets out the purpose of the Act, which is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, and sections 6, 7 and 8 set out matters that consent authorities should consider when exercising their functions under the Act.
14.1 Section 6 – Matters of National Importance In exercising its powers and functions under the Act, GWRC is required to recognise and provide for the matters of national importance listed in section 6 of the Act. The application did not trigger any matters of national significance listed in section 6 of the Act and therefore have not been assessed in this report.
Section 6(e) of the Act relates to the relationship of Maori and their cultural traditions. Iwi were notified of the application and chose not to submit.
14.2 Section 7 – Other Matters The other matters to which GWRC must have particular regard in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources are listed in section 7 of the Act.
Section 10 (AEE) of this report (assessment of actual and potential effects) specifically addresses the relationship of the discharge to air to a number of these matters, namely:
Section 7(f) of the Act; maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment.
I consider the proposal is consistent with these matters as the quality of the environment (air) will be maintained.
14.3 Section 8 – Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Section 8 of the Act requires GWRC to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) when considering applications for resource consent. The Waitangi Tribunal and Courts continue to establish the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and it is recognised that the principles are continuing to evolve. The two key principles that are of relevance to this application are active protection of Māori interests and consultation.
The principle of active protection has been described as a “guarantee to Maori to continue a relationship with resources that was as much about their use as about their conservation” NZ Cooperative Dairy Company Limited v Commerce Commission (1991). In the context of this application, active protection must be taken into account when considering the tangata whenua relationship with their ancestral land, water, waahi tapu and other taonga.
PAGE 34 OF 39 1224986-V1
The general requirements of ‘consultation’ have been well established by the judiciary and Courts both within and outside the Act. Consultation should facilitate tangata whenua understanding of the effects of a proposal on their relationship with the area in question to a point where the applicant can consider how those effects might be avoided, remedied or mitigated. GWRC requires this kind of information to be able to assess how the Council can meet its statutory responsibilities.
No effects of interest to Maori have been identified by the applicant. The application was publically notified, and Ngati Toa Rangitira, Wellington Tenths Trust and Te Runanganui O Taranaki Whanui Ki Te Upoko O Te Ika Maui Inc. were directly notified of the application. None of the iwi authorities chose to make a submission on the application. Therefore, I consider that the principles of consultation have been satisfied.
14.4 Section 5 – Purpose and Principles Section 5 of the Act defines “sustainable management” as:
“managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while-
(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and
(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”
Section 5 provides for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in a way that allows people and communities to provide for their wellbeing.
There are no other known aluminium can manufacturers in the Wellington region who produce similar products. The applicant is a significant employer in the Upper Hutt, employing 31 people directly at the site. The plant has manufactured a number of packaging containers over the years with brands that have become household names throughout the country including Resene Paints. The plant in particular produces aluminium cans for the New Zealand market, and particularly for export to Australia for various products.
The applicant’s aluminium can manufacturing process, and in particular the coating (repeated painting/printing/lacquering and curing) portion of the process, gives rise to the discharge of contaminants to air. The discharge of these contaminants, specifically VOCs and Odour, have amenity and potential
1224986-V1 PAGE 35 OF 39
health effects for the surrounding community, particularly as residences in Mountbatten Grove back directly onto the applicant’s site.
14.4.1 Odour The discharge of offensive odour from the site was identified as being the major issue for submitters, and has been the subject of considerable effort on the part of GWRC Environment Protection to trace the source and address the discharge. The frequent odour experienced by residents has impacted negatively on their amenity value and quality of life, and has adversely affected their enjoyment of their properties. Until relatively recently the applicant was unaware of the significance of their odour discharge on the neighbouring residential community.
14.4.2 Submitter concerns In addition to submitter concerns about immediately noticeable unpleasant odour from the site, they had additional concerns regarding what the chemical components of the discharge were, and the resultant potential effects on their short and long term health. Regional Public Health, who submitted as “neutral” on the application, commissioned an independent expert peer review to specifically address the public health concern. The individual chemical components of the discharge to air have been identified (as VOCs) and quantified, and the levels of these have been measured by stack testing and dispersion modelling.
14.4.3 Consideration of health effects Dispersion modelling based on measured stack discharges has compared the Maximum GLCs with the relevant New Zealand and international guideline limits. All the compounds are well within accepted limits, and when considered as NCI on its own, or as part of the ambient concentration from all sources, is not expected to cause a breach of the Upper Hutt airshed limits as specified in national or regional air quality limits and guidelines.
The independent peer review by RPH concurred with the applicant’s assessment and GWRC’s peer review that no adverse health effects are anticipated from the contaminants released to air in the discharge. Therefore, there is no evidence on a health effects basis to warrant GWRC declining of this consent.
14.4.4 Commitment by the applicant to address problems Initially the applicant did not consider they were the source of the odour discharges experienced by the residents. However, since this has been proven they have applied considerable resources to identifying, understanding and mitigating the odour problems experienced with the discharge. This included several iterations of consultant testing, modelling and peer review, and significant extensions to the four identified odour discharge stacks, based on the modelling results. Discharges from the latest stack extensions, completed in April 2013, have been modelled showing odour concentrations well below the
PAGE 36 OF 39 1224986-V1
MfE residential guideline level (1.2 OU/m3 compared with the MfE residential guideline of 2 OU/m3).
14.4.5 Uncertainty Odour is a complex issue. The MfE guideline value for odour for residential areas has been used as an assessment tool for assessment of the results of the applicant’s stack testing and dispersion modelling. However, the guideline cannot be used as a practical or meaningful monitoring tool, and effects on the ground may vary from location to location, person to person and even minute to minute. Having said this, the MfE guideline is the applicable method for assessment of the dispersion modelling, but compliance with the guideline value still allows for the discharge of some odour from the site; however, not of an O&O odour nature. Actual discharges and effects may also vary from the dispersion modelling, particularly as this was undertaken under specific operating conditions and these conditions may vary.
Both technical peer reviewers indicated that, although the dispersion modelling indicated that odour levels were within the MfE residential odour guideline, this did not mean that no odour would be experienced by the residents. This is exacerbated by the fact that residences in Mountbatten Grove back directly onto the applicant’s site. Compliance for 99.5% of the time with the MfE guideline still allows for brief periods of odour; however, the odour should not be of an intensity or nature that it should be offensive or objectionable.
Both peer reviewers concluded that the likely odour effects from the discharge would be minor.
Given this, uncertainty still exists as to the effects of the discharge of odour. In circumstances such as this it is acceptable that conditions should be placed on resource consent to mitigate for potential effects. To this end I have recommended an innovative adaptive management condition. A condition of this nature or type has not been used on air discharge consent in the region before, but I am confident that this approach (which has general support from the applicant) will mean that odour events – if they do occur – can and will be responded to rapidly and responsibly by the applicant. The Adaptive Management Plan is intended to trigger specified actions as soon as adverse effects are identified, thereby preventing and reducing the actual and potential discharges from occurring. Regular reviews will ensure that actions mitigate any adverse effects if/when they arise, and prevent/mitigate any discharges.
I have also recommended that the applicant engages the residents via a Community Liaison Group, to facilitate information sharing between the applicant and the community. It is intended that this group will make recommendations regarding proposed changes to the adaptive management strategy so that their experiences and concerns can be recognised and addressed, so that the community quality of life can be safeguarded and enhanced over time.
1224986-V1 PAGE 37 OF 39
14.4.6 Consideration Section 5(a) and 5(b) provide for the sustaining and safeguarding of the environment for future generations. The Maximum predicted GLCs of contaminants are well below guideline levels. Additionally, the recommended conditions of consent, including the Adaptive Management Plan, Operation and Maintenance Manual and operating parameters should ensure that the contaminant concentrations off-site will be no more than minor. This will ensure that the potential effects of the activities are minimised to safeguard the environment for future generations.
Section 5(c) states that the adverse effects of an activity on the environment should be avoided, remedied or mitigated. Should consent be granted, the applicant will discharge contaminants to air. I consider that provided the applicant operates the plant in accordance with the consent application and recommended conditions of consent, any potential adverse effects of the discharge on the environment will be adequately avoided or mitigated to an acceptable level.
Overall, I am satisfied that the principle of sustainable management as defined in section 5 of the Act is provided for with the grant of this consent. If the consent is granted, the overall well-being of the wider community will be provided for, and the various conditions of consent I have recommended will ensure that any adverse effects will be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated.
15. Conclusions Overall, the discharge of contaminants to air from the site can be managed and remedied in a way that effects beyond the site boundary will be adequately managed as:
The proposed activity is consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the Act as outlined in section 5 of the Act
The proposed activity is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the RPS and the RAQMP
The proposed discharge is well within the specified limits of the NESAQ
The actual or potential adverse effects of the proposed activity on the environment are assessed as acceptable
Conditions of the consent will ensure that the adverse effects of the discharge on the environment will be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated to a level where they are acceptable
The proposal incorporates appropriate mitigation measures, to ensure the adverse effects are acceptable
PAGE 38 OF 39 1224986-V1
16. Recommendation and duration of consent Given the above discussion, my recommendation is to grant the applied-for resource consent.
The applicant has requested a consent duration of 10 years for consent WGN110219 [30888]. However, due to the site history and the potential for further discharge of offensive and objectionable odour beyond the boundary (although mitigated), I consider a 10 year duration inappropriate.
I initially considered a short-term consent duration in the order of 2-3 years while the applicant investigated and implemented upgrades. In effect this occurred while the consent application and review were considered. During this period the applicant has invested considerable resources in understanding and mitigating the discharges, leading to and including the stack extensions to 25.3 metres completed in April 2013, as well as committing to a robust Adaptive Management Plan in consultation with GWRC.
In the light of this demonstrated commitment, I consider a 6 year consent duration to be appropriate, during which continuous monitoring, reporting and review of the discharge, mitigation measures and effects will be actioned. The applicant accepted that a 6 year duration would be acceptable during a teleconference on 5 April 2013, based on commitment to an adaptive management strategy. If a longer duration consent was to be granted, the applicant would prefer the longer duration.
A formal review condition also allows GWRC the opportunity to deal with any unforeseen circumstances or adverse effects experienced which are due to the operations or discharge being inconsistent with the relevant National Environmental Standards or Regulations, or Regional Plans.
Therefore, I consider that an appropriate duration of consent to be 6 years, pursuant to section 123(d) of the Act.
1224986-V1 PAGE 39 OF 39
Appendix 1:
Recommended consent conditions
Draft conditions for NCI Packaging discharge to air consent WGN110219 [30888]
General note for emailing notifications to Wellington Regional Council
The report or notifications can be emailed to [email protected]. Please include the consent reference WGN110219 in the subject line, and the name and phone number of a contact person responsible for the discharge.
General conditions
1. The location, design, implementation and operation of the discharge shall be in general accordance with the consent application and its associated plans and documents lodged with the Wellington Regional Council on 31 January 2011, and further information received on:
12 August 2011 (response to further information request, report URS 2011b) 30 August 2012 (Changes to stacks as completed by 16 April 2012) 7 November 2012 (Notes of correspondence between NCI and Regional Public Health) 19 November 2012 (Report on unsuccessful trial of UV treatment) 15 January 2013 (Report URS 2013a on results of stack testing and dispersion re-modelling) 24 January 2013 (Report URS 2013c Odour survey report) 8 February 2013 (Report URS 2013b cc of memo from URS to Golders – further information request on report URS 2013a) 27 March 2013 (Report URS 2013d Updated modelling on stack extension up to 25 metres) 23 April 2013 (Proposed NCI Adaptive Management Strategy), and 29 April 2013 (Confirmation of completion of stack extension to 25 metres on 26 April 2013)
Where there are contradictions or inconsistencies between the application and further information provided by the consent holder, the most recent information applies. In addition, where there may be inconsistencies between information provided by the consent holder and conditions of this consent, the conditions apply.
Note: Any change from the location, design concepts and parameters, implementation and/or operation may require a new resource consent or a change of consent conditions pursuant to section 127 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
2. The consent holder shall ensure that a copy of this consent and all documents and plans referred to in this consent, are kept on site at all times and presented to any Wellington Regional Council enforcement officer on request.
1226611-V1 PAGE 1 OF 12
3. There shall be no discharges to air that are noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable at or beyond the legal boundary of the site property from which the permit holder operates, as determined by an enforcement officer of the Wellington Regional Council.
Note: For the purposes of this consent, the boundary of the property from which the permit holder operates is the outer perimeter of the land bearing the legal description Lot 1 DP 30717 and Lot 1 DP 28552.
Adaptive Management Odour Plan
4. The consent holder shall prepare and submit an Adaptive Management Odour Plan (AMOP) to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, for approval.
Purpose of the AMOP
The purpose of the AMOP is to ensure the consent holder has management procedures and practices to both proactively and reactively meet condition 3 at all times. This management plan must outline what measures the consent holder will undertake to prevent and/or respond to any breaches of condition 3 and/or notifications of odour occurring beyond the site boundary.
Note: It is the specific intent of this condition that the AMOP will function in the background at all times, and when specified ”trigger conditions” occur, actions prescribed in the AMOP shall be initiated by the specified responsible person.
Trigger conditions and timeframes for implementation of actions specified in the AMOP
The trigger conditions and timeframes under which the specified actions detailed in the AMOP will be implemented by the consent holder are:
a) Immediately on receipt of a notification or complaint regarding odour discharged from the site (either received by GWRC or the consent holder directly); or
b) Immediately when formally notified telephonically or in person by a GWRC Enforcement Officer that an odour discharge from the site has been confirmed Offensive and/or Objectionable; or
c) Within the specified timeframe(s) when environmental and/or plant conditions are such that any discharge of contaminants from the site may, or is likely to, cause adverse effects beyond the site boundary (including offensive and objectionable odour
PAGE 2 OF 12 1226611-V1
General items
d) The consent holder shall provide the position and contact details (24 hour basis) of the person on site with the responsibility and authority to implement the provisions of the AMOP
e) Procedures for incident notification to GWRC (Environmental Hotline 24 hour number: 0800496734) in the event of the AMOP being implemented
Technical requirements - the AMOP shall include, but not be limited to:
Actions available to reduce the volume of contaminants being discharged should trigger levels occur
The consent holder shall identify, or provide detailed:
f) Procedures to reduce the operating speed of manufacturing line speed; to reduce the number of manufacturing lines operating; to reduce manufacturing hours; and/or the cessation of painting, and/or cessation of curing
g) Description of each stepdown in production (percentage of production as well as percentage reduction of discharge of contaminants), and the trigger condition(s) that will cause implementation of each sequential stepdown in production
h) Description of the reaction time to implement each/all of the discharge reduction measures/stepdown measures
i) Description of the monitoring, including procedures to be followed, that will be undertaken both on and off site to assess the effectiveness of the implemented discharge reduction measures in mitigating the effects of a discharge of odour
j) The person assigned responsibility for the monitoring of the odour effects if/when a stepdown in production is triggered
k) Description of the assessments that will be undertaken to determine if and when production can restart or increase; and
l) Description of the assessments that will be undertaken to determine if the problem recurs after production re-commences
Identification of and response to high risk meteorological conditions
The consent holder shall identify or provide detailed:
m) Meteorological conditions likely to have high risk of effects from the discharge of odour
1226611-V1 PAGE 3 OF 12
n) Meteorological conditions that will trigger reduced production for any given days, day or portion of a day
o) Monitoring that will be undertaken during these conditions to assess the effectiveness of the reduction in production rates as a mitigation measure
p) The person assigned responsibility for the monitoring of the odour effects if/when a stepdown in production is triggered by weather conditions; and
q) Description of the assessments that will be undertaken to determine if and when production can re-commence or increase
Source identification/investigation procedures & reporting
r) The consent holder shall undertake an investigation following the triggering of an event which reduces the speed of the manufacturing line and/or hours of operation of the manufacturing line
s) The consent holder shall prepare a technical report identifying the source/reason for the odour discharge
t) The report must outline what measures were implemented and within what timeframes, and the effectiveness of the measures in mitigating the odour effects
u) The report must specify what changes, if any, will be made to operating procedures and site practices prevent/reduce the potential for similar odour events in the future; and
v) The report shall be provided to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, no later than 5 working days after the event
Independent technical expert development or review of the AMOP
The consent holder shall engage an independent technical expert, with specific experience and expertise in industrial odour discharges; to develop, or if developed by the applicant, complete a technical review of the AMOP prior to submission to the Wellington Regional Council.
The consent holder shall incorporate all changes to the AMOP recommended by the technical expert. Where these are not adopted the consent holder shall provide to the Manager, Environmental Regulation Wellington Regional Council, detailed reasons why the recommendations have not been incorporated. A copy of the independent technical review shall be provided with the AMOP.
PAGE 4 OF 12 1226611-V1
Submission of the AMOP for approval
The consent holder shall submit the final, technically reviewed, AMOP to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, within six months of the commencement of this consent, for approval.
On written application, the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, may extend the timeframe for submission of the AMOP provided that the consent holder provides sufficient motivation to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. Such application shall be provided, in writing, prior to the due date for submission of the AMOP.
Reviews of the AMOP during “Odour Season”
The consent holder shall undertake a review of the AMOP on, at least a monthly basis during the months of October to March (inclusive) each calendar year. The review shall include an assessment of the odour complaints (if any) over the preceding month; actions undertaken to address individual complaints/incidents; and actions undertaken to prevent recurrence of the same or similar incidents. Effective actions or procedures shall be considered for incorporation in the annual review of the AMOP.
Records of the monthly reviews during odour season shall be kept and provided to Wellington Regional Council on request.
Note: The time period described is the likely ‘odour season’ where exposure to odour in the community is highest.
Annual technical reviews of the AMOP
The consent holder shall undertake an annual technical review of the AMOP. The review shall include but not be limited to:
w) Frequency of incidents of Offensive and/or Objectionable odour events that have occurred (if any)
x) Effectiveness of the AMOP in preventing, reducing and/or responding to incidents ; and
y) A technical process review/ evaluation and the requirement for changes to:
i) The plant operating procedures and practices; additional procedures and practices recommended
ii) Changes to emission reduction/treatment equipment, including proposals for further equipment; and
1226611-V1 PAGE 5 OF 12
iii) Timeframes for the selection, approval, procurement, installation and commissioning of the specified equipment
Where new, or changes to existing; emission reduction or treatment equipment are proposed, the consent holder shall have the proposed changes reviewed by an independent technical expert, with specific experience and expertise in industrial odour discharges.
Submission of the annual technical review of the AMOP
The technical review, once approved by the consent holder, shall be submitted to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council by 30 August 2013 each year.
Amendments to the approved AMOP
Any proposed amendments or additions to the approved AMOP shall be submitted to the Wellington Regional Council for approval, and shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. Once approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, the approved AMOP shall become the operative AMOP and the plant shall be operated in accordance with the approved AMOP at all times.
Limitations to the approval of the AMOP
The approval of the AMOP by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council in no way implies that the measures as specified in the AMOP ensures that the consent holder will meet condition 3. The approval is a technical approval only, and in no way absolves the consent holder from their responsibilities to manage the discharges to meet condition 3 at all times.
Limitations of the approval of the AMOP & investigations of odour incidents
In no way does this this plan, or the approval of this plan, authorise any breaches of condition 3 of this consent, nor will compliance with this plan mean that an investigation into any confirmed breached of condition 3 will not be undertaken, or that enforcement action will not be undertaken even if the actions in the AMOP were undertaken as required.
On-site meteorological station
5. The consent holder shall install, operate and maintain at least one meteorological station on the site, compliant with the New Zealand Standards listed below. The meteorological station(s) shall be situated in a location that is representative of site and sensitive receptor (residential) conditions. This weather station shall record the required parameters in an appropriate format. The data shall be logged and available real-time via a website or other user-
PAGE 6 OF 12 1226611-V1
accessible interface. Wellington Regional Council shall be given access to the real-time data.
Note: There are 2 New Zealand Standards relevant to the meteorological site. Australian/New Zealand Standard AS NZS 3580.1.1:2007 Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air Part 1.1: Guide to siting air monitoring equipment
Australian Standard AS 2923:1987 Measurement of horizontal wind provides guidance on the measurement of wind speed and direction.
Operations and Maintenance Manual
6. The consent holder shall prepare and submit for approval to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, an Operation & Management Manual (OMM) within six months of the commencement of this consent, or within another timeframe to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.
The scope of the OMM shall include but not be limited to the following matters in order to minimise the discharge of contaminants:
a) A summary of the plant purpose, location, layout, and manufacturing equipment with specific reference to contaminant discharge, extraction and treatment equipment, discharge stacks and processes, including responsibilities and contact details of key personnel
b) Operation, inspection and maintenance of the manufacturing equipment, including the extraction and treatment equipment
c) Procedures adopted to ensure that the extraction equipment is fully functional before manufacturing commences
d) Procedures adopted to ensure that the plant complies with the conditions of this consent at all times
e) Contingency plans in the case of accidents and emergencies, such as spills, fires, and incidents where the discharge of excessive fume was unavoidable; and
f) Any other issues considered important, including:
Details of the general operation and maintenance of all emissions control equipment (including the associated ducting for this equipment) Staff training on the process requirements, use of emissions control equipment, and emergency response Details of how the building envelope is maintained to minimise the potential for fugitive emissions
1226611-V1 PAGE 7 OF 12
Procedures for responding to any complaints received relating to the discharges to air from the site
The consent holder shall ensure that the OMM is consistent with the conditions of this consent, and shall be updated as required, with a copy forwarded to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council within one month of any update.
Any amendments to the OMM shall meet the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.
7. The consent holder shall, at all times, operate, maintain, supervise and control all processes and equipment on site to ensure compliance with the approved OMM pursuant to condition 3 (no O&O), condition 6 and all other conditions of this consent.
8. The consent holder shall ensure that no part of the aluminium can manufacturing process shall be operated without the associated extraction and air treatment equipment being first inspected to ensure it is fully operational and functioning correctly.
Emission Control Equipment
9. The consent holder shall ensure that the ventilation system shall draw adequate negative pressure to ensure the effective capture of contaminants from the aluminium can manufacturing process and all other areas from which air is extracted to ensure that fugitive emissions are minimised.
10. The point of discharge (stack) from the emission control equipment shall terminate at a point no less than 25.3 metres above ground level. The stacks shall be designed and operated to ensure the uninterrupted vertical discharge of vapour.
11. The stacks and discharge shall have the following characteristics:
Stack Line 1 Line 1 Line 2 Line 2 / Main Stack Lacquer Stack Main Stack Main Stack Parameter (No.11) (No.9) (No.1) (No.0) Diameter at exit m 0.325 0.15 0.325 0.15 Velocity at exit m/s 13.4 14.5 14.3 14.5
Source URS 2013d dated 22 January 2013 Table 2-1
Emission Monitoring
12. There will be no routine emission monitoring requirement for this consent. However, on written request by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, the consent holder shall conduct an emissions testing programme for all contaminants requested, within one month of the written request. The emissions testing programme and report shall be to
PAGE 8 OF 12 1226611-V1
the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.
Note: The Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, will consult with the consent holder prior to such a request for any additional emissions testing programme(s).
13. All sampling techniques employed in respect of the conditions of this consent shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. All analyses shall be performed by an International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) registered laboratory or otherwise as specifically approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.
Emission analysis and reporting
14. In conjunction with the emission testing required in condition 12, the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council may require further analysis and interpretation based on the emission testing results, including computer dispersion modelling and comparison with the relevant guidelines, if required.
15. All further analysis and interpretation employed in respect of the conditions of this consent shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.
16. Within a timeframe as agreed with the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, the consent holder shall submit a report containing the results and analysis of the emissions testing programme to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. The report shall contain the results of the emission test, including all relevant plant operating parameters and conditions, and all calculations and assumptions. The report shall contain data analysis and interpretation by a suitably qualified and experienced person.
Notification of new product or equipment testing
17. The consent holder shall notify the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council a minimum of 48 hours prior to any new operations or product testing.
Note: New operations or product testing shall be defined as any significant changes to operations which may affect the discharge of contaminants to atmosphere.
Complaints record
18. The consent holder shall maintain a record of any complaints received alleging adverse effects from or related to the discharge the subject of this consent. This record shall include:
1226611-V1 PAGE 9 OF 12
a) The name and address of the notifier (if provided)
b) The date and time that the notification was received
c) Details of the alleged incident
d) Weather conditions at the time of the incident
e) The most likely cause of the incident, and
f) Any measures taken to mitigate/remedy the cause of the incident and address the complaint
A copy of this record shall be sent to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council as soon as possible, or at the latest before 09:00 the next working day.
This record shall be maintained for the duration of this consent and made available to the any enforcement officer of the Wellington Regional Council, on request.
Incident Reporting
19. Any incident that may result in adverse effects on the environment beyond the boundary of the consent holder's site shall be notified to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council as soon as possible, or at the latest before 09:00 the next working day. A written report shall be submitted to the Wellington Regional Council within five working days with reasons for the incident, and measures taken to mitigate the effects of the incident and prevent a recurrence.
Note: The Wellington Regional Council may also investigate any incidents to determine if a breach of this consent or the Resource Management Act 1991 has occurred and may also undertake enforcement action depending on the circumstances.
Community Liaison Group
20. The consent holder shall establish a Community Liaison Group (CLG), and invite all persons who submitted on the consent application to attend a meeting at least once per year.
Note: CLGs are useful mechanisms for consent holders to share information with community representatives, and for community representatives to raise issues and/or comments with the consent holder.
PAGE 10 OF 12 1226611-V1
Reporting Conditions
21. The consent holder shall submit a summary of the relevant production/chemical consumption data in the form of a Quarterly Report to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council by 31 October, 31 January, 30 April and 31 July, for the preceding quarter. The report shall meet the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.
The data recorded shall include, but not be limited to:
Individual chemical consumption data of formulations which result in the discharge of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) on an hourly, daily and monthly basis Hours of operation of the aluminium can manufacturing lines on a daily and monthly basis (including overall start/stop times) Significant maintenance or upgrade items, including significant scheduled maintenance which may affect any discharge A summary of potential or actual incidents/spills etc A summary of odour complaints received
Note 1: For example the quarterly report due 31 October will contain the data for 1 July – 30 September inclusive, and similarly for the other quarters. The report is due one month after the end of the quarter to allow for data collation and administrative purposes.
Note 2: The hourly data can be derived from daily data averaged over the hours of operation for that production line, if hourly consumption data is not available.
22. The consent holder shall submit an Annual Report to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council by 31 July each year for the period 1 July – 30 June inclusive. The report shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.
The report shall contain, but not be limited to:
A summary of the four Quarterly reports, and if emissions testing was conducted in that year, a summary of the emissions testing programme results, analysis and interpretation (i.e. an Executive Summary of the Emissions Testing Report); and details of significant maintenance or upgrade items where relevant to the discharge of contaminants or treatment of emissions, including;
Scheduled maintenance Potential or actual incidents/spills and significant power failure or equipment failures Complaints received (if any), and Any other information considered relevant
1226611-V1 PAGE 11 OF 12
Review Condition
23. The Wellington Regional Council may review any or all conditions of this consent by giving notice of its intention to do so pursuant to section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, at any time within three months of the 30 June each year for the duration of this consent for the purpose of:
a) To review the adequacy of any report and/or monitoring requirements, and if necessary, amend these requirements outlined in this consent
b) To deal with any adverse effects on the environment that may arise from the exercise of this consent; and which are appropriate to deal with at a later stage, or
c) To enable consistency with any relevant Regional Plans or any National Environmental Standards or Regulations
The review of conditions shall allow for the deletion or amendment of conditions of this consent; and the addition of such new conditions as are shown to be necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate any significant adverse effects on the environment.
Notes a) A resource management charge, set in accordance with section 36(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 shall be paid to the Wellington Regional Council for the carrying out of its functions in relation to the administration, monitoring, and supervision of resource consents and for the carrying out of its functions under section 35 (duty to gather information, monitor, and keep records) of the Act. b) The Wellington Regional Council shall be entitled to recover from the consent holder the costs of any review, calculated in accordance with and limited to the Wellington Regional Council’s scale of charges in force and applicable at that time pursuant to section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
PAGE 12 OF 12 1226611-V1
Appendix 2:
Provisions of planning documents
Provisions of planning documents
Regional Policy Statement The Regional Policy Statement (RPS) outlines the resource management issues of significance to the region and provides a framework for managing the natural and physical resources of the region in a sustainable manner. Further to this, the RPS identifies objectives, policies and methods which are designed to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the whole region.
The relevant chapter of the RPS to this application is Chapter 3.1, Air quality, in particular:
Policy 2: Reducing adverse effects of the discharge of odour, smoke, dustand fine particulate matter – regional plans Regional plans shall include policies and/or rules that:
(a) protect or enhance the amenity values of neighbouring areas from discharges of odour, smoke and dust; and
(b) protect people’s health from discharges of dust, smoke and fine particulate matter.
Explanation
The amenity value of air reflects how clean and fresh it is. High amenity is associated with good visibility, low levels of deposited dust and with people’s ability to enjoy their outdoor environment. Amenity is reduced by contaminants in the air affecting people’s wellbeing – such as when dust or smoke reduces visibility or soils surfaces, or when odour is objectionable.
Amenity values need to be considered in the context of different environments and they may change temporarily or seasonally. In effect, what constitutes an objectionable odour, or level of smoke or dust is, in part, dependant on the normal conditions experienced in a locality or at a time of year.
Protecting people’s health from discharges to air includes considering the effects of fine particulate matter discharged from human activities. The Wairarapa (specifically Masterton), Wainuiomata and Upper Hutt are the airsheds known to be at risk of exceeding the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality, in relation to fine particulate matter (PM10), during cold calm winter nights. Domestic fires are the main source of fine particulate emissions in these airsheds during winter.
There are no regulatory policies regarding discharges to air in Chapter 4.2 Regulatory policies of the RPS.
1226852-V1 PAGE 1 OF 11
Regional Plan Rules The relevant regional plan is the Regional Air Quality Management Plan for the Wellington Region (RAQMP). The proposed discharges to air of contaminants associated with the operation of a steel and aluminium can manufacturing plant cannot meet the requirements of Rules 1 to 22 (permitted and controlled rules) and therefore defaults to Rule 23, which provides for all remaining discharges to air, as a discretionary activity.
Rule 23 General rule (Discretionary Activities)
The discharge of contaminants into air from: (1) any process or activity explicitly excluded from Rules 1-22; or (2) any process or activity covered by Rules 1-22, but which does not meet the conditions attached to those rules; or (3) any process or activity on an industrial or trade premises not covered by Rules 1-22;
is a Discretionary Activity.
Explanation: Rule 23 details the instances in which processes involving the discharge of contaminants to air are discretionary activities. This includes instances where processes or activities relating to the discharge of contaminants into the air, regardless of whether or not from an industrial or trade premises, are explicitly excluded from Rules 1-22. Furthermore, any process or activity covered by Rules 1-22 but which does not meet the specified conditions, also requires a resource consent.
Finally, Rule 23 also covers all processes or activities undertaken on an industrial or trade premises but which are not covered by Rules 1-22. Non- industrial and non-trade processes, such as processes undertaken on domestic premises, that are not covered by Rules 1-22, are allowed as of right, as specified under section 15(2) of the Act. These activities are permitted unconditionally. No resource consents are required and there are no conditions.
PAGE 2 OF 11 1226852-V1
Regional Plan Policies The full text of the relevant policies referred to in the officer’s report is attached below.
General ambient air quality management
4.2.1 To have regard to the Regional Ambient Air Quality Guidelines in Appendix 2, in managing the Region's air resource.
Explanation: Ambient air quality guidelines set out desired levels of specified contaminants in the air. Ambient air quality reflects the cumulative effects of all activities. The ambient air quality guidelines, as adopted from the National Ambient Air Quality Guidelines (MFE, 1994), are outlined in Appendix 2. In this Appendix: • the maximum acceptable levels are defined as the level adequate to protect the health of individuals. These levels would be applied in areas where existing activity has had a significant effect on air quality; and • the maximum desirable levels are defined as the level that will provide maximum protection to the environment, taking into account existing air quality, community expectations, economic implications, and the purpose and principles of the Act. Desirable levels are appropriate guidelines or targets in rural or residential areas, and in other areas with good air quality. These levels are based on Canadian standards and do not appear in the National Ambient Air Quality Guidelines.
Averaging times are the times over which the average level of the indicator should not exceed the levels given in the guidelines. The methods (Australian Standards) to be used for measuring the indicators are indicated in Appendix 2.
These guidelines are not generally intended to be used to set individual emission limits. They are likely to be used in this way only when the nature or scale of a proposed activity is likely to have effects on air quality which outweigh all other activities in the area, and/or when there is data available on the effects of all other discharges in an area.
4.2.2 To adopt the indicators specified in Appendix 2 as the principal ambient air quality indicators for air quality in the Wellington Region.
Explanation: Ambient air quality indicators are indicators representative of the overall quality of the air in an area. Appropriate indicators will vary across the urban and rural areas. In the first instance indicators will be prioritised and adopted from Appendix 2 according to the area of the Region being monitored. Other indicators, such as benzene, will also be included for monitoring should they become a cause for concern or more prevalent in discharges to air. The monitoring of other indicators need not necessarily be heralded by a change to the Plan.
4.2.4 To avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect of the discharge of contaminants to air that is noxious, dangerous, offensive, or objectionable.
1226852-V1 PAGE 3 OF 11
Explanation: This policy reflects the general duty under section 5 of the Act to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources by avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects. It also reflects the general duty placed on all persons under section 17 of the Act to "avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment from an activity carried on, by or on behalf of that person". It applies to all individuals or groups carrying out an activity which involves the discharge of a contaminant to air.
4.2.6 To ensure that any measures adopted to avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects of discharges of contaminants to air, take account of the sensitivity of alternative receiving environments (e.g., water or soil).
Explanation: Measures taken to control the effects of discharges to air (and in particular, measures which minimise those discharges may increase adverse effects on other parts of the environment (e.g., water or soil). This policy requires that effects of this type be considered in an integrated manner when assessing options to avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects of discharges of contaminants to air.
4.2.7 To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the discharge of contaminants to air on amenity values.
Explanation: This policy recognises the need to protect amenity values most commonly affected by the emission of smoke, dust and odour.
4.2.8 To encourage the development and use of industry guidelines, and codes of practice to reduce the adverse effects of the discharge of contaminants to air.
Explanation: This policy recognises industry guidelines and codes of practice as important means of avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse environmental effects of the discharge of contaminants to air. Such guidelines and codes can be appropriate alternatives to regulation in achieving the purposes of the Act. Where there are relevant industry codes of practice established, the Council will consider classifying activities that comply with such codes as permitted or controlled activities (through plan change).
4.2.9 To give particular consideration, where relevant, to the following matters when assessing an application for a resource consent to discharge contaminants to air: (1) the volume, composition and characteristics of the discharge, including the maximum ground level concentration of significant contaminants in the discharge, especially hazardous contaminants identified in Appendix 1 and any contaminants listed in Appendix 2; (2) the frequency, intensity, duration, offensiveness, location and time of the discharge; (3) the potential for the discharge to be reduced at source, and in particular, the desirability of minimising the emission of any of the "Hazardous Air Contaminants" identified in Appendix 1; (4) any actual or potential effects of the discharge on human health and safety;
PAGE 4 OF 11 1226852-V1
(5) any actual or potential effects of the discharge on amenity values, including any effects of odour or particulate matter arising from the discharge; (6) any actual or potential effects of the discharge on resources or values of significance to tangata whenua; (7) any actual or potential effects of the discharge on the health and functioning of ecosystems, plants and animals, including indigenous ecosystems and plants and animals of commercial significance; (8) any actual or potential effects of the discharge on other environmental media; (9) any actual or potential effects on the global atmosphere; (10) any cumulative effects which may arise over time or in combination with other effects; (11) any effects of low probability but high potential impact; (12) any positive effects arising from activities associated with the discharge; and (13) any other relevant matters.
Explanation: This policy sets out the matters to which the Council will give particular consideration when assessing an application to discharge a contaminant to air. These matters will be considered to the extent relevant to the particular application (not all of the matters in this Policy will be relevant to all discharges). The Policy does not limit the matters that may be considered by the Council.
Part (1) examines the nature of the discharge. Particular attention will be given to the presence of any hazardous contaminants identified in Appendix 1 and/or any of the provisional regional ambient air quality indicators identified in Appendix 2. Part (2) lists six factors which need to be considered when assessing the effects of a discharge. Part (3) looks at the potential for the effects of the discharge to be reduced through the use of cleaner production techniques and the use of emission control technology. In particular, the Council will consider the potential for any hazardous contaminants to be reduced.
The remaining parts of the Policy relate to the actual and potential effects that a discharge may have on various aspects of the environment. In Part (4), "health" includes the physical, mental and social health of any individual or group of individuals. This is closely related to Part (5), which includes an examination of nuisance effects, effects on visibility, and effects on the appearance of structures (e.g., soiling of buildings). In relation to Part (6), effects such as loss of visibility or the presence of offensive odours may impair the cultural significance of waahi tapu or valued natural and physical resources (taonga). Part (7) of the Policy is particularly concerned with effects on indigenous ecosystems, other ecosystems of high national, regional or local value, and effects on plants and animals of commercial significance. Part (8) examines the cross-media effects of contaminants discharged to air (e.g., the effects on water quality and aquatic ecosystems of any discharge to
1226852-V1 PAGE 5 OF 11
air which may precipitate into water). Part (9) of the Policy examines effects of potential global significance, including the discharge of contaminants that may contribute to global warming or ozone depletion or similar problems. Particular attention will be given to the need to be consistent with any central government commitments in these areas.
Cumulative effects (Part (10)) may arise either from the interaction of two or more contaminants (e.g., nitrogen dioxide can contribute to the formation of acidic compounds that can harm plants and animals), from the accumulated effects of a single contaminant over time (e.g., fluoride can accumulate in stock from grazing on pasture and feed), or from the cumulative effects of a number of discharges in one area. Effects of low probability but high potential impact include effects that might occur in an emergency discharge situation. Positive effects are included within the meaning of "effect" in section 3 of the RMA.
4.2.10 To adopt the following approach when placing conditions on air discharge permits: (1) to set emission limits on a discharge, where appropriate, in order to minimise its effects on ambient air quality and the surrounding environment; (2) to require, where appropriate, that the best practicable option (BPO) be adopted to prevent or minimise the adverse effects arising from discharges; (3) to minimise the emission of any of the hazardous air contaminants identified in Appendix 1; (4) to require, where appropriate, an operations manual and contingency plans relating to discharges; (5) to require, where relevant, adherence to particular guidelines or codes of practice; and (6) to require appropriate effects-based monitoring, where appropriate, which may consider a wider range of air contaminants and their effects than those listed in Appendix 2.
Explanation: This Policy sets out the Council's approach to developing conditions on permits for the discharge of contaminants to air. The Policy indicates the Council's general approach but does not restrict its ability to adopt any other approach where necessary and appropriate.
Part (1) promotes the adoption of emission limits where it is appropriate. "Where appropriate" includes, but is not limited to, considering how much information is available on the nature of a discharge to minimise its effects on ambient air quality and the surrounding environment. There is currently limited information on background levels. Only in situations where there is good information available on background levels of contaminants and the likely effects of other discharges in an area on ambient air quality, are the regional ambient air quality guidelines (Appendix 2) likely to be used in setting
PAGE 6 OF 11 1226852-V1
appropriate emission limits for individual activities,1 otherwise Part (2) of the policy will be more relevant than Part (1).
Applicants should provide the Council with justification for any ambient guidelines used when assessing the effects of an activity.
Parts (2) and (3) of the policy promote the adoption of the best practicable option (BPO), where there is insufficient information on the nature of the discharge and/or its effect on ambient air quality. The best practicable option is defined in section 2 of the Act.
The BPO takes into account all discharges from a source (to land, water and air) to identify the best option for minimising any adverse effects. This may involve minimising discharges at their source. This approach is consistent with Policy 4.2.5 of this Plan which promotes the minimisation of discharges at their source.
Before including a condition in a resource consent requiring that the BPO be adopted, the Council must be satisfied that this is the most efficient and effective means of preventing or minimising any actual or likely adverse effect on the environment. The Council will have regard to the nature of the discharge, the receiving environment, and other alternatives, including any condition requiring the observance of minimum standards (RMA section 108(8)). The BPO would therefore be an appropriate approach to be applied in the absence of emission standards or good information on the effects of a discharge on ambient air quality. It is likely to be a relatively common approach during the period when information on the effects of activities on ambient air quality is being collected.
Part (4) of the policy acknowledges that even with the best control equipment, if maintenance or operating procedures are poor, adverse environmental effects can still arise from the discharge. Often good practice may be the best means of avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of an activity. Part (5) recognises the importance of guidelines and codes of practice, as highlighted in Policy 8, in achieving the avoidance, remediation or mitigation of adverse effects.
4.2.12 To have regard to the following matters when determining the nature and extent of any conditions to be placed on a resource consent: (1) the significance of the adverse effects arising as a consequence of, or in association with, the proposed activity; (2) the extent to which the proposed activity contributes to the adverse effects; (3) the extent to which the adverse effects of the proposed activity can be, and have been, dealt with by other means; (4) any proposals by the applicant to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse
1 Note that ambient air quality guidelines may be used to help calculate emission limits for individual activities. Guideline values do not equate directly with individual emission limits for activities, as they reflect the sum of the effects of all activities in an area on ambient air quality.
1226852-V1 PAGE 7 OF 11
effects, and any agreements reached at pre-hearing meetings; (5) the monitoring proposed to be carried out by the applicant; (6) the extent to which the community as a whole benefits from the proposed activity and from any proposed conditions on a consent; (7) the financial cost of complying with any conditions on a consent; (8) the extent to which a condition placed on a consent will avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects; (9) the degree of compliance with a relevant industry code of practice; and (10) agreements with affected parties.
Explanation: This policy outlines the matters to be assessed when determining whether any conditions should be placed on a resource consent and the nature of any such condition. The particular circumstances and nature of each application will be taken into account.
4.2.13 To avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects, conditions on a resource consent may relate to all or any of the following: (1) project design and implementation, choice of materials, site improvements; (2) habitat restoration, rehabilitation, creation and improvement; (3) restocking and replanting of fauna or flora (with respect to replanting, preference will be given to the use of indigenous species, with a further preference for the use of local genetic stock); (4) works and services relating to the improvement, provisions, reinstatement, protection, restoration or enhancement of the matters listed in Policy 4.2.12; and (5) the monitoring proposed to be carried out by the applicant.
Explanation: This policy outlines the matters which a condition on a consent may relate to.
4.2.14 To avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects, (including on human health or amenity values) which arise as a result of the frequency, intensity, duration, offensiveness, time and location of the discharge to air of odorous contaminants.
Explanation: This Policy indicates the Council's approach to the control of odour. The Council will require, through rules in this Plan, through conditions on resource consents, and through its enforcement responsibilities under the Act, that the effects of odorous activities be avoided, remedied or mitigated. The effects of odour include nuisance effects, effects on cultural values and amenity values, and human health effects (e.g., stress, headaches, nausea). Frequency, intensity duration, and offensiveness (henceforth referred to as the FIDO factors) are the four properties of odorous discharges which contribute to odour nuisance. The time and location of the odour are also important in any assessment of its effects. Odours that are acceptable at some times, and in
PAGE 8 OF 11 1226852-V1
some locations, may not be in other times or locations. The Council will consider the type of surrounding land use activities when assessing odour complaints.
Odour can be difficult to measure and often odour complaints focus on the odour being “offensive and objectionable”. The Courts have determined that whether something is offensive or objectionable depends upon the perception of “reasonably ordinary persons”. It is an objective test, not a subjective test. Accordingly, the views of complainants or a particular enforcement officer are not determinative, but can be the trigger for further investigation and will be considered when applying the test.
Each investigation of a complaint concerning noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable discharges will depend upon the specific circumstances. However, for odour, the approach will be as follows: in responding to a complaint relating to a breach of a condition concerning odour (for a resource consent or permitted activity rule), what may be “offensive or objectionable” will generally be determined initially by a council officer, or officers, who have experience in odour assessment. In such assessments, officers will generally follow relevant case law principles and take into account the FIDO factors, as well as location and time. This approach aims to promote consistency in the assessment of odour.
FIDO factors will be considered in combination, as no single FIDO factor determines how offensive or objectionable an odour is. For example, a low frequency, high intensity odour may be objectionable, as may be a high frequency, low intensity odour. If the odour is assessed as being offensive or objectionable, the discharger may be asked to take whatever action is necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects of the discharge. Where circumstances warrant, enforcement action may be taken in the form of an abatement notice, infringement notice, enforcement order application or prosecution, pursuant to the Act.
Where further information regarding the odour may be appropriate, monitoring and assessment of odours can occur through a number of approaches including: the use of odour diaries kept by people living and working in the subject area; additional odour assessors, or an odour assessment panel; independent odour monitoring; and technical olfactometry measurement methods.
Where appropriate, the Council may also promote consultation between the affected community and the discharger.
In circumstances where good information is available on the odorous nature of a discharge and its effects on the surrounding environment, emission limits for odour may be applied as conditions on resource consents. A common requirement for odour is that no noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable odour is able to be detected beyond the boundary of the site on which the
1226852-V1 PAGE 9 OF 11
activity is taking place. This condition has been applied to the majority of the rules in section 7 of this Plan. For mobile sources, and other sources that have no boundary and are not explicitly covered by the rules, particular regard will be given to location relative to surrounding land uses.
In other situations, the use of the best practicable option (BPO) to prevent or minimise the effects of odorous discharges may be required. Available odour control technologies which could be part of a BPO approach, include: vent gas collection (all gases are collected and passed through a control device); vent gas condensation (condensing the gas stream reduces its volume and may also reduce the odour content); chemical treatment, such as oxidation reaction with hypochlorite; biological treatment, such as passage through a biofilter; adsorption (the odorous components of the gas attach to the surface of a special solid (adsorbent) such as activated carbon); incineration (the odorous gas is held at temperatures high enough to combust and thereby destroy odorous contaminants; and atmospheric dispersion (the last step in an odour control process).
Odours can also arise from sources which do not have a single discharge point (e.g., landfills, sewage treatment). In these cases, good management practices may be the best means of controlling odour.
Note: The above discussion does not bind the Council to any particular form of compliance monitoring or enforcement, in any particular case.
4.2.15 To require that, where appropriate, dispersion models are used to assess the potential effects of discharges to air.
Explanation: This policy adopts, where appropriate, the use of dispersion models as a guide to assess the potential effects of discharges to air. NIWA (1996) guidelines provide relevant advice on the application of dispersion models in New Zealand. Dispersion modelling may be required of applicants in situations where: (1) The combined generation capacity (measured by the higher heating value of the input fuel) exceeds 5 MW, or the discharge includes contaminants other than the normal products of combustion, (that is carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and water)); (2) there are significant background levels of the contaminants proposed to be discharged; (3) surrounding land uses are particularly sensitive to the contaminants proposed to be discharged; or (4) existing levels of any pollutants are known, or suspected to be above 50 percent of the Maximum Desirable Levels identified in Appendix 2.
PAGE 10 OF 11 1226852-V1
Dispersion modelling will usually not be necessary where the potential adverse effects of the discharge are minor.
4.2.16 To have regard to the stack height guidelines in Appendix 3 as the primary means of setting stack heights for activities which burn coal, oil or natural gas and which require resource consents to discharge to air.
Explanation: The guidelines in Appendix 3 have been derived from the Third Edition of the 1956 Clean Air Act Memorandum on chimney heights (Department of the Environment, 1981), information from stack height guidelines used in Victoria and New South Wales (EPA, 1993), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The criteria applied are generally accepted technical standards for chimney height calculations in New Zealand.
The guidelines may not be applicable in all cases. Where they are not applicable, a dispersion model may be used to model the ground level concentrations of contaminants as detailed in the NIWA (1996) guidelines.
This guide is only applicable to minimising effects from the gaseous products of combustion. Dispersion is not an effective option to control significant discharges of smoke or particulates because these discharges are highly visible and are also affected by gravity, leading to the settling out of particulates.
1226852-V1 PAGE 11 OF 11
Appendix 3:
Summary of submissions
Summary of submissions received by Greater Wellington (GW) on Limited Notified resource consent application WGN110219 by NCI Packaging Limited, to discharge contaminants to air associated with the continued operation of NCI Packaging at 60-62 Montgomery Crescent, Upper Hutt.
Name of Support/neutral/ To be heard in Summary of submission submitter/organisation oppose support/neutral/ application opposition of application
1 Tui Barber Oppose No Offensive & Objectionable Odour 21 Mountbatten Grove Requests Decline Long term resident, increased odour is relatively new [email protected] phenomenon GW Edocs #1041582 2 Christine Williams Oppose No Offensive & Objectionable Odour 1047 Fergusson Drive Requests Decline Long term resident, odour during 2008, stronger since [email protected]/nz Nov 2011 Notes odour incidence has reduced in 2012 at time of notification GW Edocs #1043738 3 Joint submission: Mountbatten Oppose Yes x 3 Offensive & Objectionable Odour Grove at numbers indicated: Requests Decline representatives of Possible health effects 23 Annette McCarthy Owner street Long term residents, odour notifications to GW for last 29 Sheryl Gough Owner 4 years – mixed success 30 Gabrielle Menily Owner Wish communication, timeframe, milestones 31 Douglas Pink Owner GW Edocs #1043731 and #1046721 33 Jenny George Occupier Signatures of other submitters in Edocs #1046721 34 Shirley Smith Owner 35 Trevor & Diane Messer Owners 37 Glenys Check Owner 38 Rochelle Smith Owner 39 Signature unavailable
1041793-V1 PAGE 1 OF 2 40 Ann Devlin Owner 43 Nicola Ratahi Owner (see also separate submission received 7 May 2012) 4 Tim Penwarden Neutral No Staff working at GWRC report that odour is apparent Jigsaw Properties from time to time 1056 Fergusson Drive GW Edocs #1045614 [email protected] 5 Peter Millar Oppose No Odour “annoying and horrible” Plumbing World Requests Decline “Paint-like smell” 73 Montgomery Crescent Health concern – long term exposure GW Edocs #1046022 6 Graham Kerr for Neutral Yes Issues raised in review by Air Quality Management to Dr Jill McKenzie be addressed through further information by the Medical Officer of Health applicant Regional Public Health Conditions to minimise potential health impacts as [email protected] recommended in the review above rg.nz GW Edocs #1046763
7 Nicola Ratahi Oppose Not stated Offensive & Objectionable Odour 43 Mountbatten Grove Possible health effects [email protected] Included as a resident in street joint submission GW Edocs #1043731 and #1046721 GW Edocs #1046787 8
9
10
1041793-V1 PAGE 2 OF 2 Appendix 4:
Pre-hearing meeting report
15 October 2012 File: WGN110219 [30888]
Report on a pre-hearing meeting held on 4 September 2012 at 6.00pm, Upper Hutt Bowling Club, 37 Exchange Street, Upper Hutt
NCI Packaging New Zealand Limited - Application for discharge permit to discharge contaminants to air from the production and coating of steel and aluminium cans at 60-62 Montgomery Crescent, Clouston Park, Upper Hutt
Present
Wellington Regional Council representatives Jeremy Rusbatch (facilitator) – Team Leader, Environmental Regulation Hugh Dixon-Paver (reporting officer) – Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation Malory Osmond (decision support officer) – Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation Trudy Richards – Enforcement Investigator, Environmental Regulation
NCI Packaging New Zealand Limited representatives (the applicant) Mike Shatford – NCI Achim Schimmiger - NCI Rhys Kevern – URS (Consultant to NCI)
Submitters Ann Devlin Glenys Check Dorothy Pink (on behalf of Douglas Pink) Gay Manley Nicola Ratahi Christine Williams Jill McKenzie (Regional Public Health) Chris Edmonds (Regional Public Health) Tim Penwarden Annette McCarthy (and daughter)
Others present (not submitters) Susan Stevenson Ann Ratihi (and three children) Amber Payne Brad Williams
1. Introduction
Jeremy Rusbatch, Team Leader, Environmental Regulation, Greater Wellington Regional Council (GW) opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the submitters’ concerns and provide them with the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant. He also ran through the ground rules for the meeting.
Everyone present introduced themselves. Then Trudy Richards, Enforcement Investigator, GW, gave an overview of the history of odour notifications in the immediate area since 2010. Ms Richards explained GW’s incident response process and the difficulties with response time following a notification and with finding a source for the odour complaint. She stated it was in early 2011 that GW confirmed NCI needed to apply for a resource consent from GW as they breached the limits for solvent volumes in GW’s permitted activity rules.
Ms Richards mentioned that GW had recently undertaken some proactive odour monitoring around the site and confirmed there is an odour from the processes at NCI. She then stated that GW is working with NCI to find the source of this odour.
A submitter discussed their experiences with odour in the area over the years and that it has possibly had an effect on the paint on their house. They also stated that the previous Plant Manager had visited their house but no follow up action was taken. Another submitter stated that they lived with the odour for a number of years before they became aware of GW’s notification process. They also stated that not all calls are getting to the right person at GW and are not being logged in the system.
Mr Rusbatch then stated that he would like the applicant to give a brief overview of their proposal before we continued the discussion of issues.
2. Applicant’s overview of proposal
Mr Mike Shatford, NCI New Zealand’s Operations Manager, gave a brief overview of the history of the company and the Wellington plant located in Upper Hutt. He stated that any resource consent requirements for the site were considered by the previous Manager, however, once brought to their attention by GW, they engaged consultants URS to do the work required for the application and assessment of environmental effects. The assessment of environmental effects has been peer reviewed by GW’s consultant.
Mr Rhys Kevern, consultant from URS, briefly discussed the processes at the plant. He said that the main process that results in a discharge to air is the process which makes the aluminium cans. The cans are sprayed with lacquers and inks for decoration and baked in ovens to set the coatings. Each coating stage results in a discharge to air, however, several of those processes are connected to the same stack. He mentioned that they use a water based system to clean the cans which results in a steam discharge and this is the only visible discharge from the site.
PAGE 2 OF 6 1128090-V1
A submitter asked about the two tall fairly new stacks and whether they are in use. Mr Kevern confirmed that they were in use, and that the stacks were not new, they extended the heights in April 2012 to allow a more vertical discharge, and removed the ‘hats’ to aid dispersion and minimise the potential for building downwash effects.
Mr Kevern then passed out copies of a document which outlined the further work they had undertaken in response to submissions. Mr Kevern ran through the information which included the results of an odour survey he undertook in the area. He explained that this odour survey was undertaken in the same manner as GW does, and covered 7 sites over a period of 10 days. Mr Kevern stated that the results showed that during the survey there were no strong odours from the site.
3. Discussion of issues
Two main issues were discussed:
Odour
Health effects
Odour
A number of submitters discussed their experiences with the odour from the site. They described the type of odour as being like solvent, lacquer, nail polish remover, brake fluid and train brakes. They said it was not light, it was very strong.
The submitters said that the odour makes them want to get away from it, move inside, direct their kids to move inside, close windows and take washing inside. They said sometimes it makes them feel sick, their noses swell and skin prickles. A submitter noted that they have respiratory problems and that it is now taking them longer to recover.
The submitters acknowledged that the odour was not there all the time. However, they said they were not home all the time, and in winter they are not outside as much.
Mr Rusbatch asked the applicant how they would like to respond to this odour that the submitters are experiencing. Mr Kevern stated that the odour survey they undertook did not identify odour as being an issue from the site. In response to this, the submitters requested that the applicant undertake another survey, as the odour they are experiencing was obviously not picked up by the survey. They also noted the inconsistency between the URS odour survey and GW’s recent odour assessments.
Ms Richards confirmed that GW had two recent odour events which are confirmed to be from NCI and the one on 26 August 2012 was particularly strong. However, Ms Richards stated that these events were still under investigation so she could not discuss them further.
Mr Kevern noted that there is a welding place nearby that could be generating the odour. The submitters said that the welding place generates noise but not the odour they are
1128090-V1 PAGE 3 OF 6
experiencing. Ms Richards stated that when GW became aware of the odour problem in the area, they investigated a number of places to look at their processes, the potential for odour to be generated, and their consent requirements. This included the welding place. She stated that Acme are going through a consent process similar to NCI, one place closed down, and the others are permitted and do not need a consent. Ms Richards emphasised the point that GW has not targeted NCI, but we have recently confirmed the odour coming from NCI.
The submitters said that they have lived in the area for years and that they did not want to move, they also did not want NCI to move, but that life in the area is not as enjoyable anymore. They want to be able to enjoy outdoor living but the odour is preventing that. They said they are asking NCI for help so that they can enjoy the outdoors again, and the odour is having a negative effect on their quality of life.
Mr Rusbatch stated that odours are the most challenging effect to understand. He said they are intermittent and hard to pin point but they can have a significant effects. Mr Rusbatch then asked Mr Kevern if he had experience with any similar situations and what could be done about this issue. He stated that perhaps NCI would need to have another think about what they could do to work towards a solution and then we could come back around the table as a group to discuss their proposal.
Health effects
The submitters stated they were concerned for their health and asked what contaminants are in the discharges from the site.
Mr Kevern stated that they have a filter in the extraction system which removes the particles from the emission. However, there is a small amount of particles that will be emitted. He stated that the smell is the solvent part of the discharge. In response to a question, Mr Kevern stated that formaldehyde is contained with the resin and he would not expect any to be within the discharge.
The submitters asked by the Texas Commission standards were used for the assessment of effects of the contaminants contained within the discharge, rather than guidelines/standards from Germany which are more stringent. Mr Kevern stated that New Zealand has no guidelines and the Texas ones were chosen as they have a more extensive list. He also noted that the Ministry for the Environment guidelines refer to California standards which are less stringent than the Texas ones. He stated that the guidelines are based on potential health effects and no radius from the discharge point is specified.
Mr Rusbatch acknowledged to the submitters that it cam be quite alarming to look up these chemicals on the internet. He then asked the applicant to explain to submitters about the levels (or dosage) and exposure to these chemicals and how these compared to the guidelines.
Mr Kevern explained that the purpose of the emission modelling was to estimate the concentrations of contaminants in the discharge. These estimates of contaminant levels have been assessed and the majority of these are at levels around 10% of the guidelines. Mr
PAGE 4 OF 6 1128090-V1
Kevern stated that the guidelines already have a safety factor built in, so the contaminants have no effect on human health even at a level of 100% of the guidelines. He said at levels of 10% of the guideline there was a very low likelihood of that contaminant having any effect on people’s health.
The submitters asked if this assessment was based on a one-off or continuous exposure to the contaminants. Mr Kevern stated that the guidelines were 1 hour averages but studies do take into account longer term exposure. The submitters stated that they were concerned with the cumulative effects of each contaminant at 10%. Mr Schimmiger responded and stated that they do not use toxic chemicals in their processes. All the lacquers used are FDA (United States Food and Drug Administration) approved, have gone through testing and are assessed for their potential health effects. He stated that they do not use any unapproved chemicals.
Ms Richards asked the applicant what options they had for treatment of the odour. Mr Shatford stated that they did not have the answer today and emphasised that their assessment shows they are well within the guidelines. He mentioned that there may be one area onsite identified as a source of odour and they will investigate redirecting the emission from this area.
Summary
Mr Rusbatch thanked everyone for their input into the discussion, but he felt that we had gone as far as we could tonight. He provided a brief summary of the discussion and in regard to health effects he said that the modelling and assessment against the relevant guidelines indicated that the contaminants may be at a level where they are acceptable. He then stated the odour issue is a matter outstanding. He said that this odour may be affecting people’s health in different ways, and that NCI may need to go away from this meeting, consider the feelings of the community and give further thought to what can be done to address the issue.
The submitters asked if there was someone at NCI they could contact when they detected an odour who would be willing to meet them and smell it. Mr Shatford confirmed that they would be happy to do that and would come back to the submitters with a contact person’s name and phone number.
Mr Schimmiger stated that what he had heard from the submitters tonight was a surprise.
The submitters asked Dr Jill McKenzie (Medical Officer of Health) from Regional Public Health (RPH) to comment on the health effects. Dr McKenzie stated that they were also a submitter and they were here to listen to the information presented and concerns of the other submitters. She stated that it was not appropriate to comment. Mr High Dixon-Paver, Resource Advisor, GW, noted that part of the delay in holding this meeting was to allow RPH’s technical expert to consult with NCI on the technical issues. He noted that the further information submitted from NCI is in part response to questions from RPH.
Mr Dixon-Paver noted that the submitters may like to keep an odour diary to gather some more information about the odours experienced. A submitter stated that this had been tried in the past and did not work.
1128090-V1 PAGE 5 OF 6
4. Process from here
Mr Rusbatch thanked everyone for their participation, discussed the action points and explained the process from here.
The action points from the meeting are:
NCI to provide a name and phone number to submitters of a person at NCI they can call to respond to odours;
NCI to consider whether they visit some houses to inspect the paint work;
NCI to investigate solutions for the source of odour identified by GW;
RPH to review additional information (background);
GW to come back to submitters with further information;
GW to continue working with other potentially odorous sites in the area;
Pre-hearing report to be emailed to submitters in a few weeks; and
Submitters to keep calling in their complaints about odour to GW: 24 hour Environmental Hotline 0800 496 734
Mr Rusbatch said that GW and NCI will consider the option of holding a second pre- hearing meeting and will advise submitters.
The meeting was closed at 7.48pm.
PAGE 6 OF 6 1128090-V1