Comparison of the Hazardous Substance Plans and Rules among Regional Councils

1. Comparison of the Hazardous Substance Plans and Rules among Regional Councils WasteMINZ Conference 2009Christchurch Lynn Torgerson Environmental Engineer Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd Christchurch

2. Presentation Outline • Background • Method • Results • Conclusions

3. Background Environment Southland are preparing a component their regional plan, which includes the management of hazardous substances. In effort to assist in the development of their plan, consideration was given to other regional councils plans and rules. How are other councils managing hazardous substances?

4. Hazardous Substances Provide source and pathways (opportunities) to reach the receptor (sensitive receiving environment). Management Measures to mitigate or avoid effects

5. Current Legislative Framework Three Acts directly address the management of hazardous substances: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996  HSNO Land Transport Rule 45001: Dangerous Goods 1999 (Amended in 2005) Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) Discharges Control of the use of land

6. Control of the Use of Land Responsibility to both regional and district councils To prevent or mitigate effects from the storage, use, transport and disposal of hazardous substances Delegation identified in the regional policy statement So how many regional councils control the use of land for this purpose?

7. Key Questions Are there any regional councils that control the use of land for the storage, use, transport and disposal of hazardous substances? How are the regional rules drafted? How easy is it to understand the regional rules?

8. Review of Existing Regional Plans and Rules Twelve regional councils and four unitary authorities Method: Regional Policy Statements Regional Plans and Rules Environmental Outcomes Ease of Interpretation of Rules

9. Regional Policy Statements 16 operative regional policy statements and 2 proposed regional policy statements Hazardous substances chapter Mitigating effects to environment from hazardous substances is key issue. Objectives and policies built around the issue.

10. Regional Policy Statements Regulation of hazardous substances identified as a method for managing effects Discharges are the responsibility of regional councils Delegation of the control of the use of land identified in 10 of 12 regional council regional policy statements

11. Regional Policy Statements Use, transport and storage delegated to 2 regional councils (Auckland Regional Council and Environment Canterbury) Disposal delegated to 4 regional councils (ARC, ECan, Horizons, Environment Bay of Plenty) 2 regional policy statements did not provide any delegation (West Coast Regional Council and Northland Regional Council), so by default, the responsibility goes to the region.

12. Regional Plans and Rules Reviewed 6 regional plans with respect to rules to control land. Plan status varied: operative, operative in part and proposed. Very limited rules for managing the use of land for hazardous substances

13. Regional Rules Use of land for storage and use (ECan and ARC) Use of land for disposal of hazardous substances (ARC) Most disposal issues were linked to the discharge rules Use of land for transport of hazardous substances None, although contingency plans were incorporated in ECan and ARC rules

14. Comparison of Regional Rules ARC approach: Use of land for industrial or trade processes – determining the risk level associated with scheduled activities Activities schedule relates to risk and area of activity. Higher risk activities require resource consent, where as low or moderate risk activities may be permitted (with conditions)

15. Comparison of Regional Rules ECan approach: Use of land to store or use hazardous substances – based on specified list of substances (HSNO classification of 9.1A, 9.1B or 9.1C) and their aggregate quantity Use rules include removal of a storage container. Classifications include non-complying and prohibited Sensitive receiving environments (especially the unconfined aquifer areas of Christchurch) trigger more restrictive classifications.

16. Comparison of Regional Rules Both ARC and ECan include management measures in the conditions of their rules Spill contingency plans (which indirectly picks up some transport risk) and hazardous substance containment measures. Use of land does not relinquish responsibility to obtain separate authorisation for the discharge of a hazardous substance.

17. Ease in Interpretation of Rules ECan Rule Challenges Quantity of hazardous substances and HSNO classification Groundwater protection zones and community drinking water supply protection zones Failure to meet certain conditions results in a different planning classification - not easy to follow in the drafted rule Weight of activities when plan is not yet operative (ie prohibited activity)

18. Ease in Interpretation of Rules ARC Rule Challenges Determination of risk level according to Schedule 3 based on area coverage Prescriptive conditions for management measures, may be over the top for some low risk activities Use for disposal of hazardous substances listed as high risk in Schedule 3 and resource consent is required regardless of quantity.

19. Conclusions Most regional councils have delegated the responsibility. Of those who kept the responsibility, regional plans and rules have only been drafted for two councils. While there may overlap in responsibilities, at this time there is a gap in the knowledge of the control of land for those who have not prepared regional rules.

20. Conclusions The rules prepared for the control of the use of land for ARC and ECan based their control using different trigger mechanisms. Both plans have components which affect the ease in which the regional council officers and the landowner can make a determination of the activity status. Efficacy of rules has not yet been assessed.