|
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 Winstone Aggregates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Winstone Aggregates. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Three Kings for a Blast from the Past
Thursday, March 17, 2011
The Evidence For/Against Three Kings Quarry "Cleanfill"
Today's Thursday 17th March. If all goes according to plan legal counsel for Fletchers Infrastructure/Winstone Aggregates will complete the two week Environment Court hearing of its application to use Three Kings Quarry as a cleanfill/managed fill, by delivering the right of reply. I will report later on further developments.
But for now, I thought I would provide you with copies of evidence that has been provided to the Environment Court by various experts and parties to the hearing. Links to selected evidence files are later on below in this blog.
In a hearing of this size, complexity and challenge - there is vast amounts of paper, and it is beyond my resources to make all of it available here. Or even a small proportion of it. Every affidavit is rebutted by those who disagree with it for example. All of this material is available to the Court. The Judge and Commissioners indicate they have either read it all, or they have heard it. And of course witnesses have been cross-examined in Court.
My main interest in this matter has been its potential effect on Auckland's Underground water resources and aquifers. There are other issues of significance including traffic effects, dust effects and so on. However I have concentrated on groundwater effects. So, here's some written evidence that is primarily around that issue. There are many documents other than these....
For Fletchers Infrastructure/Winstone Aggregates
Bernie Chote (General Manager)
Mr Burden (Geo Chemist, expert in environmental effects of landfills)
Mr Harding (Hydrogeologist and computer modeller of groundwater effects)
For Envirowaste Services
Mr Parker (Engineer, expert on Australian landfill policy and management)
Mr Mitchell (Engineer and Planner, expert in environmental effects and RMA)
Mr Northcott (Chemist, NIWA experience, expert in organochlorines in environment)
For Auckland Council
Mr Stapleton (GeoEnvironmental Engineer, expert in soil and landfill processes)
Local Submissions for South Epsom Planning Group
Pip Mules (Local resident)
Garry Law (Engineer and Manager Water systems, expert in water resource management)
Mr Triggs (Professor of Statistics at Auckland University)
Watercare Services Ltd
Mr Widdowson (GeoScientist at BECAs, expert in groundwater monitoring & risk assessment)
These are my selection. They are indicative. Happy reading.
But for now, I thought I would provide you with copies of evidence that has been provided to the Environment Court by various experts and parties to the hearing. Links to selected evidence files are later on below in this blog.
In a hearing of this size, complexity and challenge - there is vast amounts of paper, and it is beyond my resources to make all of it available here. Or even a small proportion of it. Every affidavit is rebutted by those who disagree with it for example. All of this material is available to the Court. The Judge and Commissioners indicate they have either read it all, or they have heard it. And of course witnesses have been cross-examined in Court.
My main interest in this matter has been its potential effect on Auckland's Underground water resources and aquifers. There are other issues of significance including traffic effects, dust effects and so on. However I have concentrated on groundwater effects. So, here's some written evidence that is primarily around that issue. There are many documents other than these....
For Fletchers Infrastructure/Winstone Aggregates
Bernie Chote (General Manager)
Mr Burden (Geo Chemist, expert in environmental effects of landfills)
Mr Harding (Hydrogeologist and computer modeller of groundwater effects)
For Envirowaste Services
Mr Parker (Engineer, expert on Australian landfill policy and management)
Mr Mitchell (Engineer and Planner, expert in environmental effects and RMA)
Mr Northcott (Chemist, NIWA experience, expert in organochlorines in environment)
For Auckland Council
Mr Stapleton (GeoEnvironmental Engineer, expert in soil and landfill processes)
Local Submissions for South Epsom Planning Group
Pip Mules (Local resident)
Garry Law (Engineer and Manager Water systems, expert in water resource management)
Mr Triggs (Professor of Statistics at Auckland University)
Watercare Services Ltd
Mr Widdowson (GeoScientist at BECAs, expert in groundwater monitoring & risk assessment)
These are my selection. They are indicative. Happy reading.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
How can a Blogger avoid Contempt of Court?
So there I was in the Environment Court this morning. Tuesday 15th March. And the Court was halfway through cross-examination of Mr Dolan who is an Envirowaste Services Ltd (ESL) expert witness. The day started with no house-keeping matters. Straight into cross examination of Dolan by Matheson – who is Fletcher’s/Winstone Aggregates legal counsel.
I took heaps of notes because the questions and answers were really interesting. But because I had missed some of the day before, I hadn’t totally caught up with the fact that the court room seemed rather empty. Nor why.
Then it dawned. The other ESL expert witnesses had been ordered from the Court by Judge Smith. They were not allowed to hear the questions being asked of the witnesses, nor their answers. And they were ordered not to talk among themselves at other times.
“What if they read my blog?” - I thought. Quite a few do, there’s a lot pf public interest, and I have set up a FaceBook page....
"What if I report the questions and answers – because I think it is in the public interest?"
"There has been no guidance from the Judge. I am a sort of informal reporter...."
There has been no ruling that media be excluded from the Court.
So here's a taste. WA’s lawyer cross examined Dolan:
Judge Smith then reminded Dolan, “you are Person ‘A’. Person ‘A’ must not talk with Person ‘C’. (BTW – you can see a little more about this part of the RMA – s.308 - in a recent blog below.)
Kirkpatrick again got to his feet and submitted, “....this does not stop communications between parties…”
I will stop there. Just wanted to give you a flavour.
Who says the Environment Court's not adversarial?
I took heaps of notes because the questions and answers were really interesting. But because I had missed some of the day before, I hadn’t totally caught up with the fact that the court room seemed rather empty. Nor why.
Then it dawned. The other ESL expert witnesses had been ordered from the Court by Judge Smith. They were not allowed to hear the questions being asked of the witnesses, nor their answers. And they were ordered not to talk among themselves at other times.
“What if they read my blog?” - I thought. Quite a few do, there’s a lot pf public interest, and I have set up a FaceBook page....
"What if I report the questions and answers – because I think it is in the public interest?"
"There has been no guidance from the Judge. I am a sort of informal reporter...."
There has been no ruling that media be excluded from the Court.
So here's a taste. WA’s lawyer cross examined Dolan:
Q: Who instructed you?Judge Smith got interested then:
A: It was verbal. Mr Lobb.
Q: Not in writing?
A: No.
Q: What did he say to you, and when?…
Q: How did you report to Mr Lobb?Judge Smith wanted to know why specific emails were not to hand, and persisted:
A: …
Q: You said you would look in your files.
A: I drafted a submission for Mr Lobb.
Q: Did you sign it?
A: No. Someone else signed it….
Q: You were asked – I know I didn’t order you – you said you would – I didn’t think I had to - to bring all ESL files with you today. What have you brought and not brought?And later, after Dolan spoke of mediation meetings with Watercare and with South Epsom Planning Group, Judge Smith asked:
A: Sorry your honour...
Q: …..were you aware that were statutorily barred from getting involved with a Third Party…?At this point Kirkpatrick, legal counsel for ESL stood up and submitted: “there is no basis for that question…”.
Judge Smith then reminded Dolan, “you are Person ‘A’. Person ‘A’ must not talk with Person ‘C’. (BTW – you can see a little more about this part of the RMA – s.308 - in a recent blog below.)
Kirkpatrick again got to his feet and submitted, “....this does not stop communications between parties…”
I will stop there. Just wanted to give you a flavour.
Who says the Environment Court's not adversarial?
"Why is Envirowaste Here?"
This question was posed by Judge Smith several times on Monday. He asked David Kirkpatrick – legal counsel for Envirowaste Services Ltd – “I want to know why you are here….”
He went on, “these are dangerous waters for a trade competitor….”
First, a little legislative background. The Resource Management Act was changed a year and a half ago by an unusual provision of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009. This provision was put in to deal with what has been known as “SuperMarket Wars”. Parliament did not want the RMA (or the Environment Court) to be the place where trade competition wars were fought.
The bits of the new RMA that are of interest go like this:
So. You get the picture. In this situation, we might say that Person B is Fletchers/Winstone Aggregates, Person A might be Envirowaste Services Ltd (ESL), and Person C might be anyone else who might appeal or be a s.274 party to the appeal (like Watercare). The law goes on….
This is where it gets interesting and intriguing. And this is what Judge Smith was concerned about, as David Kirkpatrick swung into action for ESL. What makes this intriguing is that there are three related applications at issue for the Environment Court – two were applied for before August 2009, and the application to discharge contaminants to water was made after August 2009 (ie after s.308 came into force), and was referred directly to the Environment Court.
So ESL cannot fall foul of this new law in regard to part of the hearing, but it could, potentially, in regard to the part that deals with discharges to water. The rest of the RMA law relating to s.308 (Act not to be used to oppose trade competitors), is fairly draconian. Costs can be sought in the High Court if the Environment Court declares Person A contravened the Act, and matters can be brought to court up to 6 years after the alleged contravention. All a bit of worry for an organisation like ESL, or anyone else caught by these provisions for that matter.
In its legal submissions ESL said this on Monday morning:
I will stop this blog about here – so it is manageable. But before I do so, I will record other related events that occurred at the hearing.
As Mr Kirkpatrick came to the end of his opening submissions for ESL, Judge Smith intervened. He appeared concerned that ESL’s expert witnesses might not be independent. Kirkpatrick noted that that issue or concern could be levelled at almost any expert witness in an Environment Court hearing. (I note here that someone pays the bills of all expert witnesses, and there is always the cynical view, but understandeable view, that he who pays the bill calls the tune…).
Judge Smith agreed with Kirkpatrick's comment saying, “yes, and it’s an issue the Court is not happy with…”
Judge Smith continued that he believed it appropriate to exclude ESL’s witnesses from the court, so they could not hear what was being said, or what questions were asked of other ESL expert witnesses cross examined before it was their turn.
Judge Smith also ruled that ESL witnesses should not discuss the matter with each other outside Court.
This was a dramatic day.
He went on, “these are dangerous waters for a trade competitor….”
First, a little legislative background. The Resource Management Act was changed a year and a half ago by an unusual provision of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009. This provision was put in to deal with what has been known as “SuperMarket Wars”. Parliament did not want the RMA (or the Environment Court) to be the place where trade competition wars were fought.
The bits of the new RMA that are of interest go like this:
308A Identification of trade competitors and surrogates
In this Part,—
(a) person A means a person who is a trade competitor of person B:
(b) person B means the person of whom person A is a trade competitor:
(c) person C means a person who has knowingly received, is knowingly receiving, or may knowingly receive direct or indirect help from person A to bring an appeal or be a party to an appeal against a decision under this Act in favour of person B.
So. You get the picture. In this situation, we might say that Person B is Fletchers/Winstone Aggregates, Person A might be Envirowaste Services Ltd (ESL), and Person C might be anyone else who might appeal or be a s.274 party to the appeal (like Watercare). The law goes on….
308 B Limit on making submissions
(1) Subsection (2) applies when person A wants to make a submission under section 96 about an application by person B.
(2) Person A may make the submission only if directly affected by an effect of the activity to which the application relates, that—
(a) adversely affects the environment; and
(b) does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition.
(3) Failure to comply with the limits on submissions set in section 149E or 149O or clause 6(4) or 29(1B) of Schedule 1 is a contravention of this Part.
This is where it gets interesting and intriguing. And this is what Judge Smith was concerned about, as David Kirkpatrick swung into action for ESL. What makes this intriguing is that there are three related applications at issue for the Environment Court – two were applied for before August 2009, and the application to discharge contaminants to water was made after August 2009 (ie after s.308 came into force), and was referred directly to the Environment Court.
So ESL cannot fall foul of this new law in regard to part of the hearing, but it could, potentially, in regard to the part that deals with discharges to water. The rest of the RMA law relating to s.308 (Act not to be used to oppose trade competitors), is fairly draconian. Costs can be sought in the High Court if the Environment Court declares Person A contravened the Act, and matters can be brought to court up to 6 years after the alleged contravention. All a bit of worry for an organisation like ESL, or anyone else caught by these provisions for that matter.
In its legal submissions ESL said this on Monday morning:
7.1 ESL is a large national waste management company. Serving the Auckland region it operates the Hampton Downs Sanitary landfill and the Greenmount Closed landfill at which it is soon to complete final cover works through the placement of fill. ESL acknowledges (and has done so from the start), that as a consequence of these particular commercial activities it is a trade competitor of WA, who operates the cleanfill and fill operations at Wiri North and Puketutu Island (former quarries)….
7.3 ….ESL denies that its participation in these proceedings raises issues of trade competition…. ESL is concerned trhat consents for “cleanfill” should not be granted where what is to occur is not a cleanfill…
7.6 ….ESL is concerned: to ensure the integrity of the regional planning framework for the management of landfills, and in particular cleanfills. In doing so, it simply wishes to maintain the level of the “playing field” being used by solid waste disposers in the Auckland region….
7.7 ….if, due to locational advantages or technical superiority, a more profitable landfill can be set up, then that is the market at work. But, this has to be on the proviso that they can also maintain the accepted level of environmental protection for such activities….
I will stop this blog about here – so it is manageable. But before I do so, I will record other related events that occurred at the hearing.
As Mr Kirkpatrick came to the end of his opening submissions for ESL, Judge Smith intervened. He appeared concerned that ESL’s expert witnesses might not be independent. Kirkpatrick noted that that issue or concern could be levelled at almost any expert witness in an Environment Court hearing. (I note here that someone pays the bills of all expert witnesses, and there is always the cynical view, but understandeable view, that he who pays the bill calls the tune…).
Judge Smith agreed with Kirkpatrick's comment saying, “yes, and it’s an issue the Court is not happy with…”
Judge Smith continued that he believed it appropriate to exclude ESL’s witnesses from the court, so they could not hear what was being said, or what questions were asked of other ESL expert witnesses cross examined before it was their turn.
Judge Smith also ruled that ESL witnesses should not discuss the matter with each other outside Court.
This was a dramatic day.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Fletcher’s/Winstone Aggregates History of Denial
The thing about Environment Court hearings is there’s lots of time to chat. You gather before a hearing day, morning tea, lunchtime. And you get the gossip. It has been an opportunity for me hear Dick Bellamy’s side of the Three Kings Quarry story – which goes back a long way. Over thirty years.
The first story he told me about was dust. When the quarry was fairly shallow, he says he could regularly see from his house a D9 bulldozer sitting on top of a pile of scoria. Not sure what it was doing there. And then scoria would be tipped into a stone crusher and plumes of scoria dust would blow into the air, and with a reasonable wind, it would blow over houses in the neighbourhood. So that was a big issue for the locals. Dr Bellamy tried to do something about it. Winstone’s denied that the dust coating the good painted weatherboard homes of Mt Eden was from its operation.
So Dr bellamy carefull took samples of the dust from the houses, and – presumably late at night – scampered down to the quarry and scraped some scoria dust off the stone crusher – and took the samples into his mates at Auckland University. They tested both samples and confirmed they were from the same source.
And when confronted with this evidence, Winstone’s claimed that because the roads on the vicinity had been re-surfaced (good old chip seal I guess) with scoria from its quarry (it claimed), then the motorists using the roads had caused the dust.
Man oh man.
Then, Dr Bellamy explained, came the de-watering. Residents had hoped that when the quarry got down to the water table, quarrying would stop. But Winstone’s applied to de-water the quarry so it could dig deeper. It wanted to dig down much further and get out more scoria. By now residents had succeeded in preventing Winstones from mining basalt – very hard and tough – needed explosives, caused vibration and ground shaking. Dr Bellamy was among the residents who took Winstone’s to task over this. They were concerned about the effects of subsidence. When land is de-watered, certain geologies will shrink, causing subsidence. He explained to me this was because there are old river valleys underneath Auckland’s recent volcanic rocks. These are sedimentary and prone to shrink when de-watered. However it appears that Winstone’s again denied such things would happen. Would never happen.
But there has been subsidence Dr Bellamy confirmed. Not a lot, but it has occurred, in contradiction to Winstone’s firm view. Presumably supported by it experts.
So now we have another denial. This denial is that the contaminants from permitted contaminated fill, will not get into the groundwaters, and will not get into Auckland’s aquifers.
Man oh man.
The first story he told me about was dust. When the quarry was fairly shallow, he says he could regularly see from his house a D9 bulldozer sitting on top of a pile of scoria. Not sure what it was doing there. And then scoria would be tipped into a stone crusher and plumes of scoria dust would blow into the air, and with a reasonable wind, it would blow over houses in the neighbourhood. So that was a big issue for the locals. Dr Bellamy tried to do something about it. Winstone’s denied that the dust coating the good painted weatherboard homes of Mt Eden was from its operation.
So Dr bellamy carefull took samples of the dust from the houses, and – presumably late at night – scampered down to the quarry and scraped some scoria dust off the stone crusher – and took the samples into his mates at Auckland University. They tested both samples and confirmed they were from the same source.
And when confronted with this evidence, Winstone’s claimed that because the roads on the vicinity had been re-surfaced (good old chip seal I guess) with scoria from its quarry (it claimed), then the motorists using the roads had caused the dust.
Man oh man.
Then, Dr Bellamy explained, came the de-watering. Residents had hoped that when the quarry got down to the water table, quarrying would stop. But Winstone’s applied to de-water the quarry so it could dig deeper. It wanted to dig down much further and get out more scoria. By now residents had succeeded in preventing Winstones from mining basalt – very hard and tough – needed explosives, caused vibration and ground shaking. Dr Bellamy was among the residents who took Winstone’s to task over this. They were concerned about the effects of subsidence. When land is de-watered, certain geologies will shrink, causing subsidence. He explained to me this was because there are old river valleys underneath Auckland’s recent volcanic rocks. These are sedimentary and prone to shrink when de-watered. However it appears that Winstone’s again denied such things would happen. Would never happen.
But there has been subsidence Dr Bellamy confirmed. Not a lot, but it has occurred, in contradiction to Winstone’s firm view. Presumably supported by it experts.
So now we have another denial. This denial is that the contaminants from permitted contaminated fill, will not get into the groundwaters, and will not get into Auckland’s aquifers.
Man oh man.
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".
Monday, March 7, 2011
Steps toward a Permit to Pollute (2)
Today I attended the start of the Environment Court hearing of appeals and a directly referred application relating to the Three Kings Quarry landfill/"cleanfill"/fill application of Winstone Aggregates (division of Fletcher Concrete and Infrastructure Ltd), and Envirowaste Services, and Auckland Council (formerly Auckland City Council and ARC). Other submitters were present (see below). They are s.274 parties to the appeal.
The hearing (Monday 7th March) took place in an Environment Court hearing room on the 8th Floor of the Court buildings in Albert Street. The room was pretty much packed. I counted seven lawyers/barristers/QCs. There were representatives there from the main parties mentioned above, plus from Watercare, Three Kings United Group, South Epsom Planning Group, and St Lukes Environmental Protection Inc.
Justice Smith was on the bench supported by Commissioner Gollop and Commissioner Howie (I think it was). There was some initial discussion about Memoranda that had been flying around. And some discussion about the timetable. It appears that Winstone Aggregate's evidence and application may take till Friday, then Auckland Council's evidence will be heard (they have 4 witnesses), then Watercare and the other submitters.
I will skip the detail of this, and quote some interesting material from the opening legal submissions which were made on behalf of Winstone Aggregates. Their legal advice is coming from Russell McVeagh. These submissions took up over forty pages. Here are some interesting extracts:
So. You get the drift. What I did learn from the submissions was this: No water discharge consent has been issued by the old regulator - the ARC. It turns out that the Winstone application to discharge contaminants to water - the one referred to in the posting: Steps Toward Permit to Pollute (1) and which was notified in 8th April 2010 - was not dealt with by the ARC as regulator.
Instead it was referred to the Environment Court for hearing and decision.
It appears that Sections 87C to 87I of the RMA allow applicants to make a request to the council for resource consent applications to be decided by the Environment Court instead of by the council. It appears that the ARC may have objected to this, and the applicant then appealed that objection to the Environment Court, which decided that the appeals to the original consents, and the new application to discharge contaminants to water, would all be heard together by the Environment Court.
It means that the issues to do with water, aquifers, groundwater and so on, as they relate to Winstone Aggregate's application for consent to discharge contaminants to groundwater (and so to aquifers) will be properly heard for the first time by this Environment Court.
So. That was interesting and important to understand.
Along the way, while these opening submissions were being read out by Winstone's counsel, there were some interesting discussions generally triggered by questions from the Bench. I don't want to upset the Court, so I won't attribute any of these remarks, but it is interesting to record some of the discussion points that arose.
Looks like an interesting and very important hearing.
The hearing (Monday 7th March) took place in an Environment Court hearing room on the 8th Floor of the Court buildings in Albert Street. The room was pretty much packed. I counted seven lawyers/barristers/QCs. There were representatives there from the main parties mentioned above, plus from Watercare, Three Kings United Group, South Epsom Planning Group, and St Lukes Environmental Protection Inc.
Justice Smith was on the bench supported by Commissioner Gollop and Commissioner Howie (I think it was). There was some initial discussion about Memoranda that had been flying around. And some discussion about the timetable. It appears that Winstone Aggregate's evidence and application may take till Friday, then Auckland Council's evidence will be heard (they have 4 witnesses), then Watercare and the other submitters.
I will skip the detail of this, and quote some interesting material from the opening legal submissions which were made on behalf of Winstone Aggregates. Their legal advice is coming from Russell McVeagh. These submissions took up over forty pages. Here are some interesting extracts:
1.8 Winstone has continually been assured by its independent experts that its proposal will result in no adverse effects on the environment, but in an effort to assuage community concerns it has volunteered yet more consent conditions which go far beyond the usual expectations for an application of this kind...
1.9 This is in stark contrast to the behaviour of Envirowaste Services Ltd (ESL). As both the the primary opponent of Winstone's Proposal and its trade competitor, ESL has from the outset sought to frustrate the consenting process for Winstone. ESL has worked actively to gather opposition to Winstone's Proposal, and has generally behaved in an anti-competitive way, despite Parliament's disapproval of such behaviour.
....
1.11 Winstone is and always has been willing to accept appropriate conditions that will avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects. What Winstone does not accept is ESL's argument that Winstone's operation should be restricted by conditions so as to ensure that it has virtually no effects.... the approach seems to be a repeated lobbing of mud in the hope that some sticks.
1.12 Leaving ESL aside, Winstone accepts that there are several community groups who have a long history of being involved in various RMA processes relating to Three Kings Quarry.... The only other party, Water Services Ltd, has recently confirmed that it is happy with the consent conditions as proposed. Unlike ESL, Watercare was prepared to engage on the substance of the issue, and its independent advisor undertook his own analysis, and agreement was able to be reached between the experts as to what conditions were appropriate to ensure that, if ever required, the Three Kings aquifer would be available for the supply of potable water. (There is something decidedly farcical about a trade competitor, ESL, alleging adverse effects on future groundwater supplies, while at the same time the regional water provider, Watercare, is confirming it is generally comfortable with the proposed consent conditions.)
....
1.28 Reduced to its most fundamental issue, this case is about what level of contamination should be permitted in the proposed fill for the Three Kings Quarry. Contrary to allegations made by some parties, what is proposed is not a landfill, and the consent conditions clearly set out the type of material that can be deposited at the Three Kings Quarry....
....
3.2 ...legal issues to be commented on are:.... should management plans required by consent conditions be subject to "approval" by the consent authority, or is the consent authority's role limited to one of "certification"? (This is the sole issue remaining in dispute between Winstone and Auckland Council).
So. You get the drift. What I did learn from the submissions was this: No water discharge consent has been issued by the old regulator - the ARC. It turns out that the Winstone application to discharge contaminants to water - the one referred to in the posting: Steps Toward Permit to Pollute (1) and which was notified in 8th April 2010 - was not dealt with by the ARC as regulator.
Instead it was referred to the Environment Court for hearing and decision.
It appears that Sections 87C to 87I of the RMA allow applicants to make a request to the council for resource consent applications to be decided by the Environment Court instead of by the council. It appears that the ARC may have objected to this, and the applicant then appealed that objection to the Environment Court, which decided that the appeals to the original consents, and the new application to discharge contaminants to water, would all be heard together by the Environment Court.
It means that the issues to do with water, aquifers, groundwater and so on, as they relate to Winstone Aggregate's application for consent to discharge contaminants to groundwater (and so to aquifers) will be properly heard for the first time by this Environment Court.
So. That was interesting and important to understand.
Along the way, while these opening submissions were being read out by Winstone's counsel, there were some interesting discussions generally triggered by questions from the Bench. I don't want to upset the Court, so I won't attribute any of these remarks, but it is interesting to record some of the discussion points that arose.
"What are the effects? Groundwater effects - possible contamination. Including potential effects? Are they low risk, high impact? What does "minor" mean - if we are talking about effects. Is that a good test...?"
"There is an issue that Winstone Aggregates is resisting Envirowaste's ability to cross examine Watercare's experts.... EW is barred by statute in respect to the matter of trade competition...."
"Is there an option of just leaving the quarry empty. Let it fill up with water....?"
"What type of material could be disposed of. Concrete is mentioned. But it contains reinforcing steel... what about that? If you can slip contaminated material into a load of cleanfill - that would be much cheaper than paying $200/tonne at a landfill - but you only check 1 truck in every 150. You might intend a result, but it needs to be a reality...."
"Keen on the contract for the Waterview project. They are reliable. Reliable cleanfill. But what about others....?"
Looks like an interesting and very important hearing.
Reply from Mark Ford at Watercare
It was good to get a robust reply from Watercare today, in response to my letter to Watercare posted below at: Letter to Watercare Board and CEO
The letter to me from Mark Ford, (Watercare's CEO) is dated 7th March 2011, and says this:
What is interesting though, is that no water discharge consent has been issued, despite what this letter says. Not even by the old regulator - the ARC. It was only after today in the Environment Court that I understood that the Winstone application to discharge contaminants to water - the one referred to in the posting: Steps Toward Permit to Pollute (1) and which was notified in 8th April 2010 - was not dealt with by the ARC as regulator.
Instead it was referred to the Environment Court for hearing and decision.
It appears that Sections 87C to 87I of the RMA allow applicants to make a request to the council for resource consent applications to be decided by the Environment Court instead of by the council. It appears that the ARC may have objected to this, and the applicant then appealed that objection to the Environment Court, which decided that the appeals to the original consents, and the new application to discharge contaminants to water, would all be heard together by the Environment Court.
Interesting. So it essentially means that Watercare's new expert evidence (described above in Mr Ford's letter) can form part of the Env Court hearing of the application to discharge contaminants to water. Which will be for the first time.
The letter to me from Mark Ford, (Watercare's CEO) is dated 7th March 2011, and says this:
Dear Dr Cayford,So. That's a good letter. I know Watercare is not the statutory regulator, but it is often the font of wisdom when it comes to water, so it's good that it has added to its knowledge by getting some expert information.
Thank you for your recent letter. Watercare's interest in this issue is limited to the water-related aspects.
As you will be aware, Watercare takes its responsibilities for water quality very seriously. That's why - although we are not the statutory regulator - we commissioned expert opinion in this area.
To be clear on this, Watercare did not issue the consent. We have, however seized the opportunity to submit stringent conditions as the applicant sought to alter the quality of the fill.
Without getting into issues currently before the court, I'm advised that the consent conditions relating to water which are now proposed, are much more stringent than those proposed by the former regulator. You may well be familiar with those given your historical association with the former ARC.
If you want any further information on this matter beyond the documents available through the court, I suggest you make direct contact with the applicant or the regulator if you haven't already done so.
Yours sincerely,
KM Ford
Chief Executive
What is interesting though, is that no water discharge consent has been issued, despite what this letter says. Not even by the old regulator - the ARC. It was only after today in the Environment Court that I understood that the Winstone application to discharge contaminants to water - the one referred to in the posting: Steps Toward Permit to Pollute (1) and which was notified in 8th April 2010 - was not dealt with by the ARC as regulator.
Instead it was referred to the Environment Court for hearing and decision.
It appears that Sections 87C to 87I of the RMA allow applicants to make a request to the council for resource consent applications to be decided by the Environment Court instead of by the council. It appears that the ARC may have objected to this, and the applicant then appealed that objection to the Environment Court, which decided that the appeals to the original consents, and the new application to discharge contaminants to water, would all be heard together by the Environment Court.
Interesting. So it essentially means that Watercare's new expert evidence (described above in Mr Ford's letter) can form part of the Env Court hearing of the application to discharge contaminants to water. Which will be for the first time.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Steps toward a Permit to Pollute (1)
I have written to Auckland Councillors and to Watercare (see below) stating that I am at a loss to understand how Winstone Aggregates obtained consent to dump “cleanfill” with elevated levels of contaminants in the Three Kings Quarry.
In this blog I explore the ARC officer’s report which formed the basis of commissioner decisions made late 2010. The report is dated 3 June 2010. You can download it here.
It appears that Winstone Aggregates first sought consent from Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council in 2009. A Joint Hearing was conducted in late October, early November 2009. Winstone Aggregates required a land use consent from Auckland City Council (change of land use, truck movements etc), and two resource consents from ARC. One of these permits (36221) relates to earthworks on the 14 ha site. The other is a permit (36222) to discharge contaminants onto or into land from a cleanfill. These permits were granted subject to conditions.
Then – and this is where it gets a bit murky – in Winstone Aggregates applied for a further consent from ARC. This was notified in 8th April 2010. This new permit (37770) appears to differ from 36222 (granted in 2009) in one crucial respect.
36222 related to the discharge of contaminants onto or into land from a cleanfill, whereas 37770 relates to the discharge of contaminants to land and / or water from a filling operation.
It appears therefore, that someone, somewhere, recognised belatedly that additional consent was required for the discharge of contaminated water. This appears to have been because some of the cleanfill: “may have contaminants above the natural background levels occurring at the site. The applicant indicated that typically this will be the case for about 15-20% of the materials received and the elevated concentrations in these materials will be about 20-25% high than natural background levels…”
The officer’s report relating to the new resource application contains the following information. And I quote:
6.6 The groundwater quality at the Three Kings Quarry dewatering bore is monitored on a regular basis…. The water is of potable quality…
12.1 Fill materials will be brought to the site in accordance with acceptance levels… based on levels that accord with the upper limit of the volcanic range for soil background levels throughout Auckland Region…. However it is noted that the actual background levels at Three Kings are lower or much lower than the upper volcanic levels throughout the Auckland Region….
12.3.5.2 The leaching of contamination from the materials used to fill the quarry has the potential to impact on the groundwater quality…
12.3.9.2 Groundwater modelling was carried out…. Based on all scenarios the final groundwater concentrations pf the majority of trace elements, for example, arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, nickel, lead and zinc, were lower than respective NZ drinking water maximum allowable values… the only exception to this was copper, with concentrations slightl exceeding… the trigger value, and this was caused by slightly elevated copper levels that are already present in existing groundwater concentrations.
There is no discussion in the report of the impact of these changes to groundwater on the aquifers that these groundwaters reccharge. There is a clear statement that copper levels are already elevated. This is the tip of the iceberg of cumulative pollution to aquifers. It is always the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. Just as the last dairy farm kills the river – even though by itself its adverse effects are said to be “less than minor”.
Auckland should not be condoning - in any shape or form - activities which permit new contaminants to add to the contaminant loading already building in our underground water resources. It has to be stopped.
And before this blog gets out of hand I will note some of the conditions attached to the permit that was granted. My understanding is that conditions should be meaningful and enforceable. Yet here ARC essentially allows Winstone Aggregates to carry out their own tests on test waters, to only check 1 in every 150 truckloads of fill dumped there, and to run the landfill without a liner (as there is in other major landfills around Auckland), and without a leachate collection system.
This is a bad joke for Auckland. Amounting to a permit to pollute.
In this blog I explore the ARC officer’s report which formed the basis of commissioner decisions made late 2010. The report is dated 3 June 2010. You can download it here.
It appears that Winstone Aggregates first sought consent from Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council in 2009. A Joint Hearing was conducted in late October, early November 2009. Winstone Aggregates required a land use consent from Auckland City Council (change of land use, truck movements etc), and two resource consents from ARC. One of these permits (36221) relates to earthworks on the 14 ha site. The other is a permit (36222) to discharge contaminants onto or into land from a cleanfill. These permits were granted subject to conditions.
Then – and this is where it gets a bit murky – in Winstone Aggregates applied for a further consent from ARC. This was notified in 8th April 2010. This new permit (37770) appears to differ from 36222 (granted in 2009) in one crucial respect.
36222 related to the discharge of contaminants onto or into land from a cleanfill, whereas 37770 relates to the discharge of contaminants to land and / or water from a filling operation.
It appears therefore, that someone, somewhere, recognised belatedly that additional consent was required for the discharge of contaminated water. This appears to have been because some of the cleanfill: “may have contaminants above the natural background levels occurring at the site. The applicant indicated that typically this will be the case for about 15-20% of the materials received and the elevated concentrations in these materials will be about 20-25% high than natural background levels…”
The officer’s report relating to the new resource application contains the following information. And I quote:
6.6 The groundwater quality at the Three Kings Quarry dewatering bore is monitored on a regular basis…. The water is of potable quality…
12.1 Fill materials will be brought to the site in accordance with acceptance levels… based on levels that accord with the upper limit of the volcanic range for soil background levels throughout Auckland Region…. However it is noted that the actual background levels at Three Kings are lower or much lower than the upper volcanic levels throughout the Auckland Region….
12.3.5.2 The leaching of contamination from the materials used to fill the quarry has the potential to impact on the groundwater quality…
 Table 4. Fill Acceptance concentration (Part 1). These are scans from the report. |
 Table 4. Fill Acceptance concentration (Part 2). TPH by the way are hydrocarbons. The way I read this it appears that up to 5,600 mg/kg can be dumped. Not sure how that works. That's more than 5 grams per kilogram. So more than .5% of hydrocarbons allowed. Almost enough to establish an oil well! |
There is no discussion in the report of the impact of these changes to groundwater on the aquifers that these groundwaters reccharge. There is a clear statement that copper levels are already elevated. This is the tip of the iceberg of cumulative pollution to aquifers. It is always the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. Just as the last dairy farm kills the river – even though by itself its adverse effects are said to be “less than minor”.
Auckland should not be condoning - in any shape or form - activities which permit new contaminants to add to the contaminant loading already building in our underground water resources. It has to be stopped.
And before this blog gets out of hand I will note some of the conditions attached to the permit that was granted. My understanding is that conditions should be meaningful and enforceable. Yet here ARC essentially allows Winstone Aggregates to carry out their own tests on test waters, to only check 1 in every 150 truckloads of fill dumped there, and to run the landfill without a liner (as there is in other major landfills around Auckland), and without a leachate collection system.
This is a bad joke for Auckland. Amounting to a permit to pollute.
Letter to Auckland Councillors & Mayor
Permission to pollute one of Auckland’s
critical underground water resources?
His Worship, The Mayor of Auckland
Mr Len Brown
Auckland Council
Private Bag 92300
Auckland Central 1142
Wednesday 2 March, 2011
Dear Mr Brown,
I am writing to you because I have recently become aware of a major issue for Auckland. I am at a loss to understand how Three Kings Quarry owner, Winstone Aggregates, was granted consent by the Auckland Regional Council a year and a half ago to fill the Mt Eden Road quarry, unlined and without a leachate collection system, with waste material that is permitted to contain elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, copper, zinc, DDT and hydrocarbons.
This and other related resource consent decisions have been appealed to the Environment Court. I understand this appeal is set down for a two week hearing beginning Monday 7th March.
Have you considered Auckland Council’s position in regard to this matter?
The Mt Eden Road quarry – also known as Three Kings Quarry – 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.
It is unclear to me after the recent re-structuring of Auckland local government, exactly whose responsibility it is to defend the public interest in Auckland’s underground water resources.
The proposed Mt Eden Road quarry landfill project may result in Auckland’s aquifers becoming too contaminated over time 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 – good civil defence planning would be reliant upon Auckland’s underground water resources to meet the need for drinking water. Surely Auckland Council would not support any activities which might degrade the quality of Auckland’s underground water resources.
I note that Watercare’s 2010 Statement of Corporate Intent contains the following objective: “To provide leadership within the water industry and participate in public policy initiatives and statutory submissions.”
My reading of Watercare’s involvement in this central city landfill project suggests it is not opposed to it, and thereby tacitly endorses the establishment and operation of a contaminated landfill which everybody agrees will drain into Auckland’s freshwater aquifer system, without any guarantees – or collection and treatment systems in place – to prevent contaminants leaching into Auckland’s underground water resources. This is despite the leachate collection and treatment duties that have been imposed on Watercare in regard to its proposed Puketutu landfill project. I have written to Watercare’s CEO and Board Directors about its “leadership” on this matter.
I have analysed information associated with this application and believe the ARC’s decision to permit this activity was not well informed, primarily because the focus was on immediate effects to local groundwater, rather than on the more fundamental matter of cumulative effects over time on Auckland’s potable freshwater aquifers.
The rationale for granting this landfill permit is like permitting a dairy farm discharge into a river, because by themselves the adverse effects are deemed “less than minor”, when it is plain for all to see that the river is nearly dead because of all the other farm discharges in its catchment.
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.
Responsibility to protect Auckland’s resources clearly lies with Auckland Council. I consider that Auckland’s fundamental interests in protecting underground water resources from contamination have not been well served in the handling of consents for this new central Auckland landfill. I believe the new amalgamated Auckland Council has an obligation to the people of Auckland to reconsider this matter and to participate fully in the coming Environment Court hearing.
It is your duty to ensure that whatever happens in the Mt Eden Road quarry does not subject Auckland’s underground water resources to any risk of contamination. I have also raised this issue with Watercare.
I seek your personal re-assurance on this.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Cayford
NB: This letter will be copied by email and post to Auckland City Councillors.
critical underground water resources?
His Worship, The Mayor of Auckland
Mr Len Brown
Auckland Council
Private Bag 92300
Auckland Central 1142
Wednesday 2 March, 2011
Dear Mr Brown,
I am writing to you because I have recently become aware of a major issue for Auckland. I am at a loss to understand how Three Kings Quarry owner, Winstone Aggregates, was granted consent by the Auckland Regional Council a year and a half ago to fill the Mt Eden Road quarry, unlined and without a leachate collection system, with waste material that is permitted to contain elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, copper, zinc, DDT and hydrocarbons.
This and other related resource consent decisions have been appealed to the Environment Court. I understand this appeal is set down for a two week hearing beginning Monday 7th March.
Have you considered Auckland Council’s position in regard to this matter?
The Mt Eden Road quarry – also known as Three Kings Quarry – 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.
It is unclear to me after the recent re-structuring of Auckland local government, exactly whose responsibility it is to defend the public interest in Auckland’s underground water resources.
The proposed Mt Eden Road quarry landfill project may result in Auckland’s aquifers becoming too contaminated over time 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 – good civil defence planning would be reliant upon Auckland’s underground water resources to meet the need for drinking water. Surely Auckland Council would not support any activities which might degrade the quality of Auckland’s underground water resources.
I note that Watercare’s 2010 Statement of Corporate Intent contains the following objective: “To provide leadership within the water industry and participate in public policy initiatives and statutory submissions.”
My reading of Watercare’s involvement in this central city landfill project suggests it is not opposed to it, and thereby tacitly endorses the establishment and operation of a contaminated landfill which everybody agrees will drain into Auckland’s freshwater aquifer system, without any guarantees – or collection and treatment systems in place – to prevent contaminants leaching into Auckland’s underground water resources. This is despite the leachate collection and treatment duties that have been imposed on Watercare in regard to its proposed Puketutu landfill project. I have written to Watercare’s CEO and Board Directors about its “leadership” on this matter.
I have analysed information associated with this application and believe the ARC’s decision to permit this activity was not well informed, primarily because the focus was on immediate effects to local groundwater, rather than on the more fundamental matter of cumulative effects over time on Auckland’s potable freshwater aquifers.
The rationale for granting this landfill permit is like permitting a dairy farm discharge into a river, because by themselves the adverse effects are deemed “less than minor”, when it is plain for all to see that the river is nearly dead because of all the other farm discharges in its catchment.
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.
Responsibility to protect Auckland’s resources clearly lies with Auckland Council. I consider that Auckland’s fundamental interests in protecting underground water resources from contamination have not been well served in the handling of consents for this new central Auckland landfill. I believe the new amalgamated Auckland Council has an obligation to the people of Auckland to reconsider this matter and to participate fully in the coming Environment Court hearing.
It is your duty to ensure that whatever happens in the Mt Eden Road quarry does not subject Auckland’s underground water resources to any risk of contamination. I have also raised this issue with Watercare.
I seek your personal re-assurance on this.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Cayford
NB: This letter will be copied by email and post to Auckland City Councillors.
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.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Proposed Three Kings "Clean" Landfill
 This is a recent photo of Three Kings Quarry, operated by Winstone Aggregates. It is located in the middle of Three Kings Volcano - which was formed about 15,000 years ago. Several cones were formed. Three of these were prominent. Two have since been quarried away. Aggregate has been used for roading and other construction projects. Winstone Aggregates have operated the quarry since the 1920's, though quarrying has occurred there for over 150 years. |
 The red ring on this map shows the approximate location of the quarry. Most Aucklanders are not aware of its existence. From time to time local community groups have expressed concerns about activities there including dust from quarrying and truck movements and so on. A few years ago I was drawn into an issue that emerged. The quarry had been dug deep enough that groundwater was seeping into the floor of the quarry from adjacent aquifers and other underground water sources, and Winstones applied to "dewater" the quarry. This required water to be pumped out and disposed of. That was one issue. Another related issue was when Winstone Aggregates applied to have this water inserted into Auckland's water supply. They wanted to become a bulk water supplier alongside/in competition with Watercare. While the water was very clean - potable - concerns were raised that it would not be treated reliably to the same standard as existing drinking water supplies. |
There were many submissions against this proposal raising many issues including from dust and truck movements, but also concerns about what the resulting land would be used for/suitable for, and - critically - what effect a landfill would have on Auckland's underground water resources. In particular the large freshwater aquifers that underly much of Auckland and which are used by a few select organisations - including the Zoo - for their water supply. |
 This photo from Auckland Council's website shows the area in 1940. You can see a number of small quarry faces in the area. |
 This picture was taken in 1959. From time to time other activities have occurred on the site including storage of aggregate and storage of diesel fuel and lube oils and explosives. |
 This picture is dated 1966. |
 This one is dated 2001.... |
 And this one is dated 2009....I am at a loss to understand how Three Kings Quarry owner, Winstone Aggregates, was granted consent by the Auckland Regional Council a year and a half ago to fill the Mt Eden Road quarry - unlined and without a leachate collection system - with waste material that is permitted to contain elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, copper, zinc and hydrocarbons. This and other related resource consent decisions have been appealed to the Environment Court. I understand this appeal is set down for a two week hearing beginning Monday, March the 7th The Mt Eden Road Quarry – also known as Three Kings Quarry - is above, and drains into, a large fresh water aquifer which is already a water source for some users, and which is a back-up drinking water source for Auckland in the event of a natural disaster affecting existing bulk water pipelines. The proposed Mt Eden Road quarry landfill project may result in Auckland’s aquifers becoming too contaminated over time 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 – good civil defence planning would be reliant upon Auckland’s underground water resources to meet the need for drinking water. Surely Auckland Council would not support any activities which might degrade the quality of Auckland’s underground water resources. And surely Watercare, whose duties include taking a leadership role in regard to Auckland's water resources - including underground resources - would be requiring this project to be cleaner than clean, and to adopt best practice. More later.... |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Showing posts with label Winstone Aggregates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Winstone Aggregates. 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, March 17, 2011
The Evidence For/Against Three Kings Quarry "Cleanfill"
Today's Thursday 17th March. If all goes according to plan legal counsel for Fletchers Infrastructure/Winstone Aggregates will complete the two week Environment Court hearing of its application to use Three Kings Quarry as a cleanfill/managed fill, by delivering the right of reply. I will report later on further developments.
But for now, I thought I would provide you with copies of evidence that has been provided to the Environment Court by various experts and parties to the hearing. Links to selected evidence files are later on below in this blog.
In a hearing of this size, complexity and challenge - there is vast amounts of paper, and it is beyond my resources to make all of it available here. Or even a small proportion of it. Every affidavit is rebutted by those who disagree with it for example. All of this material is available to the Court. The Judge and Commissioners indicate they have either read it all, or they have heard it. And of course witnesses have been cross-examined in Court.
My main interest in this matter has been its potential effect on Auckland's Underground water resources and aquifers. There are other issues of significance including traffic effects, dust effects and so on. However I have concentrated on groundwater effects. So, here's some written evidence that is primarily around that issue. There are many documents other than these....
For Fletchers Infrastructure/Winstone Aggregates
Bernie Chote (General Manager)
Mr Burden (Geo Chemist, expert in environmental effects of landfills)
Mr Harding (Hydrogeologist and computer modeller of groundwater effects)
For Envirowaste Services
Mr Parker (Engineer, expert on Australian landfill policy and management)
Mr Mitchell (Engineer and Planner, expert in environmental effects and RMA)
Mr Northcott (Chemist, NIWA experience, expert in organochlorines in environment)
For Auckland Council
Mr Stapleton (GeoEnvironmental Engineer, expert in soil and landfill processes)
Local Submissions for South Epsom Planning Group
Pip Mules (Local resident)
Garry Law (Engineer and Manager Water systems, expert in water resource management)
Mr Triggs (Professor of Statistics at Auckland University)
Watercare Services Ltd
Mr Widdowson (GeoScientist at BECAs, expert in groundwater monitoring & risk assessment)
These are my selection. They are indicative. Happy reading.
But for now, I thought I would provide you with copies of evidence that has been provided to the Environment Court by various experts and parties to the hearing. Links to selected evidence files are later on below in this blog.
In a hearing of this size, complexity and challenge - there is vast amounts of paper, and it is beyond my resources to make all of it available here. Or even a small proportion of it. Every affidavit is rebutted by those who disagree with it for example. All of this material is available to the Court. The Judge and Commissioners indicate they have either read it all, or they have heard it. And of course witnesses have been cross-examined in Court.
My main interest in this matter has been its potential effect on Auckland's Underground water resources and aquifers. There are other issues of significance including traffic effects, dust effects and so on. However I have concentrated on groundwater effects. So, here's some written evidence that is primarily around that issue. There are many documents other than these....
For Fletchers Infrastructure/Winstone Aggregates
Bernie Chote (General Manager)
Mr Burden (Geo Chemist, expert in environmental effects of landfills)
Mr Harding (Hydrogeologist and computer modeller of groundwater effects)
For Envirowaste Services
Mr Parker (Engineer, expert on Australian landfill policy and management)
Mr Mitchell (Engineer and Planner, expert in environmental effects and RMA)
Mr Northcott (Chemist, NIWA experience, expert in organochlorines in environment)
For Auckland Council
Mr Stapleton (GeoEnvironmental Engineer, expert in soil and landfill processes)
Local Submissions for South Epsom Planning Group
Pip Mules (Local resident)
Garry Law (Engineer and Manager Water systems, expert in water resource management)
Mr Triggs (Professor of Statistics at Auckland University)
Watercare Services Ltd
Mr Widdowson (GeoScientist at BECAs, expert in groundwater monitoring & risk assessment)
These are my selection. They are indicative. Happy reading.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
How can a Blogger avoid Contempt of Court?
So there I was in the Environment Court this morning. Tuesday 15th March. And the Court was halfway through cross-examination of Mr Dolan who is an Envirowaste Services Ltd (ESL) expert witness. The day started with no house-keeping matters. Straight into cross examination of Dolan by Matheson – who is Fletcher’s/Winstone Aggregates legal counsel.
I took heaps of notes because the questions and answers were really interesting. But because I had missed some of the day before, I hadn’t totally caught up with the fact that the court room seemed rather empty. Nor why.
Then it dawned. The other ESL expert witnesses had been ordered from the Court by Judge Smith. They were not allowed to hear the questions being asked of the witnesses, nor their answers. And they were ordered not to talk among themselves at other times.
“What if they read my blog?” - I thought. Quite a few do, there’s a lot pf public interest, and I have set up a FaceBook page....
"What if I report the questions and answers – because I think it is in the public interest?"
"There has been no guidance from the Judge. I am a sort of informal reporter...."
There has been no ruling that media be excluded from the Court.
So here's a taste. WA’s lawyer cross examined Dolan:
Judge Smith then reminded Dolan, “you are Person ‘A’. Person ‘A’ must not talk with Person ‘C’. (BTW – you can see a little more about this part of the RMA – s.308 - in a recent blog below.)
Kirkpatrick again got to his feet and submitted, “....this does not stop communications between parties…”
I will stop there. Just wanted to give you a flavour.
Who says the Environment Court's not adversarial?
I took heaps of notes because the questions and answers were really interesting. But because I had missed some of the day before, I hadn’t totally caught up with the fact that the court room seemed rather empty. Nor why.
Then it dawned. The other ESL expert witnesses had been ordered from the Court by Judge Smith. They were not allowed to hear the questions being asked of the witnesses, nor their answers. And they were ordered not to talk among themselves at other times.
“What if they read my blog?” - I thought. Quite a few do, there’s a lot pf public interest, and I have set up a FaceBook page....
"What if I report the questions and answers – because I think it is in the public interest?"
"There has been no guidance from the Judge. I am a sort of informal reporter...."
There has been no ruling that media be excluded from the Court.
So here's a taste. WA’s lawyer cross examined Dolan:
Q: Who instructed you?Judge Smith got interested then:
A: It was verbal. Mr Lobb.
Q: Not in writing?
A: No.
Q: What did he say to you, and when?…
Q: How did you report to Mr Lobb?Judge Smith wanted to know why specific emails were not to hand, and persisted:
A: …
Q: You said you would look in your files.
A: I drafted a submission for Mr Lobb.
Q: Did you sign it?
A: No. Someone else signed it….
Q: You were asked – I know I didn’t order you – you said you would – I didn’t think I had to - to bring all ESL files with you today. What have you brought and not brought?And later, after Dolan spoke of mediation meetings with Watercare and with South Epsom Planning Group, Judge Smith asked:
A: Sorry your honour...
Q: …..were you aware that were statutorily barred from getting involved with a Third Party…?At this point Kirkpatrick, legal counsel for ESL stood up and submitted: “there is no basis for that question…”.
Judge Smith then reminded Dolan, “you are Person ‘A’. Person ‘A’ must not talk with Person ‘C’. (BTW – you can see a little more about this part of the RMA – s.308 - in a recent blog below.)
Kirkpatrick again got to his feet and submitted, “....this does not stop communications between parties…”
I will stop there. Just wanted to give you a flavour.
Who says the Environment Court's not adversarial?
"Why is Envirowaste Here?"
This question was posed by Judge Smith several times on Monday. He asked David Kirkpatrick – legal counsel for Envirowaste Services Ltd – “I want to know why you are here….”
He went on, “these are dangerous waters for a trade competitor….”
First, a little legislative background. The Resource Management Act was changed a year and a half ago by an unusual provision of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009. This provision was put in to deal with what has been known as “SuperMarket Wars”. Parliament did not want the RMA (or the Environment Court) to be the place where trade competition wars were fought.
The bits of the new RMA that are of interest go like this:
So. You get the picture. In this situation, we might say that Person B is Fletchers/Winstone Aggregates, Person A might be Envirowaste Services Ltd (ESL), and Person C might be anyone else who might appeal or be a s.274 party to the appeal (like Watercare). The law goes on….
This is where it gets interesting and intriguing. And this is what Judge Smith was concerned about, as David Kirkpatrick swung into action for ESL. What makes this intriguing is that there are three related applications at issue for the Environment Court – two were applied for before August 2009, and the application to discharge contaminants to water was made after August 2009 (ie after s.308 came into force), and was referred directly to the Environment Court.
So ESL cannot fall foul of this new law in regard to part of the hearing, but it could, potentially, in regard to the part that deals with discharges to water. The rest of the RMA law relating to s.308 (Act not to be used to oppose trade competitors), is fairly draconian. Costs can be sought in the High Court if the Environment Court declares Person A contravened the Act, and matters can be brought to court up to 6 years after the alleged contravention. All a bit of worry for an organisation like ESL, or anyone else caught by these provisions for that matter.
In its legal submissions ESL said this on Monday morning:
I will stop this blog about here – so it is manageable. But before I do so, I will record other related events that occurred at the hearing.
As Mr Kirkpatrick came to the end of his opening submissions for ESL, Judge Smith intervened. He appeared concerned that ESL’s expert witnesses might not be independent. Kirkpatrick noted that that issue or concern could be levelled at almost any expert witness in an Environment Court hearing. (I note here that someone pays the bills of all expert witnesses, and there is always the cynical view, but understandeable view, that he who pays the bill calls the tune…).
Judge Smith agreed with Kirkpatrick's comment saying, “yes, and it’s an issue the Court is not happy with…”
Judge Smith continued that he believed it appropriate to exclude ESL’s witnesses from the court, so they could not hear what was being said, or what questions were asked of other ESL expert witnesses cross examined before it was their turn.
Judge Smith also ruled that ESL witnesses should not discuss the matter with each other outside Court.
This was a dramatic day.
He went on, “these are dangerous waters for a trade competitor….”
First, a little legislative background. The Resource Management Act was changed a year and a half ago by an unusual provision of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009. This provision was put in to deal with what has been known as “SuperMarket Wars”. Parliament did not want the RMA (or the Environment Court) to be the place where trade competition wars were fought.
The bits of the new RMA that are of interest go like this:
308A Identification of trade competitors and surrogates
In this Part,—
(a) person A means a person who is a trade competitor of person B:
(b) person B means the person of whom person A is a trade competitor:
(c) person C means a person who has knowingly received, is knowingly receiving, or may knowingly receive direct or indirect help from person A to bring an appeal or be a party to an appeal against a decision under this Act in favour of person B.
So. You get the picture. In this situation, we might say that Person B is Fletchers/Winstone Aggregates, Person A might be Envirowaste Services Ltd (ESL), and Person C might be anyone else who might appeal or be a s.274 party to the appeal (like Watercare). The law goes on….
308 B Limit on making submissions
(1) Subsection (2) applies when person A wants to make a submission under section 96 about an application by person B.
(2) Person A may make the submission only if directly affected by an effect of the activity to which the application relates, that—
(a) adversely affects the environment; and
(b) does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition.
(3) Failure to comply with the limits on submissions set in section 149E or 149O or clause 6(4) or 29(1B) of Schedule 1 is a contravention of this Part.
This is where it gets interesting and intriguing. And this is what Judge Smith was concerned about, as David Kirkpatrick swung into action for ESL. What makes this intriguing is that there are three related applications at issue for the Environment Court – two were applied for before August 2009, and the application to discharge contaminants to water was made after August 2009 (ie after s.308 came into force), and was referred directly to the Environment Court.
So ESL cannot fall foul of this new law in regard to part of the hearing, but it could, potentially, in regard to the part that deals with discharges to water. The rest of the RMA law relating to s.308 (Act not to be used to oppose trade competitors), is fairly draconian. Costs can be sought in the High Court if the Environment Court declares Person A contravened the Act, and matters can be brought to court up to 6 years after the alleged contravention. All a bit of worry for an organisation like ESL, or anyone else caught by these provisions for that matter.
In its legal submissions ESL said this on Monday morning:
7.1 ESL is a large national waste management company. Serving the Auckland region it operates the Hampton Downs Sanitary landfill and the Greenmount Closed landfill at which it is soon to complete final cover works through the placement of fill. ESL acknowledges (and has done so from the start), that as a consequence of these particular commercial activities it is a trade competitor of WA, who operates the cleanfill and fill operations at Wiri North and Puketutu Island (former quarries)….
7.3 ….ESL denies that its participation in these proceedings raises issues of trade competition…. ESL is concerned trhat consents for “cleanfill” should not be granted where what is to occur is not a cleanfill…
7.6 ….ESL is concerned: to ensure the integrity of the regional planning framework for the management of landfills, and in particular cleanfills. In doing so, it simply wishes to maintain the level of the “playing field” being used by solid waste disposers in the Auckland region….
7.7 ….if, due to locational advantages or technical superiority, a more profitable landfill can be set up, then that is the market at work. But, this has to be on the proviso that they can also maintain the accepted level of environmental protection for such activities….
I will stop this blog about here – so it is manageable. But before I do so, I will record other related events that occurred at the hearing.
As Mr Kirkpatrick came to the end of his opening submissions for ESL, Judge Smith intervened. He appeared concerned that ESL’s expert witnesses might not be independent. Kirkpatrick noted that that issue or concern could be levelled at almost any expert witness in an Environment Court hearing. (I note here that someone pays the bills of all expert witnesses, and there is always the cynical view, but understandeable view, that he who pays the bill calls the tune…).
Judge Smith agreed with Kirkpatrick's comment saying, “yes, and it’s an issue the Court is not happy with…”
Judge Smith continued that he believed it appropriate to exclude ESL’s witnesses from the court, so they could not hear what was being said, or what questions were asked of other ESL expert witnesses cross examined before it was their turn.
Judge Smith also ruled that ESL witnesses should not discuss the matter with each other outside Court.
This was a dramatic day.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Fletcher’s/Winstone Aggregates History of Denial
The thing about Environment Court hearings is there’s lots of time to chat. You gather before a hearing day, morning tea, lunchtime. And you get the gossip. It has been an opportunity for me hear Dick Bellamy’s side of the Three Kings Quarry story – which goes back a long way. Over thirty years.
The first story he told me about was dust. When the quarry was fairly shallow, he says he could regularly see from his house a D9 bulldozer sitting on top of a pile of scoria. Not sure what it was doing there. And then scoria would be tipped into a stone crusher and plumes of scoria dust would blow into the air, and with a reasonable wind, it would blow over houses in the neighbourhood. So that was a big issue for the locals. Dr Bellamy tried to do something about it. Winstone’s denied that the dust coating the good painted weatherboard homes of Mt Eden was from its operation.
So Dr bellamy carefull took samples of the dust from the houses, and – presumably late at night – scampered down to the quarry and scraped some scoria dust off the stone crusher – and took the samples into his mates at Auckland University. They tested both samples and confirmed they were from the same source.
And when confronted with this evidence, Winstone’s claimed that because the roads on the vicinity had been re-surfaced (good old chip seal I guess) with scoria from its quarry (it claimed), then the motorists using the roads had caused the dust.
Man oh man.
Then, Dr Bellamy explained, came the de-watering. Residents had hoped that when the quarry got down to the water table, quarrying would stop. But Winstone’s applied to de-water the quarry so it could dig deeper. It wanted to dig down much further and get out more scoria. By now residents had succeeded in preventing Winstones from mining basalt – very hard and tough – needed explosives, caused vibration and ground shaking. Dr Bellamy was among the residents who took Winstone’s to task over this. They were concerned about the effects of subsidence. When land is de-watered, certain geologies will shrink, causing subsidence. He explained to me this was because there are old river valleys underneath Auckland’s recent volcanic rocks. These are sedimentary and prone to shrink when de-watered. However it appears that Winstone’s again denied such things would happen. Would never happen.
But there has been subsidence Dr Bellamy confirmed. Not a lot, but it has occurred, in contradiction to Winstone’s firm view. Presumably supported by it experts.
So now we have another denial. This denial is that the contaminants from permitted contaminated fill, will not get into the groundwaters, and will not get into Auckland’s aquifers.
Man oh man.
The first story he told me about was dust. When the quarry was fairly shallow, he says he could regularly see from his house a D9 bulldozer sitting on top of a pile of scoria. Not sure what it was doing there. And then scoria would be tipped into a stone crusher and plumes of scoria dust would blow into the air, and with a reasonable wind, it would blow over houses in the neighbourhood. So that was a big issue for the locals. Dr Bellamy tried to do something about it. Winstone’s denied that the dust coating the good painted weatherboard homes of Mt Eden was from its operation.
So Dr bellamy carefull took samples of the dust from the houses, and – presumably late at night – scampered down to the quarry and scraped some scoria dust off the stone crusher – and took the samples into his mates at Auckland University. They tested both samples and confirmed they were from the same source.
And when confronted with this evidence, Winstone’s claimed that because the roads on the vicinity had been re-surfaced (good old chip seal I guess) with scoria from its quarry (it claimed), then the motorists using the roads had caused the dust.
Man oh man.
Then, Dr Bellamy explained, came the de-watering. Residents had hoped that when the quarry got down to the water table, quarrying would stop. But Winstone’s applied to de-water the quarry so it could dig deeper. It wanted to dig down much further and get out more scoria. By now residents had succeeded in preventing Winstones from mining basalt – very hard and tough – needed explosives, caused vibration and ground shaking. Dr Bellamy was among the residents who took Winstone’s to task over this. They were concerned about the effects of subsidence. When land is de-watered, certain geologies will shrink, causing subsidence. He explained to me this was because there are old river valleys underneath Auckland’s recent volcanic rocks. These are sedimentary and prone to shrink when de-watered. However it appears that Winstone’s again denied such things would happen. Would never happen.
But there has been subsidence Dr Bellamy confirmed. Not a lot, but it has occurred, in contradiction to Winstone’s firm view. Presumably supported by it experts.
So now we have another denial. This denial is that the contaminants from permitted contaminated fill, will not get into the groundwaters, and will not get into Auckland’s aquifers.
Man oh man.
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".
Monday, March 7, 2011
Steps toward a Permit to Pollute (2)
Today I attended the start of the Environment Court hearing of appeals and a directly referred application relating to the Three Kings Quarry landfill/"cleanfill"/fill application of Winstone Aggregates (division of Fletcher Concrete and Infrastructure Ltd), and Envirowaste Services, and Auckland Council (formerly Auckland City Council and ARC). Other submitters were present (see below). They are s.274 parties to the appeal.
The hearing (Monday 7th March) took place in an Environment Court hearing room on the 8th Floor of the Court buildings in Albert Street. The room was pretty much packed. I counted seven lawyers/barristers/QCs. There were representatives there from the main parties mentioned above, plus from Watercare, Three Kings United Group, South Epsom Planning Group, and St Lukes Environmental Protection Inc.
Justice Smith was on the bench supported by Commissioner Gollop and Commissioner Howie (I think it was). There was some initial discussion about Memoranda that had been flying around. And some discussion about the timetable. It appears that Winstone Aggregate's evidence and application may take till Friday, then Auckland Council's evidence will be heard (they have 4 witnesses), then Watercare and the other submitters.
I will skip the detail of this, and quote some interesting material from the opening legal submissions which were made on behalf of Winstone Aggregates. Their legal advice is coming from Russell McVeagh. These submissions took up over forty pages. Here are some interesting extracts:
So. You get the drift. What I did learn from the submissions was this: No water discharge consent has been issued by the old regulator - the ARC. It turns out that the Winstone application to discharge contaminants to water - the one referred to in the posting: Steps Toward Permit to Pollute (1) and which was notified in 8th April 2010 - was not dealt with by the ARC as regulator.
Instead it was referred to the Environment Court for hearing and decision.
It appears that Sections 87C to 87I of the RMA allow applicants to make a request to the council for resource consent applications to be decided by the Environment Court instead of by the council. It appears that the ARC may have objected to this, and the applicant then appealed that objection to the Environment Court, which decided that the appeals to the original consents, and the new application to discharge contaminants to water, would all be heard together by the Environment Court.
It means that the issues to do with water, aquifers, groundwater and so on, as they relate to Winstone Aggregate's application for consent to discharge contaminants to groundwater (and so to aquifers) will be properly heard for the first time by this Environment Court.
So. That was interesting and important to understand.
Along the way, while these opening submissions were being read out by Winstone's counsel, there were some interesting discussions generally triggered by questions from the Bench. I don't want to upset the Court, so I won't attribute any of these remarks, but it is interesting to record some of the discussion points that arose.
Looks like an interesting and very important hearing.
The hearing (Monday 7th March) took place in an Environment Court hearing room on the 8th Floor of the Court buildings in Albert Street. The room was pretty much packed. I counted seven lawyers/barristers/QCs. There were representatives there from the main parties mentioned above, plus from Watercare, Three Kings United Group, South Epsom Planning Group, and St Lukes Environmental Protection Inc.
Justice Smith was on the bench supported by Commissioner Gollop and Commissioner Howie (I think it was). There was some initial discussion about Memoranda that had been flying around. And some discussion about the timetable. It appears that Winstone Aggregate's evidence and application may take till Friday, then Auckland Council's evidence will be heard (they have 4 witnesses), then Watercare and the other submitters.
I will skip the detail of this, and quote some interesting material from the opening legal submissions which were made on behalf of Winstone Aggregates. Their legal advice is coming from Russell McVeagh. These submissions took up over forty pages. Here are some interesting extracts:
1.8 Winstone has continually been assured by its independent experts that its proposal will result in no adverse effects on the environment, but in an effort to assuage community concerns it has volunteered yet more consent conditions which go far beyond the usual expectations for an application of this kind...
1.9 This is in stark contrast to the behaviour of Envirowaste Services Ltd (ESL). As both the the primary opponent of Winstone's Proposal and its trade competitor, ESL has from the outset sought to frustrate the consenting process for Winstone. ESL has worked actively to gather opposition to Winstone's Proposal, and has generally behaved in an anti-competitive way, despite Parliament's disapproval of such behaviour.
....
1.11 Winstone is and always has been willing to accept appropriate conditions that will avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects. What Winstone does not accept is ESL's argument that Winstone's operation should be restricted by conditions so as to ensure that it has virtually no effects.... the approach seems to be a repeated lobbing of mud in the hope that some sticks.
1.12 Leaving ESL aside, Winstone accepts that there are several community groups who have a long history of being involved in various RMA processes relating to Three Kings Quarry.... The only other party, Water Services Ltd, has recently confirmed that it is happy with the consent conditions as proposed. Unlike ESL, Watercare was prepared to engage on the substance of the issue, and its independent advisor undertook his own analysis, and agreement was able to be reached between the experts as to what conditions were appropriate to ensure that, if ever required, the Three Kings aquifer would be available for the supply of potable water. (There is something decidedly farcical about a trade competitor, ESL, alleging adverse effects on future groundwater supplies, while at the same time the regional water provider, Watercare, is confirming it is generally comfortable with the proposed consent conditions.)
....
1.28 Reduced to its most fundamental issue, this case is about what level of contamination should be permitted in the proposed fill for the Three Kings Quarry. Contrary to allegations made by some parties, what is proposed is not a landfill, and the consent conditions clearly set out the type of material that can be deposited at the Three Kings Quarry....
....
3.2 ...legal issues to be commented on are:.... should management plans required by consent conditions be subject to "approval" by the consent authority, or is the consent authority's role limited to one of "certification"? (This is the sole issue remaining in dispute between Winstone and Auckland Council).
So. You get the drift. What I did learn from the submissions was this: No water discharge consent has been issued by the old regulator - the ARC. It turns out that the Winstone application to discharge contaminants to water - the one referred to in the posting: Steps Toward Permit to Pollute (1) and which was notified in 8th April 2010 - was not dealt with by the ARC as regulator.
Instead it was referred to the Environment Court for hearing and decision.
It appears that Sections 87C to 87I of the RMA allow applicants to make a request to the council for resource consent applications to be decided by the Environment Court instead of by the council. It appears that the ARC may have objected to this, and the applicant then appealed that objection to the Environment Court, which decided that the appeals to the original consents, and the new application to discharge contaminants to water, would all be heard together by the Environment Court.
It means that the issues to do with water, aquifers, groundwater and so on, as they relate to Winstone Aggregate's application for consent to discharge contaminants to groundwater (and so to aquifers) will be properly heard for the first time by this Environment Court.
So. That was interesting and important to understand.
Along the way, while these opening submissions were being read out by Winstone's counsel, there were some interesting discussions generally triggered by questions from the Bench. I don't want to upset the Court, so I won't attribute any of these remarks, but it is interesting to record some of the discussion points that arose.
"What are the effects? Groundwater effects - possible contamination. Including potential effects? Are they low risk, high impact? What does "minor" mean - if we are talking about effects. Is that a good test...?"
"There is an issue that Winstone Aggregates is resisting Envirowaste's ability to cross examine Watercare's experts.... EW is barred by statute in respect to the matter of trade competition...."
"Is there an option of just leaving the quarry empty. Let it fill up with water....?"
"What type of material could be disposed of. Concrete is mentioned. But it contains reinforcing steel... what about that? If you can slip contaminated material into a load of cleanfill - that would be much cheaper than paying $200/tonne at a landfill - but you only check 1 truck in every 150. You might intend a result, but it needs to be a reality...."
"Keen on the contract for the Waterview project. They are reliable. Reliable cleanfill. But what about others....?"
Looks like an interesting and very important hearing.
Reply from Mark Ford at Watercare
It was good to get a robust reply from Watercare today, in response to my letter to Watercare posted below at: Letter to Watercare Board and CEO
The letter to me from Mark Ford, (Watercare's CEO) is dated 7th March 2011, and says this:
What is interesting though, is that no water discharge consent has been issued, despite what this letter says. Not even by the old regulator - the ARC. It was only after today in the Environment Court that I understood that the Winstone application to discharge contaminants to water - the one referred to in the posting: Steps Toward Permit to Pollute (1) and which was notified in 8th April 2010 - was not dealt with by the ARC as regulator.
Instead it was referred to the Environment Court for hearing and decision.
It appears that Sections 87C to 87I of the RMA allow applicants to make a request to the council for resource consent applications to be decided by the Environment Court instead of by the council. It appears that the ARC may have objected to this, and the applicant then appealed that objection to the Environment Court, which decided that the appeals to the original consents, and the new application to discharge contaminants to water, would all be heard together by the Environment Court.
Interesting. So it essentially means that Watercare's new expert evidence (described above in Mr Ford's letter) can form part of the Env Court hearing of the application to discharge contaminants to water. Which will be for the first time.
The letter to me from Mark Ford, (Watercare's CEO) is dated 7th March 2011, and says this:
Dear Dr Cayford,So. That's a good letter. I know Watercare is not the statutory regulator, but it is often the font of wisdom when it comes to water, so it's good that it has added to its knowledge by getting some expert information.
Thank you for your recent letter. Watercare's interest in this issue is limited to the water-related aspects.
As you will be aware, Watercare takes its responsibilities for water quality very seriously. That's why - although we are not the statutory regulator - we commissioned expert opinion in this area.
To be clear on this, Watercare did not issue the consent. We have, however seized the opportunity to submit stringent conditions as the applicant sought to alter the quality of the fill.
Without getting into issues currently before the court, I'm advised that the consent conditions relating to water which are now proposed, are much more stringent than those proposed by the former regulator. You may well be familiar with those given your historical association with the former ARC.
If you want any further information on this matter beyond the documents available through the court, I suggest you make direct contact with the applicant or the regulator if you haven't already done so.
Yours sincerely,
KM Ford
Chief Executive
What is interesting though, is that no water discharge consent has been issued, despite what this letter says. Not even by the old regulator - the ARC. It was only after today in the Environment Court that I understood that the Winstone application to discharge contaminants to water - the one referred to in the posting: Steps Toward Permit to Pollute (1) and which was notified in 8th April 2010 - was not dealt with by the ARC as regulator.
Instead it was referred to the Environment Court for hearing and decision.
It appears that Sections 87C to 87I of the RMA allow applicants to make a request to the council for resource consent applications to be decided by the Environment Court instead of by the council. It appears that the ARC may have objected to this, and the applicant then appealed that objection to the Environment Court, which decided that the appeals to the original consents, and the new application to discharge contaminants to water, would all be heard together by the Environment Court.
Interesting. So it essentially means that Watercare's new expert evidence (described above in Mr Ford's letter) can form part of the Env Court hearing of the application to discharge contaminants to water. Which will be for the first time.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Steps toward a Permit to Pollute (1)
I have written to Auckland Councillors and to Watercare (see below) stating that I am at a loss to understand how Winstone Aggregates obtained consent to dump “cleanfill” with elevated levels of contaminants in the Three Kings Quarry.
In this blog I explore the ARC officer’s report which formed the basis of commissioner decisions made late 2010. The report is dated 3 June 2010. You can download it here.
It appears that Winstone Aggregates first sought consent from Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council in 2009. A Joint Hearing was conducted in late October, early November 2009. Winstone Aggregates required a land use consent from Auckland City Council (change of land use, truck movements etc), and two resource consents from ARC. One of these permits (36221) relates to earthworks on the 14 ha site. The other is a permit (36222) to discharge contaminants onto or into land from a cleanfill. These permits were granted subject to conditions.
Then – and this is where it gets a bit murky – in Winstone Aggregates applied for a further consent from ARC. This was notified in 8th April 2010. This new permit (37770) appears to differ from 36222 (granted in 2009) in one crucial respect.
36222 related to the discharge of contaminants onto or into land from a cleanfill, whereas 37770 relates to the discharge of contaminants to land and / or water from a filling operation.
It appears therefore, that someone, somewhere, recognised belatedly that additional consent was required for the discharge of contaminated water. This appears to have been because some of the cleanfill: “may have contaminants above the natural background levels occurring at the site. The applicant indicated that typically this will be the case for about 15-20% of the materials received and the elevated concentrations in these materials will be about 20-25% high than natural background levels…”
The officer’s report relating to the new resource application contains the following information. And I quote:
6.6 The groundwater quality at the Three Kings Quarry dewatering bore is monitored on a regular basis…. The water is of potable quality…
12.1 Fill materials will be brought to the site in accordance with acceptance levels… based on levels that accord with the upper limit of the volcanic range for soil background levels throughout Auckland Region…. However it is noted that the actual background levels at Three Kings are lower or much lower than the upper volcanic levels throughout the Auckland Region….
12.3.5.2 The leaching of contamination from the materials used to fill the quarry has the potential to impact on the groundwater quality…
12.3.9.2 Groundwater modelling was carried out…. Based on all scenarios the final groundwater concentrations pf the majority of trace elements, for example, arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, nickel, lead and zinc, were lower than respective NZ drinking water maximum allowable values… the only exception to this was copper, with concentrations slightl exceeding… the trigger value, and this was caused by slightly elevated copper levels that are already present in existing groundwater concentrations.
There is no discussion in the report of the impact of these changes to groundwater on the aquifers that these groundwaters reccharge. There is a clear statement that copper levels are already elevated. This is the tip of the iceberg of cumulative pollution to aquifers. It is always the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. Just as the last dairy farm kills the river – even though by itself its adverse effects are said to be “less than minor”.
Auckland should not be condoning - in any shape or form - activities which permit new contaminants to add to the contaminant loading already building in our underground water resources. It has to be stopped.
And before this blog gets out of hand I will note some of the conditions attached to the permit that was granted. My understanding is that conditions should be meaningful and enforceable. Yet here ARC essentially allows Winstone Aggregates to carry out their own tests on test waters, to only check 1 in every 150 truckloads of fill dumped there, and to run the landfill without a liner (as there is in other major landfills around Auckland), and without a leachate collection system.
This is a bad joke for Auckland. Amounting to a permit to pollute.
In this blog I explore the ARC officer’s report which formed the basis of commissioner decisions made late 2010. The report is dated 3 June 2010. You can download it here.
It appears that Winstone Aggregates first sought consent from Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council in 2009. A Joint Hearing was conducted in late October, early November 2009. Winstone Aggregates required a land use consent from Auckland City Council (change of land use, truck movements etc), and two resource consents from ARC. One of these permits (36221) relates to earthworks on the 14 ha site. The other is a permit (36222) to discharge contaminants onto or into land from a cleanfill. These permits were granted subject to conditions.
Then – and this is where it gets a bit murky – in Winstone Aggregates applied for a further consent from ARC. This was notified in 8th April 2010. This new permit (37770) appears to differ from 36222 (granted in 2009) in one crucial respect.
36222 related to the discharge of contaminants onto or into land from a cleanfill, whereas 37770 relates to the discharge of contaminants to land and / or water from a filling operation.
It appears therefore, that someone, somewhere, recognised belatedly that additional consent was required for the discharge of contaminated water. This appears to have been because some of the cleanfill: “may have contaminants above the natural background levels occurring at the site. The applicant indicated that typically this will be the case for about 15-20% of the materials received and the elevated concentrations in these materials will be about 20-25% high than natural background levels…”
The officer’s report relating to the new resource application contains the following information. And I quote:
6.6 The groundwater quality at the Three Kings Quarry dewatering bore is monitored on a regular basis…. The water is of potable quality…
12.1 Fill materials will be brought to the site in accordance with acceptance levels… based on levels that accord with the upper limit of the volcanic range for soil background levels throughout Auckland Region…. However it is noted that the actual background levels at Three Kings are lower or much lower than the upper volcanic levels throughout the Auckland Region….
12.3.5.2 The leaching of contamination from the materials used to fill the quarry has the potential to impact on the groundwater quality…
| Table 4. Fill Acceptance concentration (Part 1). These are scans from the report. |
| Table 4. Fill Acceptance concentration (Part 2). TPH by the way are hydrocarbons. The way I read this it appears that up to 5,600 mg/kg can be dumped. Not sure how that works. That's more than 5 grams per kilogram. So more than .5% of hydrocarbons allowed. Almost enough to establish an oil well! |
There is no discussion in the report of the impact of these changes to groundwater on the aquifers that these groundwaters reccharge. There is a clear statement that copper levels are already elevated. This is the tip of the iceberg of cumulative pollution to aquifers. It is always the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. Just as the last dairy farm kills the river – even though by itself its adverse effects are said to be “less than minor”.
Auckland should not be condoning - in any shape or form - activities which permit new contaminants to add to the contaminant loading already building in our underground water resources. It has to be stopped.
And before this blog gets out of hand I will note some of the conditions attached to the permit that was granted. My understanding is that conditions should be meaningful and enforceable. Yet here ARC essentially allows Winstone Aggregates to carry out their own tests on test waters, to only check 1 in every 150 truckloads of fill dumped there, and to run the landfill without a liner (as there is in other major landfills around Auckland), and without a leachate collection system.
This is a bad joke for Auckland. Amounting to a permit to pollute.
Letter to Auckland Councillors & Mayor
Permission to pollute one of Auckland’s
critical underground water resources?
His Worship, The Mayor of Auckland
Mr Len Brown
Auckland Council
Private Bag 92300
Auckland Central 1142
Wednesday 2 March, 2011
Dear Mr Brown,
I am writing to you because I have recently become aware of a major issue for Auckland. I am at a loss to understand how Three Kings Quarry owner, Winstone Aggregates, was granted consent by the Auckland Regional Council a year and a half ago to fill the Mt Eden Road quarry, unlined and without a leachate collection system, with waste material that is permitted to contain elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, copper, zinc, DDT and hydrocarbons.
This and other related resource consent decisions have been appealed to the Environment Court. I understand this appeal is set down for a two week hearing beginning Monday 7th March.
Have you considered Auckland Council’s position in regard to this matter?
The Mt Eden Road quarry – also known as Three Kings Quarry – 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.
It is unclear to me after the recent re-structuring of Auckland local government, exactly whose responsibility it is to defend the public interest in Auckland’s underground water resources.
The proposed Mt Eden Road quarry landfill project may result in Auckland’s aquifers becoming too contaminated over time 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 – good civil defence planning would be reliant upon Auckland’s underground water resources to meet the need for drinking water. Surely Auckland Council would not support any activities which might degrade the quality of Auckland’s underground water resources.
I note that Watercare’s 2010 Statement of Corporate Intent contains the following objective: “To provide leadership within the water industry and participate in public policy initiatives and statutory submissions.”
My reading of Watercare’s involvement in this central city landfill project suggests it is not opposed to it, and thereby tacitly endorses the establishment and operation of a contaminated landfill which everybody agrees will drain into Auckland’s freshwater aquifer system, without any guarantees – or collection and treatment systems in place – to prevent contaminants leaching into Auckland’s underground water resources. This is despite the leachate collection and treatment duties that have been imposed on Watercare in regard to its proposed Puketutu landfill project. I have written to Watercare’s CEO and Board Directors about its “leadership” on this matter.
I have analysed information associated with this application and believe the ARC’s decision to permit this activity was not well informed, primarily because the focus was on immediate effects to local groundwater, rather than on the more fundamental matter of cumulative effects over time on Auckland’s potable freshwater aquifers.
The rationale for granting this landfill permit is like permitting a dairy farm discharge into a river, because by themselves the adverse effects are deemed “less than minor”, when it is plain for all to see that the river is nearly dead because of all the other farm discharges in its catchment.
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.
Responsibility to protect Auckland’s resources clearly lies with Auckland Council. I consider that Auckland’s fundamental interests in protecting underground water resources from contamination have not been well served in the handling of consents for this new central Auckland landfill. I believe the new amalgamated Auckland Council has an obligation to the people of Auckland to reconsider this matter and to participate fully in the coming Environment Court hearing.
It is your duty to ensure that whatever happens in the Mt Eden Road quarry does not subject Auckland’s underground water resources to any risk of contamination. I have also raised this issue with Watercare.
I seek your personal re-assurance on this.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Cayford
NB: This letter will be copied by email and post to Auckland City Councillors.
critical underground water resources?
His Worship, The Mayor of Auckland
Mr Len Brown
Auckland Council
Private Bag 92300
Auckland Central 1142
Wednesday 2 March, 2011
Dear Mr Brown,
I am writing to you because I have recently become aware of a major issue for Auckland. I am at a loss to understand how Three Kings Quarry owner, Winstone Aggregates, was granted consent by the Auckland Regional Council a year and a half ago to fill the Mt Eden Road quarry, unlined and without a leachate collection system, with waste material that is permitted to contain elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, copper, zinc, DDT and hydrocarbons.
This and other related resource consent decisions have been appealed to the Environment Court. I understand this appeal is set down for a two week hearing beginning Monday 7th March.
Have you considered Auckland Council’s position in regard to this matter?
The Mt Eden Road quarry – also known as Three Kings Quarry – 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.
It is unclear to me after the recent re-structuring of Auckland local government, exactly whose responsibility it is to defend the public interest in Auckland’s underground water resources.
The proposed Mt Eden Road quarry landfill project may result in Auckland’s aquifers becoming too contaminated over time 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 – good civil defence planning would be reliant upon Auckland’s underground water resources to meet the need for drinking water. Surely Auckland Council would not support any activities which might degrade the quality of Auckland’s underground water resources.
I note that Watercare’s 2010 Statement of Corporate Intent contains the following objective: “To provide leadership within the water industry and participate in public policy initiatives and statutory submissions.”
My reading of Watercare’s involvement in this central city landfill project suggests it is not opposed to it, and thereby tacitly endorses the establishment and operation of a contaminated landfill which everybody agrees will drain into Auckland’s freshwater aquifer system, without any guarantees – or collection and treatment systems in place – to prevent contaminants leaching into Auckland’s underground water resources. This is despite the leachate collection and treatment duties that have been imposed on Watercare in regard to its proposed Puketutu landfill project. I have written to Watercare’s CEO and Board Directors about its “leadership” on this matter.
I have analysed information associated with this application and believe the ARC’s decision to permit this activity was not well informed, primarily because the focus was on immediate effects to local groundwater, rather than on the more fundamental matter of cumulative effects over time on Auckland’s potable freshwater aquifers.
The rationale for granting this landfill permit is like permitting a dairy farm discharge into a river, because by themselves the adverse effects are deemed “less than minor”, when it is plain for all to see that the river is nearly dead because of all the other farm discharges in its catchment.
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.
Responsibility to protect Auckland’s resources clearly lies with Auckland Council. I consider that Auckland’s fundamental interests in protecting underground water resources from contamination have not been well served in the handling of consents for this new central Auckland landfill. I believe the new amalgamated Auckland Council has an obligation to the people of Auckland to reconsider this matter and to participate fully in the coming Environment Court hearing.
It is your duty to ensure that whatever happens in the Mt Eden Road quarry does not subject Auckland’s underground water resources to any risk of contamination. I have also raised this issue with Watercare.
I seek your personal re-assurance on this.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Cayford
NB: This letter will be copied by email and post to Auckland City Councillors.
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.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Proposed Three Kings "Clean" Landfill
| This is a recent photo of Three Kings Quarry, operated by Winstone Aggregates. It is located in the middle of Three Kings Volcano - which was formed about 15,000 years ago. Several cones were formed. Three of these were prominent. Two have since been quarried away. Aggregate has been used for roading and other construction projects. Winstone Aggregates have operated the quarry since the 1920's, though quarrying has occurred there for over 150 years. |
| The red ring on this map shows the approximate location of the quarry. Most Aucklanders are not aware of its existence. From time to time local community groups have expressed concerns about activities there including dust from quarrying and truck movements and so on. A few years ago I was drawn into an issue that emerged. The quarry had been dug deep enough that groundwater was seeping into the floor of the quarry from adjacent aquifers and other underground water sources, and Winstones applied to "dewater" the quarry. This required water to be pumped out and disposed of. That was one issue. Another related issue was when Winstone Aggregates applied to have this water inserted into Auckland's water supply. They wanted to become a bulk water supplier alongside/in competition with Watercare. While the water was very clean - potable - concerns were raised that it would not be treated reliably to the same standard as existing drinking water supplies. |
There were many submissions against this proposal raising many issues including from dust and truck movements, but also concerns about what the resulting land would be used for/suitable for, and - critically - what effect a landfill would have on Auckland's underground water resources. In particular the large freshwater aquifers that underly much of Auckland and which are used by a few select organisations - including the Zoo - for their water supply. |
| This photo from Auckland Council's website shows the area in 1940. You can see a number of small quarry faces in the area. |
| This picture was taken in 1959. From time to time other activities have occurred on the site including storage of aggregate and storage of diesel fuel and lube oils and explosives. |
| This picture is dated 1966. |
| This one is dated 2001.... |
| And this one is dated 2009.... I am at a loss to understand how Three Kings Quarry owner, Winstone Aggregates, was granted consent by the Auckland Regional Council a year and a half ago to fill the Mt Eden Road quarry - unlined and without a leachate collection system - with waste material that is permitted to contain elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, copper, zinc and hydrocarbons. This and other related resource consent decisions have been appealed to the Environment Court. I understand this appeal is set down for a two week hearing beginning Monday, March the 7th The Mt Eden Road Quarry – also known as Three Kings Quarry - is above, and drains into, a large fresh water aquifer which is already a water source for some users, and which is a back-up drinking water source for Auckland in the event of a natural disaster affecting existing bulk water pipelines. The proposed Mt Eden Road quarry landfill project may result in Auckland’s aquifers becoming too contaminated over time 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 – good civil defence planning would be reliant upon Auckland’s underground water resources to meet the need for drinking water. Surely Auckland Council would not support any activities which might degrade the quality of Auckland’s underground water resources. And surely Watercare, whose duties include taking a leadership role in regard to Auckland's water resources - including underground resources - would be requiring this project to be cleaner than clean, and to adopt best practice. More later.... |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
