|
In answer to a question from the floor it was established that the last time there had been a blast in Three Kings Quarry was 15 or 16 years ago. It struck me that this blasting provision in the district plan was a bit of a throw back - a blast from the past - that had somehow survived various reviews and plan changes and was still there, lurking, waiting to be dusted off.... Andrea cave then explained the proposed Blasting Sirens Procedure, which is apparently derived from Winstone's Quarry Management Plan. This is set out here: Once blast area has been isolated, the shot firer will: |
|
|
|
|
|
Showing posts with label Three Kings Quarry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Three Kings Quarry. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Three Kings for a Blast from the Past
Court Decision: Three Kings Quarry Fill
On the 18th of May, 2011, Judge Smith signed the decision of the Environment Court relating to various appeals and the referred application for the proposed and disputed Fletcher Concrete & Infrastructure Ltd/Winstone Aggregates Ltd "cleanfill" at Three Kings Quarry Mt Eden.
In a nutshell, the decision upholds the original consents, grants the referred application, though all are subject to changed conditions. And there are significant changes to the conditions. Some of which raise questions which I address below.
Overall I thought it an unusual Environment Court decision. It's the first time I can recall reading an Environment Court decision that makes no, or virtually no, reference to law or case law. It has been judged and determined on the basis of material facts and expert evidence. There's at least one very good reason for that: it is a decision that will be very hard to appeal to the High Court. Environment Court decisions can only be appealed to the High Court on a point of law.
So. No points of law = Little possibility of an appeal. Interesting.
Another interesting aspect of the decision are the directions made by the court. Essentally the Judge, with his two commissioners, has redrafted the conditions that were circulated at the hearing. The redrafting reflects the Court's detailed decisions. The Court has directed that the parties to the Hearing (Winstones, Watercare Services Ltd., Envirowaste Services Ltd., Auckland Council, Three Kings United, South Epsom Planning Group, St Lukes Environment Protection Society) consider the redrafted conditions and "submit final wording" within 30 days. The court does not say how the parties will get together on this. However the court goes on to order: "if parties cannot resolve final wording", then the applicant must file "its proposed wording within a further 10 working days" and so can the other parties. "The Court will then make its final decision on the wording."
The detailed decision makes an interesting and accessible read - probably because it does not get into the black letter of the law and case law. Below I set out my more detailed notes on aspects of the decision, by decision paragraph number....
[37] acknowledges that consent conditions proposed by Matheson (Winstone's counsel) addresses a number of issue raised during the course of the hearing and we acknowledge is a significant change from the conditions of consent granted by the Council, or even those suggested in the first brief of evidence from Mr Sargeant... Thus Winstones acknowledged the need for changes in their approach in the course of the hearing. But their proposed conditions only became available in the last moments of the Environment Court hearing.
[45] Notes that it is up to Auckland Council to identify HAIL sites. (A comprehensive list of activities that carry a contamination risk is the so-called Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL), compiled by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE).) In other words the decision here is that it is ultimately up to Auckland Council to be up with the play - for all of Auckland - as to what sites have (or have not) contamination risks. The obligation falls to Council, not to Winstones, in that regard.
[46] Cites fill figures that essentially support the "dilution is the solution to pollution" argument. That there will be so much "clean" cleanfill, that almost any amount of contaminated cleanfill, won't make a difference.
[54] Peculiar discussion about no more than minimal adverse effects, and a de minimus effect which Counsel accepted... could be disregarded... (cited Mayley v Manukau City Council). No clear decision here though...
[61 - 63] deals with cleanfill. It is appropriate to include maximum concentrations for contaminants..... The only argument related to whether it had the potential to alter the chemical constitution of the groundwater to such an extent that it could have an effect on either people or the environment.
[71] ... materials that can be put in the site are ones that occur in the Auckland region, and will almost always be natural materials... we have no reason to believe that they will be atypical of the material types occurring in the region... relevant to that consideration is our conclusion that it is the mass contaminant levels of the entire fill which will have the impact, not particular loads... (This is another statement of the "dilution is the solution" paradigm.)
[72] Our reasoning for this is that possible groundwater contamination from the fill is based upon the amount of water moving through the fill and that infiltrating on the site. In addition to that moving through the fill itself are the other waters being received at the dewatering well from th4e surrounding 600 hectares. In those circumstances, the dilution of any fill leachate by other groundwater has been variously estimated by differing witnesses between 18 to over 100. Thus, any contaminant in any leachate from tjhe fill would be futher diluted... (This text raises the interesting assumption that the de-watering is to continue in perpetuity, though it was initially done to lower the water table to allow quarrying. As if de-watering is a sort of de-facto leachate collection and treatment - through dilution - system, that is then discharged to the Manukau Harbour. Further minising the risk of this leachate seeping down into, or flowing over the lip of the crater and into, the aquifers underground.)
[74] given req for pre-approval for any known HAIL risk sites, we consider that the potential for casual loads to significantly change the mass parameters are de minimis (This is really at the heart of the decision. It imposes huge load on Council to identify HAIL sites, that is the reliance.)
[76] ... nevertheless we accept there is a very small risk that gross non-compliance by contractors could escape oversight....
[81] ... our overall conclusion is that the application by its nature is one which would avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment by the utilisation of cleanfill materials... conditions avoid any potential adverse effects and give a very high level of confidence that there will be no effect on human health or the environment...
[82] ..we conclude that the application is for fill within the parameters of TP153...
[83] ... in reaching this conclusion we have assumed that the application will be... including a condition to continue water extraction from the well on-site... (This is an interesting requirement. Judge Smith talked about this during the hearing. There were vague discussions. In this decision there is an unusual take on the environment is that which is existing, an odd sort of permitted baseline. Because there is de-watering now, that is "the environment"...)
[88] Conditions section of decision... Court requires that Council is able to undertake full sampling tests at the cost to the applicant at least twice a year at random intervals. It is intended this would comprise no more than two core samples (or composite samples) for testing... (On the face of it this is a fairly dramatic intervention by the Court, but it does depend on Auckland Council acting on it. As it must on HAIL site identification for example.)
[89] Relates to condition 19, and proposes three levels of MAV% triggers and related actions. There is considerable detail in how this would work. Basically it is all based on levels of contaminants that are found in the water drawn from de-watering, and tests relate to the NZ Drinking Water standards - rather than to the level of contaminants that may be permitted in the fill that is dumped there. This approach is linked to the court's interest (but not hard out requirement) in de-watering. It is this water that will be tested for contaminants. I suspect there will be considerable room for discussion and negotiation over this between parties. (BTW, I understand the original discharge consent that permits the dewatering water pumped by Winstones from the Three Kings Quarry and piped into the Manukau Harbour - has been "lost". This consent becomes critical when it is envisaged that pipe will be used to pump leachate into the Manukau - not just relatively clean dewatering water. Where is this consent? Does it permit Winstone's to pour landfill leachate into the Manukau...?)
[90] Startling comment: we agree with those who criticise the current conditions as suggesting you can obtain resource consent for breaching the conditions of consent...!!! This led to specific decisions to ensure conditions don;t have this effect.)
[94] ... Certification by the manager is required prior to the commencement of filling (Presumably council's manager. This would serve to get Auckland Council on board. Think about things. Before certifying....)
[101] Reference to original Council decision ...provided sampling regime and methods for managing the quality of the cleanfill are rigorous then the proposal will fall within the term "cleanfill"... It is also the Auckland Council that will need to be rigorous. So much depends on it carrying out its duties...
[104] Mr Matheson tells that his client is particularly concerned about trade competition and the potential for Envirowaste to appeal the substantive decision and thus delay the implementation of the consent. Given that concern we will address the application for a general fill resource consent on its merits... (This is an extraordinary admission it seems to me.)
[137] ...consents could be combined in a single consent for controlled fill... (The court moves away from the words "cleanfill" as was suiggested by various parties, and goes with "controlled fill".)
It will be interesting to see how the parties handle this decision. In particular the way the Court has chosen to incorporate the Winstone de-watering system into an informal leachate extraction and treatment system. This must have implications for the discharge - but no-one can find that permit. Yet.
In a nutshell, the decision upholds the original consents, grants the referred application, though all are subject to changed conditions. And there are significant changes to the conditions. Some of which raise questions which I address below.
Overall I thought it an unusual Environment Court decision. It's the first time I can recall reading an Environment Court decision that makes no, or virtually no, reference to law or case law. It has been judged and determined on the basis of material facts and expert evidence. There's at least one very good reason for that: it is a decision that will be very hard to appeal to the High Court. Environment Court decisions can only be appealed to the High Court on a point of law.
So. No points of law = Little possibility of an appeal. Interesting.
Another interesting aspect of the decision are the directions made by the court. Essentally the Judge, with his two commissioners, has redrafted the conditions that were circulated at the hearing. The redrafting reflects the Court's detailed decisions. The Court has directed that the parties to the Hearing (Winstones, Watercare Services Ltd., Envirowaste Services Ltd., Auckland Council, Three Kings United, South Epsom Planning Group, St Lukes Environment Protection Society) consider the redrafted conditions and "submit final wording" within 30 days. The court does not say how the parties will get together on this. However the court goes on to order: "if parties cannot resolve final wording", then the applicant must file "its proposed wording within a further 10 working days" and so can the other parties. "The Court will then make its final decision on the wording."
The detailed decision makes an interesting and accessible read - probably because it does not get into the black letter of the law and case law. Below I set out my more detailed notes on aspects of the decision, by decision paragraph number....
[37] acknowledges that consent conditions proposed by Matheson (Winstone's counsel) addresses a number of issue raised during the course of the hearing and we acknowledge is a significant change from the conditions of consent granted by the Council, or even those suggested in the first brief of evidence from Mr Sargeant... Thus Winstones acknowledged the need for changes in their approach in the course of the hearing. But their proposed conditions only became available in the last moments of the Environment Court hearing.
[45] Notes that it is up to Auckland Council to identify HAIL sites. (A comprehensive list of activities that carry a contamination risk is the so-called Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL), compiled by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE).) In other words the decision here is that it is ultimately up to Auckland Council to be up with the play - for all of Auckland - as to what sites have (or have not) contamination risks. The obligation falls to Council, not to Winstones, in that regard.
[46] Cites fill figures that essentially support the "dilution is the solution to pollution" argument. That there will be so much "clean" cleanfill, that almost any amount of contaminated cleanfill, won't make a difference.
[54] Peculiar discussion about no more than minimal adverse effects, and a de minimus effect which Counsel accepted... could be disregarded... (cited Mayley v Manukau City Council). No clear decision here though...
[61 - 63] deals with cleanfill. It is appropriate to include maximum concentrations for contaminants..... The only argument related to whether it had the potential to alter the chemical constitution of the groundwater to such an extent that it could have an effect on either people or the environment.
[71] ... materials that can be put in the site are ones that occur in the Auckland region, and will almost always be natural materials... we have no reason to believe that they will be atypical of the material types occurring in the region... relevant to that consideration is our conclusion that it is the mass contaminant levels of the entire fill which will have the impact, not particular loads... (This is another statement of the "dilution is the solution" paradigm.)
[72] Our reasoning for this is that possible groundwater contamination from the fill is based upon the amount of water moving through the fill and that infiltrating on the site. In addition to that moving through the fill itself are the other waters being received at the dewatering well from th4e surrounding 600 hectares. In those circumstances, the dilution of any fill leachate by other groundwater has been variously estimated by differing witnesses between 18 to over 100. Thus, any contaminant in any leachate from tjhe fill would be futher diluted... (This text raises the interesting assumption that the de-watering is to continue in perpetuity, though it was initially done to lower the water table to allow quarrying. As if de-watering is a sort of de-facto leachate collection and treatment - through dilution - system, that is then discharged to the Manukau Harbour. Further minising the risk of this leachate seeping down into, or flowing over the lip of the crater and into, the aquifers underground.)
[74] given req for pre-approval for any known HAIL risk sites, we consider that the potential for casual loads to significantly change the mass parameters are de minimis (This is really at the heart of the decision. It imposes huge load on Council to identify HAIL sites, that is the reliance.)
[76] ... nevertheless we accept there is a very small risk that gross non-compliance by contractors could escape oversight....
[81] ... our overall conclusion is that the application by its nature is one which would avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment by the utilisation of cleanfill materials... conditions avoid any potential adverse effects and give a very high level of confidence that there will be no effect on human health or the environment...
[82] ..we conclude that the application is for fill within the parameters of TP153...
[83] ... in reaching this conclusion we have assumed that the application will be... including a condition to continue water extraction from the well on-site... (This is an interesting requirement. Judge Smith talked about this during the hearing. There were vague discussions. In this decision there is an unusual take on the environment is that which is existing, an odd sort of permitted baseline. Because there is de-watering now, that is "the environment"...)
[88] Conditions section of decision... Court requires that Council is able to undertake full sampling tests at the cost to the applicant at least twice a year at random intervals. It is intended this would comprise no more than two core samples (or composite samples) for testing... (On the face of it this is a fairly dramatic intervention by the Court, but it does depend on Auckland Council acting on it. As it must on HAIL site identification for example.)
[89] Relates to condition 19, and proposes three levels of MAV% triggers and related actions. There is considerable detail in how this would work. Basically it is all based on levels of contaminants that are found in the water drawn from de-watering, and tests relate to the NZ Drinking Water standards - rather than to the level of contaminants that may be permitted in the fill that is dumped there. This approach is linked to the court's interest (but not hard out requirement) in de-watering. It is this water that will be tested for contaminants. I suspect there will be considerable room for discussion and negotiation over this between parties. (BTW, I understand the original discharge consent that permits the dewatering water pumped by Winstones from the Three Kings Quarry and piped into the Manukau Harbour - has been "lost". This consent becomes critical when it is envisaged that pipe will be used to pump leachate into the Manukau - not just relatively clean dewatering water. Where is this consent? Does it permit Winstone's to pour landfill leachate into the Manukau...?)
[90] Startling comment: we agree with those who criticise the current conditions as suggesting you can obtain resource consent for breaching the conditions of consent...!!! This led to specific decisions to ensure conditions don;t have this effect.)
[94] ... Certification by the manager is required prior to the commencement of filling (Presumably council's manager. This would serve to get Auckland Council on board. Think about things. Before certifying....)
[101] Reference to original Council decision ...provided sampling regime and methods for managing the quality of the cleanfill are rigorous then the proposal will fall within the term "cleanfill"... It is also the Auckland Council that will need to be rigorous. So much depends on it carrying out its duties...
[104] Mr Matheson tells that his client is particularly concerned about trade competition and the potential for Envirowaste to appeal the substantive decision and thus delay the implementation of the consent. Given that concern we will address the application for a general fill resource consent on its merits... (This is an extraordinary admission it seems to me.)
[137] ...consents could be combined in a single consent for controlled fill... (The court moves away from the words "cleanfill" as was suiggested by various parties, and goes with "controlled fill".)
It will be interesting to see how the parties handle this decision. In particular the way the Court has chosen to incorporate the Winstone de-watering system into an informal leachate extraction and treatment system. This must have implications for the discharge - but no-one can find that permit. Yet.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Judicial Report on Three Kings Site Visit
On Friday 11th March Judge Smith and his two Commissioners (Gollop and Howie) went on a site visit. So the hearing on Friday was cut short. Judge Smith gave a comprehensive verbal report about the site visit to the Environment Court on Monday morning, 14th March. I took notes and summarise the report here:
That seemed a fairly comprehensive visit. Gives a flavour of where Judge Smith is coming from. Interesting that he takes it upon himself to advocate using a water treatment plant he finds along the way - to treat water from de-watering. And recharge the aquifer.
They started at Meola Reef, and were shown Meola Creek (he noted there were signs of sewage ingress there). Thye were advised that Meola Creek is is fed from underground gulleys and rivers, some of which start up round Three Kings. He observed that the catchment for those underground waters is many and varied – St Lukes, Sandringham Road, homes, businesses (some of which will have long gone). They were shown Bore Hole 7 – which is some 500 metres from the bottom of the Three Kings Quarry – and he noted they had been shown Bore Hole 6 which was accessible and which appeared to be much closer to the quarry itself.
Judge Smith expressed concern over their findings that at or close to Big King Reserve appeared to be contaminants stored on site by Auckland Council, at a small excavated area. (Discussion later revealed that this was leased land used previously by Parks Staff of Auckland City Council. Judge Smith was concerned to have noted what appeared to be leachates at that site, and that the floor of scoria would be permeable.
The site visit was shown the de-watering bore. The Judge noted that this was at RL –5. He asserted that he did not accept there was low permeability in the scoria around this bore. He expressed interest in the adjacent water treatment plant which appears to be unused. In his opinion it could be used to clean up the water, before returning it to the aquifer….
He noted that there were several quarry faces – some basalt, some scoria. He also noted that the Three Kings Quarry appears to have a dust supression systme in place – he noted the presence of sprinkler. He reported that he and commissioners did visit some local properties. Saw some dust.
They also went to Puketutu where they observed typical fill loads being received and processed. They saw an XRF test (this is a form of XRay and subsequent fluoresence test for various contaminants), the Judge noted that up to 30 truck loads appeared to be dumped on a skid pad. These were then mixed by the operator who scooped the results onto various parts of the landfill face. They noted the waste was mixed – concrete, asphalt, clay, soil. He noted that Puketutu was different from Three Kings – in that it is being rehabilitated for “rural pastoral purposes”.
That seemed a fairly comprehensive visit. Gives a flavour of where Judge Smith is coming from. Interesting that he takes it upon himself to advocate using a water treatment plant he finds along the way - to treat water from de-watering. And recharge the aquifer.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Garbage In = Garbage Out
There was a delightful moment in the Environment Court on Tuesday 8th March.
Dr Bellamy, who is representing the submissions of the South Epsom Planning Group, got the opportunity to cross examine one of Winstone's key expert witnesses. This was Mr Chote, who has been a senior General Manager for Winstones for several years. His evidence had been "taken as read" by Judge Smith and the two commissioners sitting with him, and all parties respresented then had the opportunity of asking Mr Chote questions about his evidence and the application.
This was day 2 of the hearing of Fletcher Construction's contested application. They want to use the Three Kings Quarry at Mt Eden as a "cleanfill" for around three million cubic metres of "fill" which they hope is permitted to contain contaminants of various kinds (DDT, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, heavy metals etc - see below) up to certain prescribed levels. The South Epsom Planning Group has raised questions about the effect of the proposed fill/cleanfill on the groundwater, and on the Auckland aquifers beneath.
Judge Smith encouraged Dr Bellamy to "go for the jugular", he encouraged Bellamy to "not beat about the bush".
So, first up, Bellamy was keen to demonstrate that his team of experts (many seem to hold positions at Auckland University), had investigated Winstone's computer model of the proposed cleanfill/landfill project. It appears they have big questions over the "permeability" the model ascribes to the fill material. Bellamy talked of it being "five orders of magnitude" in error. (In layman's terms that would mean the Winstone's model assumes fill is 100,000 times more (or less - I wasn't sure from the question) permeable, than it really is. This would make a big difference to the rate at which water would percolate through. And make a big difference to its predictions.
Mr Chote wasn't very clear in his answer, but it seems he's not the Winstone's modelling expert. That person comes later. Dr Bellamy was charitable in his explanation of his question. He beat about the bush a bit here - talked about if the model is that far wrong how can you trust its predictions.
But what I was screaming out for him to say, what the whole court must have been busting for him to say, was:
"GARBAGE IN - GARBAGE OUT".....
But he didn't. Dr Bellamy is too well behaved for that.
Pity really. It was like a metaphor for the whole thing. A sort of truth. Almost the elephant in the room. Stands to reason. If you put contaminants in a hole, you'll get contaminants out of the hole. You get back, what you put in. Unless you collect it, trap it, and treat it.
The pictures on this blog are a selection of what you find if you Google "garbage in equals garbage out".
Dr Bellamy, who is representing the submissions of the South Epsom Planning Group, got the opportunity to cross examine one of Winstone's key expert witnesses. This was Mr Chote, who has been a senior General Manager for Winstones for several years. His evidence had been "taken as read" by Judge Smith and the two commissioners sitting with him, and all parties respresented then had the opportunity of asking Mr Chote questions about his evidence and the application.
This was day 2 of the hearing of Fletcher Construction's contested application. They want to use the Three Kings Quarry at Mt Eden as a "cleanfill" for around three million cubic metres of "fill" which they hope is permitted to contain contaminants of various kinds (DDT, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, heavy metals etc - see below) up to certain prescribed levels. The South Epsom Planning Group has raised questions about the effect of the proposed fill/cleanfill on the groundwater, and on the Auckland aquifers beneath.
Judge Smith encouraged Dr Bellamy to "go for the jugular", he encouraged Bellamy to "not beat about the bush".
So, first up, Bellamy was keen to demonstrate that his team of experts (many seem to hold positions at Auckland University), had investigated Winstone's computer model of the proposed cleanfill/landfill project. It appears they have big questions over the "permeability" the model ascribes to the fill material. Bellamy talked of it being "five orders of magnitude" in error. (In layman's terms that would mean the Winstone's model assumes fill is 100,000 times more (or less - I wasn't sure from the question) permeable, than it really is. This would make a big difference to the rate at which water would percolate through. And make a big difference to its predictions.
Mr Chote wasn't very clear in his answer, but it seems he's not the Winstone's modelling expert. That person comes later. Dr Bellamy was charitable in his explanation of his question. He beat about the bush a bit here - talked about if the model is that far wrong how can you trust its predictions.
But what I was screaming out for him to say, what the whole court must have been busting for him to say, was:
"GARBAGE IN - GARBAGE OUT".....
But he didn't. Dr Bellamy is too well behaved for that.
Pity really. It was like a metaphor for the whole thing. A sort of truth. Almost the elephant in the room. Stands to reason. If you put contaminants in a hole, you'll get contaminants out of the hole. You get back, what you put in. Unless you collect it, trap it, and treat it.
The pictures on this blog are a selection of what you find if you Google "garbage in equals garbage out".
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Letter to Watercare Board and CEO
Permission to pollute one of Auckland’s
critical underground water resources?
Mark Ford
Chief Executive
Watercare
2 Nuffield Street
Newmarket
Auckland 1023
Wednesday 2 March, 2011
Dear Mark,
I am writing to you because Watercare is responsible for providing Auckland with safe drinking water and I have recently become aware of a major issue for Auckland water supply. I am at a loss to understand how Three Kings Quarry owner, Winstone Aggregates, has been granted consent to fill the Mt Eden Road quarry, unlined and without a leachate system, with waste material that is permitted to contain elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, copper, zinc, DDT and hydrocarbons.
This site is above, and drains into, a large fresh water aquifer from which water is already drawn by some (including Auckland Zoo), and which is a back-up drinking water source for Auckland in the event of a natural disaster, such as the one we have just seen in Christchurch.
Watercare is committed to ensuring the drinking water that Auckland households, businesses and schools receive is high quality and consistently complies with the requirements of the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards. And rightly so.
I note in your 2010 Statement of Corporate Intent the following objective which has been agreed by your stakeholders: “To provide leadership within the water industry and participate in public policy initiatives and statutory submissions.”
From my reading of your involvement in this central city landfill project, you are not opposed to it. You are tacitly endorsing the establishment and operation of a contaminated landfill which everybody agrees will drain into Auckland’s freshwater aquifer system, without any systems in place to prevent contaminants leaching into Auckland’s underground water resources. This is no less than permission to pollute one of Auckland’s critical back-up water supplies.
You will be acutely aware of the leachate collection and treatment duties that have been imposed on Watercare in regard to its proposed Puketutu landfill project. I find it hard to believe that the same sort of regulation isn’t being applied to the Three Kings Quarry. Where’s the consistancy? Watercare claims to be committed to “provide leadership” on Auckland’s water issues, yet there appears to be a lack of interest in protecting this important aquifer.
The proposed Mt Eden Road quarry landfill project may result in Auckland’s aquifers becoming too contaminated to be used as a much-needed water source. Why should Auckland take that risk when industry best practice options exist to avoid it? If a natural disaster hit in Auckland – volcano or earthquake – civil defence and indeed the people of Auckland would be heavily reliant upon Auckland’s underground water resources to meet the need for drinking water. As it stands, this landfill could seriously undermine Auckland’s ability to respond to a crisis.
There were many opposed submissions to this “consent to pollute” process including a wide range of community interests whose concerns have not been addressed. Concerns include the critical water issues outlined and relating to you, but also include noise, up to 750 trucks (many of them articulated) per day carrying fill to the quarry, dust, noise and traffic management issues.
As a key stakeholder in Auckland’s water industry, I believe you have a leadership obligation to the people of Auckland to participate fully in next week’s Environment Court hearing, to ensure that whatever happens in the Mt Eden Road quarry is best practice, and that it does not subject Auckland’s underground water resources to any risk of contamination.
It is disappointing that more vocal leadership on this critical regional resource has not been forthcoming. I have also raised this issue with the Mayor and Auckland Councillors.
Please respond to this issue immediately and publicly reassure Aucklanders that this important asset will not be contaminated.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Cayford
Please note: This letter is to be copied by post to Watercare Board members.
critical underground water resources?
Mark Ford
Chief Executive
Watercare
2 Nuffield Street
Newmarket
Auckland 1023
Wednesday 2 March, 2011
Dear Mark,
I am writing to you because Watercare is responsible for providing Auckland with safe drinking water and I have recently become aware of a major issue for Auckland water supply. I am at a loss to understand how Three Kings Quarry owner, Winstone Aggregates, has been granted consent to fill the Mt Eden Road quarry, unlined and without a leachate system, with waste material that is permitted to contain elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, copper, zinc, DDT and hydrocarbons.
This site is above, and drains into, a large fresh water aquifer from which water is already drawn by some (including Auckland Zoo), and which is a back-up drinking water source for Auckland in the event of a natural disaster, such as the one we have just seen in Christchurch.
Watercare is committed to ensuring the drinking water that Auckland households, businesses and schools receive is high quality and consistently complies with the requirements of the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards. And rightly so.
I note in your 2010 Statement of Corporate Intent the following objective which has been agreed by your stakeholders: “To provide leadership within the water industry and participate in public policy initiatives and statutory submissions.”
From my reading of your involvement in this central city landfill project, you are not opposed to it. You are tacitly endorsing the establishment and operation of a contaminated landfill which everybody agrees will drain into Auckland’s freshwater aquifer system, without any systems in place to prevent contaminants leaching into Auckland’s underground water resources. This is no less than permission to pollute one of Auckland’s critical back-up water supplies.
You will be acutely aware of the leachate collection and treatment duties that have been imposed on Watercare in regard to its proposed Puketutu landfill project. I find it hard to believe that the same sort of regulation isn’t being applied to the Three Kings Quarry. Where’s the consistancy? Watercare claims to be committed to “provide leadership” on Auckland’s water issues, yet there appears to be a lack of interest in protecting this important aquifer.
The proposed Mt Eden Road quarry landfill project may result in Auckland’s aquifers becoming too contaminated to be used as a much-needed water source. Why should Auckland take that risk when industry best practice options exist to avoid it? If a natural disaster hit in Auckland – volcano or earthquake – civil defence and indeed the people of Auckland would be heavily reliant upon Auckland’s underground water resources to meet the need for drinking water. As it stands, this landfill could seriously undermine Auckland’s ability to respond to a crisis.
There were many opposed submissions to this “consent to pollute” process including a wide range of community interests whose concerns have not been addressed. Concerns include the critical water issues outlined and relating to you, but also include noise, up to 750 trucks (many of them articulated) per day carrying fill to the quarry, dust, noise and traffic management issues.
As a key stakeholder in Auckland’s water industry, I believe you have a leadership obligation to the people of Auckland to participate fully in next week’s Environment Court hearing, to ensure that whatever happens in the Mt Eden Road quarry is best practice, and that it does not subject Auckland’s underground water resources to any risk of contamination.
It is disappointing that more vocal leadership on this critical regional resource has not been forthcoming. I have also raised this issue with the Mayor and Auckland Councillors.
Please respond to this issue immediately and publicly reassure Aucklanders that this important asset will not be contaminated.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Cayford
Please note: This letter is to be copied by post to Watercare Board members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Showing posts with label Three Kings Quarry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Three Kings Quarry. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Three Kings for a Blast from the Past
|
In answer to a question from the floor it was established that the last time there had been a blast in Three Kings Quarry was 15 or 16 years ago. It struck me that this blasting provision in the district plan was a bit of a throw back - a blast from the past - that had somehow survived various reviews and plan changes and was still there, lurking, waiting to be dusted off.... Andrea cave then explained the proposed Blasting Sirens Procedure, which is apparently derived from Winstone's Quarry Management Plan. This is set out here: Once blast area has been isolated, the shot firer will: |
|
|
|
|
|
Court Decision: Three Kings Quarry Fill
On the 18th of May, 2011, Judge Smith signed the decision of the Environment Court relating to various appeals and the referred application for the proposed and disputed Fletcher Concrete & Infrastructure Ltd/Winstone Aggregates Ltd "cleanfill" at Three Kings Quarry Mt Eden.
In a nutshell, the decision upholds the original consents, grants the referred application, though all are subject to changed conditions. And there are significant changes to the conditions. Some of which raise questions which I address below.
Overall I thought it an unusual Environment Court decision. It's the first time I can recall reading an Environment Court decision that makes no, or virtually no, reference to law or case law. It has been judged and determined on the basis of material facts and expert evidence. There's at least one very good reason for that: it is a decision that will be very hard to appeal to the High Court. Environment Court decisions can only be appealed to the High Court on a point of law.
So. No points of law = Little possibility of an appeal. Interesting.
Another interesting aspect of the decision are the directions made by the court. Essentally the Judge, with his two commissioners, has redrafted the conditions that were circulated at the hearing. The redrafting reflects the Court's detailed decisions. The Court has directed that the parties to the Hearing (Winstones, Watercare Services Ltd., Envirowaste Services Ltd., Auckland Council, Three Kings United, South Epsom Planning Group, St Lukes Environment Protection Society) consider the redrafted conditions and "submit final wording" within 30 days. The court does not say how the parties will get together on this. However the court goes on to order: "if parties cannot resolve final wording", then the applicant must file "its proposed wording within a further 10 working days" and so can the other parties. "The Court will then make its final decision on the wording."
The detailed decision makes an interesting and accessible read - probably because it does not get into the black letter of the law and case law. Below I set out my more detailed notes on aspects of the decision, by decision paragraph number....
[37] acknowledges that consent conditions proposed by Matheson (Winstone's counsel) addresses a number of issue raised during the course of the hearing and we acknowledge is a significant change from the conditions of consent granted by the Council, or even those suggested in the first brief of evidence from Mr Sargeant... Thus Winstones acknowledged the need for changes in their approach in the course of the hearing. But their proposed conditions only became available in the last moments of the Environment Court hearing.
[45] Notes that it is up to Auckland Council to identify HAIL sites. (A comprehensive list of activities that carry a contamination risk is the so-called Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL), compiled by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE).) In other words the decision here is that it is ultimately up to Auckland Council to be up with the play - for all of Auckland - as to what sites have (or have not) contamination risks. The obligation falls to Council, not to Winstones, in that regard.
[46] Cites fill figures that essentially support the "dilution is the solution to pollution" argument. That there will be so much "clean" cleanfill, that almost any amount of contaminated cleanfill, won't make a difference.
[54] Peculiar discussion about no more than minimal adverse effects, and a de minimus effect which Counsel accepted... could be disregarded... (cited Mayley v Manukau City Council). No clear decision here though...
[61 - 63] deals with cleanfill. It is appropriate to include maximum concentrations for contaminants..... The only argument related to whether it had the potential to alter the chemical constitution of the groundwater to such an extent that it could have an effect on either people or the environment.
[71] ... materials that can be put in the site are ones that occur in the Auckland region, and will almost always be natural materials... we have no reason to believe that they will be atypical of the material types occurring in the region... relevant to that consideration is our conclusion that it is the mass contaminant levels of the entire fill which will have the impact, not particular loads... (This is another statement of the "dilution is the solution" paradigm.)
[72] Our reasoning for this is that possible groundwater contamination from the fill is based upon the amount of water moving through the fill and that infiltrating on the site. In addition to that moving through the fill itself are the other waters being received at the dewatering well from th4e surrounding 600 hectares. In those circumstances, the dilution of any fill leachate by other groundwater has been variously estimated by differing witnesses between 18 to over 100. Thus, any contaminant in any leachate from tjhe fill would be futher diluted... (This text raises the interesting assumption that the de-watering is to continue in perpetuity, though it was initially done to lower the water table to allow quarrying. As if de-watering is a sort of de-facto leachate collection and treatment - through dilution - system, that is then discharged to the Manukau Harbour. Further minising the risk of this leachate seeping down into, or flowing over the lip of the crater and into, the aquifers underground.)
[74] given req for pre-approval for any known HAIL risk sites, we consider that the potential for casual loads to significantly change the mass parameters are de minimis (This is really at the heart of the decision. It imposes huge load on Council to identify HAIL sites, that is the reliance.)
[76] ... nevertheless we accept there is a very small risk that gross non-compliance by contractors could escape oversight....
[81] ... our overall conclusion is that the application by its nature is one which would avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment by the utilisation of cleanfill materials... conditions avoid any potential adverse effects and give a very high level of confidence that there will be no effect on human health or the environment...
[82] ..we conclude that the application is for fill within the parameters of TP153...
[83] ... in reaching this conclusion we have assumed that the application will be... including a condition to continue water extraction from the well on-site... (This is an interesting requirement. Judge Smith talked about this during the hearing. There were vague discussions. In this decision there is an unusual take on the environment is that which is existing, an odd sort of permitted baseline. Because there is de-watering now, that is "the environment"...)
[88] Conditions section of decision... Court requires that Council is able to undertake full sampling tests at the cost to the applicant at least twice a year at random intervals. It is intended this would comprise no more than two core samples (or composite samples) for testing... (On the face of it this is a fairly dramatic intervention by the Court, but it does depend on Auckland Council acting on it. As it must on HAIL site identification for example.)
[89] Relates to condition 19, and proposes three levels of MAV% triggers and related actions. There is considerable detail in how this would work. Basically it is all based on levels of contaminants that are found in the water drawn from de-watering, and tests relate to the NZ Drinking Water standards - rather than to the level of contaminants that may be permitted in the fill that is dumped there. This approach is linked to the court's interest (but not hard out requirement) in de-watering. It is this water that will be tested for contaminants. I suspect there will be considerable room for discussion and negotiation over this between parties. (BTW, I understand the original discharge consent that permits the dewatering water pumped by Winstones from the Three Kings Quarry and piped into the Manukau Harbour - has been "lost". This consent becomes critical when it is envisaged that pipe will be used to pump leachate into the Manukau - not just relatively clean dewatering water. Where is this consent? Does it permit Winstone's to pour landfill leachate into the Manukau...?)
[90] Startling comment: we agree with those who criticise the current conditions as suggesting you can obtain resource consent for breaching the conditions of consent...!!! This led to specific decisions to ensure conditions don;t have this effect.)
[94] ... Certification by the manager is required prior to the commencement of filling (Presumably council's manager. This would serve to get Auckland Council on board. Think about things. Before certifying....)
[101] Reference to original Council decision ...provided sampling regime and methods for managing the quality of the cleanfill are rigorous then the proposal will fall within the term "cleanfill"... It is also the Auckland Council that will need to be rigorous. So much depends on it carrying out its duties...
[104] Mr Matheson tells that his client is particularly concerned about trade competition and the potential for Envirowaste to appeal the substantive decision and thus delay the implementation of the consent. Given that concern we will address the application for a general fill resource consent on its merits... (This is an extraordinary admission it seems to me.)
[137] ...consents could be combined in a single consent for controlled fill... (The court moves away from the words "cleanfill" as was suiggested by various parties, and goes with "controlled fill".)
It will be interesting to see how the parties handle this decision. In particular the way the Court has chosen to incorporate the Winstone de-watering system into an informal leachate extraction and treatment system. This must have implications for the discharge - but no-one can find that permit. Yet.
In a nutshell, the decision upholds the original consents, grants the referred application, though all are subject to changed conditions. And there are significant changes to the conditions. Some of which raise questions which I address below.
Overall I thought it an unusual Environment Court decision. It's the first time I can recall reading an Environment Court decision that makes no, or virtually no, reference to law or case law. It has been judged and determined on the basis of material facts and expert evidence. There's at least one very good reason for that: it is a decision that will be very hard to appeal to the High Court. Environment Court decisions can only be appealed to the High Court on a point of law.
So. No points of law = Little possibility of an appeal. Interesting.
Another interesting aspect of the decision are the directions made by the court. Essentally the Judge, with his two commissioners, has redrafted the conditions that were circulated at the hearing. The redrafting reflects the Court's detailed decisions. The Court has directed that the parties to the Hearing (Winstones, Watercare Services Ltd., Envirowaste Services Ltd., Auckland Council, Three Kings United, South Epsom Planning Group, St Lukes Environment Protection Society) consider the redrafted conditions and "submit final wording" within 30 days. The court does not say how the parties will get together on this. However the court goes on to order: "if parties cannot resolve final wording", then the applicant must file "its proposed wording within a further 10 working days" and so can the other parties. "The Court will then make its final decision on the wording."
The detailed decision makes an interesting and accessible read - probably because it does not get into the black letter of the law and case law. Below I set out my more detailed notes on aspects of the decision, by decision paragraph number....
[37] acknowledges that consent conditions proposed by Matheson (Winstone's counsel) addresses a number of issue raised during the course of the hearing and we acknowledge is a significant change from the conditions of consent granted by the Council, or even those suggested in the first brief of evidence from Mr Sargeant... Thus Winstones acknowledged the need for changes in their approach in the course of the hearing. But their proposed conditions only became available in the last moments of the Environment Court hearing.
[45] Notes that it is up to Auckland Council to identify HAIL sites. (A comprehensive list of activities that carry a contamination risk is the so-called Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL), compiled by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE).) In other words the decision here is that it is ultimately up to Auckland Council to be up with the play - for all of Auckland - as to what sites have (or have not) contamination risks. The obligation falls to Council, not to Winstones, in that regard.
[46] Cites fill figures that essentially support the "dilution is the solution to pollution" argument. That there will be so much "clean" cleanfill, that almost any amount of contaminated cleanfill, won't make a difference.
[54] Peculiar discussion about no more than minimal adverse effects, and a de minimus effect which Counsel accepted... could be disregarded... (cited Mayley v Manukau City Council). No clear decision here though...
[61 - 63] deals with cleanfill. It is appropriate to include maximum concentrations for contaminants..... The only argument related to whether it had the potential to alter the chemical constitution of the groundwater to such an extent that it could have an effect on either people or the environment.
[71] ... materials that can be put in the site are ones that occur in the Auckland region, and will almost always be natural materials... we have no reason to believe that they will be atypical of the material types occurring in the region... relevant to that consideration is our conclusion that it is the mass contaminant levels of the entire fill which will have the impact, not particular loads... (This is another statement of the "dilution is the solution" paradigm.)
[72] Our reasoning for this is that possible groundwater contamination from the fill is based upon the amount of water moving through the fill and that infiltrating on the site. In addition to that moving through the fill itself are the other waters being received at the dewatering well from th4e surrounding 600 hectares. In those circumstances, the dilution of any fill leachate by other groundwater has been variously estimated by differing witnesses between 18 to over 100. Thus, any contaminant in any leachate from tjhe fill would be futher diluted... (This text raises the interesting assumption that the de-watering is to continue in perpetuity, though it was initially done to lower the water table to allow quarrying. As if de-watering is a sort of de-facto leachate collection and treatment - through dilution - system, that is then discharged to the Manukau Harbour. Further minising the risk of this leachate seeping down into, or flowing over the lip of the crater and into, the aquifers underground.)
[74] given req for pre-approval for any known HAIL risk sites, we consider that the potential for casual loads to significantly change the mass parameters are de minimis (This is really at the heart of the decision. It imposes huge load on Council to identify HAIL sites, that is the reliance.)
[76] ... nevertheless we accept there is a very small risk that gross non-compliance by contractors could escape oversight....
[81] ... our overall conclusion is that the application by its nature is one which would avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment by the utilisation of cleanfill materials... conditions avoid any potential adverse effects and give a very high level of confidence that there will be no effect on human health or the environment...
[82] ..we conclude that the application is for fill within the parameters of TP153...
[83] ... in reaching this conclusion we have assumed that the application will be... including a condition to continue water extraction from the well on-site... (This is an interesting requirement. Judge Smith talked about this during the hearing. There were vague discussions. In this decision there is an unusual take on the environment is that which is existing, an odd sort of permitted baseline. Because there is de-watering now, that is "the environment"...)
[88] Conditions section of decision... Court requires that Council is able to undertake full sampling tests at the cost to the applicant at least twice a year at random intervals. It is intended this would comprise no more than two core samples (or composite samples) for testing... (On the face of it this is a fairly dramatic intervention by the Court, but it does depend on Auckland Council acting on it. As it must on HAIL site identification for example.)
[89] Relates to condition 19, and proposes three levels of MAV% triggers and related actions. There is considerable detail in how this would work. Basically it is all based on levels of contaminants that are found in the water drawn from de-watering, and tests relate to the NZ Drinking Water standards - rather than to the level of contaminants that may be permitted in the fill that is dumped there. This approach is linked to the court's interest (but not hard out requirement) in de-watering. It is this water that will be tested for contaminants. I suspect there will be considerable room for discussion and negotiation over this between parties. (BTW, I understand the original discharge consent that permits the dewatering water pumped by Winstones from the Three Kings Quarry and piped into the Manukau Harbour - has been "lost". This consent becomes critical when it is envisaged that pipe will be used to pump leachate into the Manukau - not just relatively clean dewatering water. Where is this consent? Does it permit Winstone's to pour landfill leachate into the Manukau...?)
[90] Startling comment: we agree with those who criticise the current conditions as suggesting you can obtain resource consent for breaching the conditions of consent...!!! This led to specific decisions to ensure conditions don;t have this effect.)
[94] ... Certification by the manager is required prior to the commencement of filling (Presumably council's manager. This would serve to get Auckland Council on board. Think about things. Before certifying....)
[101] Reference to original Council decision ...provided sampling regime and methods for managing the quality of the cleanfill are rigorous then the proposal will fall within the term "cleanfill"... It is also the Auckland Council that will need to be rigorous. So much depends on it carrying out its duties...
[104] Mr Matheson tells that his client is particularly concerned about trade competition and the potential for Envirowaste to appeal the substantive decision and thus delay the implementation of the consent. Given that concern we will address the application for a general fill resource consent on its merits... (This is an extraordinary admission it seems to me.)
[137] ...consents could be combined in a single consent for controlled fill... (The court moves away from the words "cleanfill" as was suiggested by various parties, and goes with "controlled fill".)
It will be interesting to see how the parties handle this decision. In particular the way the Court has chosen to incorporate the Winstone de-watering system into an informal leachate extraction and treatment system. This must have implications for the discharge - but no-one can find that permit. Yet.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Judicial Report on Three Kings Site Visit
On Friday 11th March Judge Smith and his two Commissioners (Gollop and Howie) went on a site visit. So the hearing on Friday was cut short. Judge Smith gave a comprehensive verbal report about the site visit to the Environment Court on Monday morning, 14th March. I took notes and summarise the report here:
That seemed a fairly comprehensive visit. Gives a flavour of where Judge Smith is coming from. Interesting that he takes it upon himself to advocate using a water treatment plant he finds along the way - to treat water from de-watering. And recharge the aquifer.
They started at Meola Reef, and were shown Meola Creek (he noted there were signs of sewage ingress there). Thye were advised that Meola Creek is is fed from underground gulleys and rivers, some of which start up round Three Kings. He observed that the catchment for those underground waters is many and varied – St Lukes, Sandringham Road, homes, businesses (some of which will have long gone). They were shown Bore Hole 7 – which is some 500 metres from the bottom of the Three Kings Quarry – and he noted they had been shown Bore Hole 6 which was accessible and which appeared to be much closer to the quarry itself.
Judge Smith expressed concern over their findings that at or close to Big King Reserve appeared to be contaminants stored on site by Auckland Council, at a small excavated area. (Discussion later revealed that this was leased land used previously by Parks Staff of Auckland City Council. Judge Smith was concerned to have noted what appeared to be leachates at that site, and that the floor of scoria would be permeable.
The site visit was shown the de-watering bore. The Judge noted that this was at RL –5. He asserted that he did not accept there was low permeability in the scoria around this bore. He expressed interest in the adjacent water treatment plant which appears to be unused. In his opinion it could be used to clean up the water, before returning it to the aquifer….
He noted that there were several quarry faces – some basalt, some scoria. He also noted that the Three Kings Quarry appears to have a dust supression systme in place – he noted the presence of sprinkler. He reported that he and commissioners did visit some local properties. Saw some dust.
They also went to Puketutu where they observed typical fill loads being received and processed. They saw an XRF test (this is a form of XRay and subsequent fluoresence test for various contaminants), the Judge noted that up to 30 truck loads appeared to be dumped on a skid pad. These were then mixed by the operator who scooped the results onto various parts of the landfill face. They noted the waste was mixed – concrete, asphalt, clay, soil. He noted that Puketutu was different from Three Kings – in that it is being rehabilitated for “rural pastoral purposes”.
That seemed a fairly comprehensive visit. Gives a flavour of where Judge Smith is coming from. Interesting that he takes it upon himself to advocate using a water treatment plant he finds along the way - to treat water from de-watering. And recharge the aquifer.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Garbage In = Garbage Out
There was a delightful moment in the Environment Court on Tuesday 8th March.
Dr Bellamy, who is representing the submissions of the South Epsom Planning Group, got the opportunity to cross examine one of Winstone's key expert witnesses. This was Mr Chote, who has been a senior General Manager for Winstones for several years. His evidence had been "taken as read" by Judge Smith and the two commissioners sitting with him, and all parties respresented then had the opportunity of asking Mr Chote questions about his evidence and the application.
This was day 2 of the hearing of Fletcher Construction's contested application. They want to use the Three Kings Quarry at Mt Eden as a "cleanfill" for around three million cubic metres of "fill" which they hope is permitted to contain contaminants of various kinds (DDT, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, heavy metals etc - see below) up to certain prescribed levels. The South Epsom Planning Group has raised questions about the effect of the proposed fill/cleanfill on the groundwater, and on the Auckland aquifers beneath.
Judge Smith encouraged Dr Bellamy to "go for the jugular", he encouraged Bellamy to "not beat about the bush".
So, first up, Bellamy was keen to demonstrate that his team of experts (many seem to hold positions at Auckland University), had investigated Winstone's computer model of the proposed cleanfill/landfill project. It appears they have big questions over the "permeability" the model ascribes to the fill material. Bellamy talked of it being "five orders of magnitude" in error. (In layman's terms that would mean the Winstone's model assumes fill is 100,000 times more (or less - I wasn't sure from the question) permeable, than it really is. This would make a big difference to the rate at which water would percolate through. And make a big difference to its predictions.
Mr Chote wasn't very clear in his answer, but it seems he's not the Winstone's modelling expert. That person comes later. Dr Bellamy was charitable in his explanation of his question. He beat about the bush a bit here - talked about if the model is that far wrong how can you trust its predictions.
But what I was screaming out for him to say, what the whole court must have been busting for him to say, was:
"GARBAGE IN - GARBAGE OUT".....
But he didn't. Dr Bellamy is too well behaved for that.
Pity really. It was like a metaphor for the whole thing. A sort of truth. Almost the elephant in the room. Stands to reason. If you put contaminants in a hole, you'll get contaminants out of the hole. You get back, what you put in. Unless you collect it, trap it, and treat it.
The pictures on this blog are a selection of what you find if you Google "garbage in equals garbage out".
Dr Bellamy, who is representing the submissions of the South Epsom Planning Group, got the opportunity to cross examine one of Winstone's key expert witnesses. This was Mr Chote, who has been a senior General Manager for Winstones for several years. His evidence had been "taken as read" by Judge Smith and the two commissioners sitting with him, and all parties respresented then had the opportunity of asking Mr Chote questions about his evidence and the application.
This was day 2 of the hearing of Fletcher Construction's contested application. They want to use the Three Kings Quarry at Mt Eden as a "cleanfill" for around three million cubic metres of "fill" which they hope is permitted to contain contaminants of various kinds (DDT, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, heavy metals etc - see below) up to certain prescribed levels. The South Epsom Planning Group has raised questions about the effect of the proposed fill/cleanfill on the groundwater, and on the Auckland aquifers beneath.
Judge Smith encouraged Dr Bellamy to "go for the jugular", he encouraged Bellamy to "not beat about the bush".
So, first up, Bellamy was keen to demonstrate that his team of experts (many seem to hold positions at Auckland University), had investigated Winstone's computer model of the proposed cleanfill/landfill project. It appears they have big questions over the "permeability" the model ascribes to the fill material. Bellamy talked of it being "five orders of magnitude" in error. (In layman's terms that would mean the Winstone's model assumes fill is 100,000 times more (or less - I wasn't sure from the question) permeable, than it really is. This would make a big difference to the rate at which water would percolate through. And make a big difference to its predictions.
Mr Chote wasn't very clear in his answer, but it seems he's not the Winstone's modelling expert. That person comes later. Dr Bellamy was charitable in his explanation of his question. He beat about the bush a bit here - talked about if the model is that far wrong how can you trust its predictions.
But what I was screaming out for him to say, what the whole court must have been busting for him to say, was:
"GARBAGE IN - GARBAGE OUT".....
But he didn't. Dr Bellamy is too well behaved for that.
Pity really. It was like a metaphor for the whole thing. A sort of truth. Almost the elephant in the room. Stands to reason. If you put contaminants in a hole, you'll get contaminants out of the hole. You get back, what you put in. Unless you collect it, trap it, and treat it.
The pictures on this blog are a selection of what you find if you Google "garbage in equals garbage out".
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Letter to Watercare Board and CEO
Permission to pollute one of Auckland’s
critical underground water resources?
Mark Ford
Chief Executive
Watercare
2 Nuffield Street
Newmarket
Auckland 1023
Wednesday 2 March, 2011
Dear Mark,
I am writing to you because Watercare is responsible for providing Auckland with safe drinking water and I have recently become aware of a major issue for Auckland water supply. I am at a loss to understand how Three Kings Quarry owner, Winstone Aggregates, has been granted consent to fill the Mt Eden Road quarry, unlined and without a leachate system, with waste material that is permitted to contain elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, copper, zinc, DDT and hydrocarbons.
This site is above, and drains into, a large fresh water aquifer from which water is already drawn by some (including Auckland Zoo), and which is a back-up drinking water source for Auckland in the event of a natural disaster, such as the one we have just seen in Christchurch.
Watercare is committed to ensuring the drinking water that Auckland households, businesses and schools receive is high quality and consistently complies with the requirements of the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards. And rightly so.
I note in your 2010 Statement of Corporate Intent the following objective which has been agreed by your stakeholders: “To provide leadership within the water industry and participate in public policy initiatives and statutory submissions.”
From my reading of your involvement in this central city landfill project, you are not opposed to it. You are tacitly endorsing the establishment and operation of a contaminated landfill which everybody agrees will drain into Auckland’s freshwater aquifer system, without any systems in place to prevent contaminants leaching into Auckland’s underground water resources. This is no less than permission to pollute one of Auckland’s critical back-up water supplies.
You will be acutely aware of the leachate collection and treatment duties that have been imposed on Watercare in regard to its proposed Puketutu landfill project. I find it hard to believe that the same sort of regulation isn’t being applied to the Three Kings Quarry. Where’s the consistancy? Watercare claims to be committed to “provide leadership” on Auckland’s water issues, yet there appears to be a lack of interest in protecting this important aquifer.
The proposed Mt Eden Road quarry landfill project may result in Auckland’s aquifers becoming too contaminated to be used as a much-needed water source. Why should Auckland take that risk when industry best practice options exist to avoid it? If a natural disaster hit in Auckland – volcano or earthquake – civil defence and indeed the people of Auckland would be heavily reliant upon Auckland’s underground water resources to meet the need for drinking water. As it stands, this landfill could seriously undermine Auckland’s ability to respond to a crisis.
There were many opposed submissions to this “consent to pollute” process including a wide range of community interests whose concerns have not been addressed. Concerns include the critical water issues outlined and relating to you, but also include noise, up to 750 trucks (many of them articulated) per day carrying fill to the quarry, dust, noise and traffic management issues.
As a key stakeholder in Auckland’s water industry, I believe you have a leadership obligation to the people of Auckland to participate fully in next week’s Environment Court hearing, to ensure that whatever happens in the Mt Eden Road quarry is best practice, and that it does not subject Auckland’s underground water resources to any risk of contamination.
It is disappointing that more vocal leadership on this critical regional resource has not been forthcoming. I have also raised this issue with the Mayor and Auckland Councillors.
Please respond to this issue immediately and publicly reassure Aucklanders that this important asset will not be contaminated.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Cayford
Please note: This letter is to be copied by post to Watercare Board members.
critical underground water resources?
Mark Ford
Chief Executive
Watercare
2 Nuffield Street
Newmarket
Auckland 1023
Wednesday 2 March, 2011
Dear Mark,
I am writing to you because Watercare is responsible for providing Auckland with safe drinking water and I have recently become aware of a major issue for Auckland water supply. I am at a loss to understand how Three Kings Quarry owner, Winstone Aggregates, has been granted consent to fill the Mt Eden Road quarry, unlined and without a leachate system, with waste material that is permitted to contain elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, copper, zinc, DDT and hydrocarbons.
This site is above, and drains into, a large fresh water aquifer from which water is already drawn by some (including Auckland Zoo), and which is a back-up drinking water source for Auckland in the event of a natural disaster, such as the one we have just seen in Christchurch.
Watercare is committed to ensuring the drinking water that Auckland households, businesses and schools receive is high quality and consistently complies with the requirements of the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards. And rightly so.
I note in your 2010 Statement of Corporate Intent the following objective which has been agreed by your stakeholders: “To provide leadership within the water industry and participate in public policy initiatives and statutory submissions.”
From my reading of your involvement in this central city landfill project, you are not opposed to it. You are tacitly endorsing the establishment and operation of a contaminated landfill which everybody agrees will drain into Auckland’s freshwater aquifer system, without any systems in place to prevent contaminants leaching into Auckland’s underground water resources. This is no less than permission to pollute one of Auckland’s critical back-up water supplies.
You will be acutely aware of the leachate collection and treatment duties that have been imposed on Watercare in regard to its proposed Puketutu landfill project. I find it hard to believe that the same sort of regulation isn’t being applied to the Three Kings Quarry. Where’s the consistancy? Watercare claims to be committed to “provide leadership” on Auckland’s water issues, yet there appears to be a lack of interest in protecting this important aquifer.
The proposed Mt Eden Road quarry landfill project may result in Auckland’s aquifers becoming too contaminated to be used as a much-needed water source. Why should Auckland take that risk when industry best practice options exist to avoid it? If a natural disaster hit in Auckland – volcano or earthquake – civil defence and indeed the people of Auckland would be heavily reliant upon Auckland’s underground water resources to meet the need for drinking water. As it stands, this landfill could seriously undermine Auckland’s ability to respond to a crisis.
There were many opposed submissions to this “consent to pollute” process including a wide range of community interests whose concerns have not been addressed. Concerns include the critical water issues outlined and relating to you, but also include noise, up to 750 trucks (many of them articulated) per day carrying fill to the quarry, dust, noise and traffic management issues.
As a key stakeholder in Auckland’s water industry, I believe you have a leadership obligation to the people of Auckland to participate fully in next week’s Environment Court hearing, to ensure that whatever happens in the Mt Eden Road quarry is best practice, and that it does not subject Auckland’s underground water resources to any risk of contamination.
It is disappointing that more vocal leadership on this critical regional resource has not been forthcoming. I have also raised this issue with the Mayor and Auckland Councillors.
Please respond to this issue immediately and publicly reassure Aucklanders that this important asset will not be contaminated.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Cayford
Please note: This letter is to be copied by post to Watercare Board members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
