attached - environment canterbury
TRANSCRIPT
From: Rafael Krzanich To: Mailroom Mailbox Cc: Patrick Mulligan
Subject: Chevron New Zealand - submission on the Proposed
Canterbury Regional Air Plan [BUD-L.FID404244] Date: Friday, 1 May
2015 4:15:53 p.m. Attachments:
Chevron_Canterbury_Regional_Air_Plan_primary_submission_-_final.pdf
Good afternoon, We act for Chevron New Zealand ("Chevron"). Attached for filing is Chevron's primary submission on the Proposed Canterbury Regional Air Plan. Please confirm receipt of this submission to this email address. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, Rafael ............................................................................................................................................ RAFAEL KRZANICH | SOLICITOR | BUDDLE FINDLAY
PwC Tower, 188 Quay Street, PO Box 1433, Auckland 1140 Tel +64 9 358 2555 | Direct +64 9 357 9388 | Fax +64 9 363 0688 [email protected] | www.buddlefindlay.com ............................................................................................................................................ Buddle Findlay produces a range of topical legal updates. If you would like to subscribe please click here
This message and any attachments may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
CHEVRON NEW ZEALAND
To: Canterbury Regional Council (the "Council")
Submitter Name: Chevron New Zealand ("Chevron")
This is a submission on the Proposed Canterbury Air Regional Plan (the "Proposal").
Chevron could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission.
1. Introduction
1.1 With a national network of more than 230 Caltex® service stations and diesel truck fueling stations,
Chevron is one of the country’s leading marketers of fuels and lubricants and has been involved in
New Zealand for over 90 years.
1.2 Chevron is a shareholder in New Zealand’s only refinery and plays an important role in meeting the
nation’s fuel needs and keeping the transport network working. Chevron also has a share of the
aviation fuels market through its operations at Auckland Airport and is a shareholder in Coastal Oil
Logistics Limited, which transports finished products by sea to coastal terminals.
1.3 In the Canterbury Region, Chevron is a major supplier of retail fuel outlets and industrial petroleum
products. Chevron owns and operates storage tanks at the Timaru Port, which in addition to storing
Chevron's own products for dispersal, also holds petroleum products owned by the other major
petroleum suppliers. In addition, Chevron stores and disperses petroleum products from fuel tanks
located at Lyttelton Port which are owned by Mobil.
1.4 Chevron's submission on the Proposal relates to:
(a) Definitions in Part 2 of the Proposal. Specifically, Chevron supports the current definitions of
Property, Petroleum Products and Noxious or Dangerous Effect for the purpose of their
application under Rule 7.34 of the Proposal.
(b) Objectives and policies described in Part 5 and Part 6 of the Proposal. Chevron generally
supports objectives and policies in the Proposal which enable regionally necessary and
appropriately located air discharging activities.
(c) Rules relating to industrial and trade air contaminant discharges in Part 7 of the Proposal.
Chevron generally supports the permitted activity status for air contaminant discharges
associated with the storage and transfer of petroleum products under Rule 7.34, but opposes
the conditions requiring dust and odour management plans for any offsite dust and odour
discharges. Chevron is also concerned that the region wide non-complying activity status for
any offsite offensive or objectionable dust, odour or smoke discharges under Rule 7.3 is too
stringent.
(d) The required contents of management plans for dust, odour and smoke discharges in
Schedule 2 of the Proposal. Chevron is concerned that Schedule 2 does not provide
sufficiently certain environmental standards, management methods or directions for permitted
activities within the Proposal which require management plans. Schedule 2 also does not
BF\52837001\1 | Page 2
provide any directions as to how the adequacy of such required management plans will be
assessed for the purpose of enforcement.
2. Submissions
2.1 The table attached at Appendix 1 identifies:
(a) The specific provisions of the Proposal that Chevron's submission relates to;
(b) Chevron's position on those provisions;
(c) The reasons for Chevron's position on the provisions; and
(d) The relief sought by Chevron from the Council.
2.2 Chevron also requests any collateral changes to the Proposal which are required to give effect to
the relief described in Appendix 1.
3. Hearings
3.1 Chevron wishes to be heard in support of its submission.
3.2 If others make a similar submission, Chevron will consider presenting a joint case with them at a
hearing.
PO Box 1433
Reasons for Chevron's Position Relief Sought
Part 2 – Table 2.1
Definition of Petroleum Product
Supports definition without change.
The definition of petroleum product is sufficiently broad to apply to the range of refined petroleum products which Chevron stores and transfers as part of its activities in the Canterbury region for the purpose of Rule 7.34.
Retain definition.
Supports definition without change.
Chevron considers that the definition of noxious and dangerous effect applies a reasonable environmental standard on permitted air contaminant discharges for the purpose of Rule 7.34.
Retain definition.
Supports definition without change.
Chevron supports the definition of property as used throughout the Proposal (but particularly Rule 7.34) as this definition applies to contiguous areas of land used in a single operating unit rather than being restricted to ownership and title boundaries.
Retain definition.
Retain objective.
Chevron supports the location of air discharging activities in appropriate spatial areas.
Retain objective.
Policy 6.7
Opposes policy. Chevron opposes Policy 6.7 as it creates the expectation that existing air discharging activities which are permitted or consented to and are currently located in appropriate zones/areas could be unduly penalised by future neighbouring land use changes which bring more sensitive land use activities (such as residential dwellings) into contact with them. This policy has the potential to undermine the operational certainty of existing air discharging land uses and unduly restrict the operation of regionally important industrial and trade activities.
Delete policy.
Chevron supports the provision of longer duration consents for appropriately located air discharging activities to secure operational certainty.
Retain policy.
Supports policy without change.
Chevron considers that it is crucial that the Proposal contains policy support for enabling industrial and trade air discharges in appropriate locations.
Retain policy.
Part 7 Rules Opposes activity status. Chevron considers that the non-complying activity status for any offensive or objectionable odour, dust or smoke discharges beyond the boundary of
Activity status is changed from non-complying to
BF\52837001\1 | Page 2
Provision Chevron's position on provision
Reasons for Chevron's Position Relief Sought
Rule 7.3
the property of origin provided in this rule is overly stringent and has the potential to unduly stifle necessary air discharging activities. Chevron also considers that this general non-complying activity status clashes with the residual discretionary activity status provided for unspecified air discharging activities under Rule 7.59.
There is no equivalent rule in the operative Canterbury Natural Resources Plan (the "Operative Plan"). However, it is noted that the Operative Plan generally provides a discretionary activity status for such discharges. This is because most permitted air discharge activities in the Operative Plan are subject to the condition that the activity shall not cause offensive or objectionable effects beyond the boundary of the property of origin. If this condition is breached the activity becomes discretionary under Rule AQL57 of the Operative Plan. Chevron considers that the discretionary activity status provided under the Operative Plan is an appropriate standard to address these effects and should be applied in the Proposal.
discretionary.
Chevron also seeks any necessary collateral changes to other provisions of the Proposal (such as the Objectives and Policies in Parts 5 and 6) to allow this activity status change.
Part 7 Rules
Provisionally supports this rule.
This rule is expressed as being subject to activity statuses provided under Rules 7.29 and 7.59. Chevron supports this rule on the basis that any industrial and trade odour contaminant discharges from the storage and transfer of petroleum products permitted elsewhere in Rules 7.29-7.59 will not trigger resource consent requirements under this rule.
Retain rule.
Provisionally supports this rule.
This rule is expressed as being subject to activity statuses provided under Rules 7.30 and 7.59. Chevron supports this rule on the basis that any industrial and trade dust contaminant discharges from the storage and transfer of petroleum products permitted elsewhere in Rules 7.30-7.59 will not trigger resource consent requirements under this rule.
Retain rule.
Supports rule with amendments.
Chevron supports a permitted activity status for air discharges associated with the storage and transfer of petroleum products. This activity status is necessary to allow storage and distribution of fuels and other materials necessary to maintain the transport network. The permitted activity status also aligns with the treatment of such air discharges under the Operative Plan and other regional plans. The permitted activity status reflects the fact that air contaminant discharges from the storage and transfer of petroleum products are already regulated and controlled under other legislative enactments, such those relating to workplace safety and hazardous substances.
However, Chevron opposes the dust and odour management plan conditions provided in Rule 7.34(2) and 7.34(3). Applying a management
Rule is amended to remove the dust and odour management plan conditions. Text of the amended rule would read as follows:
7.34 The discharge of contaminants into air from the storage or transfer of petroleum products, including vapour ventilation and displacement, is a permitted activity provided the following conditions are
BF\52837001\1 | Page 3
Provision Chevron's position on provision
Reasons for Chevron's Position Relief Sought
plan condition is an overly stringent and disproportionate response as these conditions apply to any offsite odour and dust discharges, regardless of quantity of the discharge and the scale of the impact on the environment. Chevron also questions the legality of applying management plan conditions to a permitted activity as it raises questions as to how the adequacy of such self-formed management plans would be assessed for the purpose of enforcing this condition. Chevron also notes that the neither Operative Plan nor any other regional air plan in New Zealand applies such requirements on permitted air contaminant discharges from the storage and transfer of petroleum products. Furthermore, it is redundant to require management plans to control offensive and objectionable discharges of dust and odour (which is the stated goal of such plans in Schedule 2 of the Proposal) as Rule 7.3 already manages such discharges by requiring resource consent.
For these reasons, Chevron considers that the dust and odour management plan conditions in Rule 7.34(2) and 7.34(3) should be deleted.
met:
1. The discharge does not cause a noxious or dangerous effect.
2. If there is a discharge of odour or dust beyond the boundary of the property of origin, an odour and/or dust management plan prepared in accordance with Schedule 2 must be held and implemented by the persons responsible for the discharge into air; and
3. The odour and/or dust management plan is supplied to the CRC on request.
Part 7 Rules
Supports rule without change.
Chevron supports a discretionary activity status for air discharging activities which do not comply with permitted activity conditions and/or are not otherwise provided for in the Proposal.
Retain rule.
Schedule 2
Content of dust, odour and smoke management plans (as described on pages 8-17 and 8- 18)
Opposes management plan required contents.
The management plan contents described in Schedule 2 of the Proposal are generally worded and lack sufficient detail. While these provisions may provide general guidance as to what kind of information is expected in a management plan, Schedule 2 does not provide specific environmental standards, management methods or directions for particular activities. This is especially concerning for permitted activities within the Proposal (such as Rule 7.34) which currently require management plans to be held and self- implemented in relation to any offsite dust and odour effects. By substituting specific measures and environmental standards with what is largely a self-monitoring management plan scheme, the Proposal lacks certainty as to the basis on which such permitted activities can proceed.
In addition, Schedule 2 also does not provide any details as to how the adequacy of management plans will be determined for the purpose of enforcing permitted activity conditions which require management plans to be held and implemented. This lack of detail creates significant uncertainty for plan users in complying with such conditions and strongly implies the
The text describing management plan contents in Schedule 2 of the Proposal is deleted. Chevron also seeks any necessary collateral changes to other provisions of the Proposal (including the Rules in Part 7) to allow this change.
As an alternative to the above relief, should management plan requirements for permitted activities be retained in the Proposal (such as in Rule 7.34), Chevron seeks that the Schedule 2
BF\52837001\1 | Page 4
Provision Chevron's position on provision
Reasons for Chevron's Position Relief Sought
retention of a discretionary power by the Council to assess the adequacy of management plans for enforcement purposes.
It is noted that the Operative Plan air quality provisions do not provide such general management plan requirements and only refer to management plans in relation to activities which require resource consent. By way of comparison, this is an a more appropriate methodology for utilising management plans as it allows management plans to be developed and tailored with sufficient certainty as part of the resource consenting and monitoring process.
management plan provisions are amended to provide greater guidance for specific permitted activities (in particular, air discharges from the storage and transport of petroleum products). Such details may include specific environmental standards as well as mitigation methods and technological measures to be adopted. Directions will also need to be included in the Proposal regarding how the adequacy of management plans will be assessed for enforcement purposes.
CHEVRON NEW ZEALAND
To:
Chevron New Zealand ("Chevron")
This is a submission on the Proposed Canterbury Air Regional Plan (the "Proposal").
Chevron could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission.
1. Introduction
1.1 With a national network of more than 230 Caltex® service stations and diesel truck fueling stations,
Chevron is one of the country's leading marketers of fuels and lubricants and has been involved in
New Zealand for over 90 years.
1.2 Chevron is a shareholder in New Zealand's only refinery and plays an important role in meeting the
nation's fuel needs and keeping the transport network working. Chevron also has a share of the
aviation fuels market through its operations at Auckland Airport and is a shareholder in Coastal Oil
Logistics Limited, which transports finished products by sea to coastal terminals.
1.3 In the Canterbury Region, Chevron is a major supplier of retail fuel outlets and industrial petroleum
products. Chevron owns and operates storage tanks at the Timaru Port, which in addition to storing
Chevron's own products for dispersal, also holds petroleum products owned by the other major
petroleum suppliers . In addition, Chevron stores and disperses petroleum products from fuel tanks
located at Lyttelton Port which are owned by Mobil.
1.4 Chevron's submission on the Proposal relates to:
(a) Definitions in Part 2 of the Proposal. Specifically, Chevron supports the current definitions of
Property, Petroleum Products and Noxious or Dangerous Effect for the purpose of their
application under Rule 7.34 of the Proposal.
(b) Objectives and policies described in Part 5 and Part 6 of the Proposal. Chevron generally
supports objectives and policies in the Proposal which enable regionally necessary and
appropriately located air discharging activities.
(c) Rules relating to industrial and trade air contaminant discharges in Part 7 of the Proposal.
Chevron generally supports the permitted activity status for air contaminant discharges
associated with the storage and transfer of petroleum products under Rule 7.34, but opposes
the conditions requiring dust and odour management plans for any offsite dust and odour
discharges. Chevron is also concerned that the region wide non-complying activity status for
any offsite offensive or objectionable dust, odour or smoke discharges under Rule 7.3 is too
stringent.
(d) The required contents of management plans for dust, odour and smoke discharges in
Schedule 2 of the Proposal. Chevron is concerned that Schedule 2 does not provide
sufficiently certain environmental standards, management methods or directions for permitted
activities within the Proposal which require management plans. Schedule 2 also does not
BF\52837001 I 1 I Page 1
provide any directions as to how the adequacy of such required management plans will be
assessed for the purpose of enforcement.
2. Submissions
2.1 The table attached at Appendix 1 identifies:
(a) The specific provisions of the Proposal that Chevron's submission relates to;
(b) Chevron's position on those provisions;
(c) The reasons for Chevron's position on the provisions; and
(d) The relief sought by Chevron from the Council.
2.2 Chevron also requests any collateral changes to the Proposal which are required to give effect to
the relief described in Appendix 1.
3. Hearings
3.1 Chevron wishes to be heard in support of its submission.
3.2 If others make a similar submission, Chevron will consider presenting a joint case with them at a
hearing.
PO Box 1433
APPENDIX 1: Chevron's Primary Submission
Provision I Che~~n·s position on ReaS'Ons for Chevron's Position Relief Sought 'prOVISIOn
Part 2- Table 2.1 Supports definition The definition of petroleum product is sufficiently broad to apply to the range 'Retain definition. ---~
Definition of without change. of refined petroleum products which Chevron stores and transfers as part of
Petroleum Product its activities in the Canterbury region for the purpose of Rule 7.34.
Part 2 -Table 2.1 Supports definition Chevron considers that the definition of noxious and dangerous effect Retain definition.
Definition of without change. applies a reasonable environmental standard on permitted air contaminant
Noxious or discharges for the purpose of Rule 7 .34.
Dangerous Effect
Part 2- Table 2.1 Supports definition Chevron supports the definition of property as used throughout the Proposal Retain definition.
Definition of without change. (but particularly Rule 7.34) as this definition applies to contiguous areas of
Property land used in a single operating unit rather than being restricted to ownership and title boundaries.
Part 5 Objectives Supports objective Chevron supports the enablement of nationally and regionally significant Retain objective.
Objective 5.7 without change. infrastructure across the Proposal.
Part 5 Objectives Supports objective Chevron supports the location of air discharging activities in appropriate Retain objective.
Objective 5.9 without change. spatial areas.
Part 6 Policies Opposes policy. Chevron opposes Policy 6.7 as it creates the expectation that existing air Delete policy.
Policy 6.7 discharging activities which are permitted or consented to and are currently located in appropriate zones/areas could be unduly penalised by future neighbouring land use changes which bring more sensitive land use activities (such as residential dwellings) into contact with them. This policy has the potential to undermine the operational certainty of existing air discharging land uses and unduly restrict the operation of regionally important industrial and trade activities.
Part 6 Policies Supports policy without Chevron supports the provision of longer duration consents for Retain policy.
Policy 6.8 change. appropriately located air discharging activities to secure operational
certainty.
Part 6 Policies Supports policy without Chevron considers that it is crucial that the Proposal contains policy support Retain policy.
Policy 6.19 change. for enabling industrial and trade air discharges in appropriate locations.
Part 7 Rules Opposes activity status. Chevron considers that the non-complying activity status for any offensive Activity status is changed from or objectionable odour, dust or smoke discharges beyond the boundary of non-complying to
BF\52837001\1 1 Page I
Provision 1 Chevron's position on l Reasons for Chevron's Position Relief Sought I
i l provision ! ' r----- -- - - -- ----+--- -------~--1--- ' --------~
I 1 the property of origin provided in this rule is overly stringent and has the discretionary
Rule 7.3 I potential to unduly stifle necessary air discharging activities. Chevron also Chevron also seeks any
I considers that this general non-compiying activity status clashes with the necessary collateral changes
residual discretionary activity status provided for unspecified air discharging i to other provisions of the I activities under Rule 7.59.
Proposal (such as the I I
There is no equivalent rule in the operative Canterbury Natural Resources Objectives and Policies in I Plan (the "Operative Plan"}. However, it is noted that the Operative Plan Parts 5 and 6} to allow this
I , generally provides a discretionary activity status for such discharges. This is activity status change. I
I 1 because most permitted air discharge activities in the Operative Plan are I I subject to the condition that the activity shall not cause offensive or
I I
I objectionable effects beyond the boundary of the property of origin. If this condition is breached the activity becomes discretionary under Rule AQL57 I
I 1 of the Operative Plan. Chevron considers that the discretionary activity I I I status provided under the Operative Plan is an appropriate standard to
! I address these effects and should be applied in the Proposal. !
Part 7 Rules I Provisionally supports I This rule is expressed as being subject to activity statuses provided under Retain rule.
I Rule 7.28 this rule .
1 Rules 7.29 and 7.59. Chevron supports this rule on the basis that any
I i 1 industrial and trade odour contaminant discharges from the storage and I
: transfer of petroleum products permitted elsewhere in Rules 7.29-7.59 will not trigger resource consent requirements under this rule.
Part 7 Rules Provisionally supports This rule is expressed as being subject to activity statuses provided under Retain rule.
Rule 7.29 this rule. Rules 7.30 and 7.59. Chevron supports this rule on the basis that any I industrial and trade dust contaminant discharges from the storage and
transfer of petroleum products permitted elsewhere in Rules 7.30-7.59 will not trigger resource consent requirements under this rule.
----1 Part 7 Ruies Supports rule with Chevron supports a permitted activity status for air discharges associated Rule is amended to remove ·
Rule 7.34 amendments. with the storage and transfer of petroleum products. This activity status is the dust and odour necessary to allow storage and distribution of fuels and other materials management plan conditions .
1 necessary to maintain the transport network. The permitted activity status Text of the amended rule i also aligns with the treatment of such air discharges under the Operative would read as follows:
I I Plan and other regional plans. The permitted activity status reflects the fact
7.34 The discharge of I I
1 that air contaminant discharges from the storage and transfer of petroleum contaminants into air from I I
products are already regulated and controlled under other legislative the storage or transfer of enactments, such those relating to workplace safety and hazardous petroleum products, I
I substances. including vapour ventilation I I
However, Chevron opposes the dust and odour management plan and displacement. is a
J permitted activity provided
conditions provided in Rule 7.34(2} and 7.34(3}. Applying a management the followinq conditions are
BF\5283700 1\1 I Page 2
Provision
f------'--- ---
Schedule 2
Content of dust, odour and smoke management plans (as described on pages 8-17 and 8- 18)
BF\5283700 1\1 I Page 3
Che~~n•s position on I Reasons for Chevron's Position prOVISIOn i
Relief Sought
Supports rule without change.
Opposes management plan required contents.
conditions apply to any offsite odour and dust discharges, regardless of 1_ The discharge does not quantity of the discharge and the scale of the impact on the environment. cause a noxious or Chevron also questions the legality of applying management plan dangerous effect. conditions to a permitted activity as it raises questions as to how the 2. If there is a dischar§e of adequacy of such self-formed management plans would be assessed for odour or dust beyond the the purpose of enforcing this condition. Chevron also notes that the neither boundary of the property Operative Plan nor any other regional air plan in New Zealand applies such of ori§in, an odour requirements on permitted air contaminant discharges from the storage and and/or sust mana§ement
plan prepared in transfer of petroleum products. Furthermore, it is redundant to require accor9ance IIIith management plans to control offensive and objectionable discharges of Sches~,~le 2 must be held dust and odour (which is the stated goal of such plans in Schedule 2 of the ana imJ:llementes by the Proposal) as Rule 7.3 already manages such discharges by requiring peFSons responsible for resource consent. the aischaF§e into air;
For these reasons, Chevron considers that the dust and odour management plan conditions in Rule 7.34(2) and 7.34(3) should be deleted.
Chevron supports a discretionary activity status for air discharging activities which do not comply with permitted activity conditions and/or are not otherwise provided for in the Proposal.
The management plan contents described in Schedule 2 of the Proposal are generally worded and lack sufficient detail. While these provisions may provide general guidance as to what kind of information is expected in a management plan, Schedule 2 does not provide specific environmental standards, management methods or directions for particular activities. This is especially concerning for permitted activities within the Proposal (such as Rule 7.34) which currently require management plans to be held and self implemented in relation to any offsite dust and odour effects. By substituting specific measures and environmental standards with what is largely a self-monitoring management plan scheme, the Proposal lacks certainty as to the basis on which such permitted activities can proceed.
In addition, Schedule 2 also does not provide any details as to how the adequacy of management plans will be determined for the purpose of enforcing permitted activity conditions which require management plans to be held and implemented. This lack of detail creates significant uncertainty for plan users in complying with such conditions and stron_gly_implies the
aM 3. The odour and/or dust
management 13lan is supplies to the CRC on rOf1UeSt.
Retain rule.
The text describing management plan contents in Schedule 2 of the Proposal is deleted. Chevron also seeks any necessary collateral changes to other provisions of the Proposal (including the Rules in Part 7) to allow this change.
As an alternative to the above relief, should management plan requirements for permitted activities be retained in the Proposal (such as in Rule 7.34), Chevron seeks that the Schedule 2
Provision ! Relief Sought i Chevron's position on , Reasons for Chevron's Position I provision j
--~~----------~. -~~-----~~-----------+---~--~--~~------------~~~-:----~----------~-------~~---------------~~~-~ I . ! retention of a discretionary power by the Council to assess the adequacy of management plan provisions
J management plans for enforcement purposes. are amended to provide
i I It is noted that the Operative Plan air quality provisions do not provide such greater guidance for specific ' 1 permitted activities (in 1 general management plan requirements and only refer to management particular, air discharges from
I
I plans in relation to activities which require resource consent. By way of the storage and transport of comparison, this is an a more appropriate methodology for utilising petroleum products). Such
I management plans as it allows management plans to be developed and details may include specific
I tailored with sufficient certainty as part of the resource consenting and environmental standards as
I I monitoring process.
I, I,
be adopted. Directions will I i also need to be included in the I Proposal regarding how the I adequacy of management
I ' plans will be assessed for
enforcement purposes.
Good afternoon, We act for Chevron New Zealand ("Chevron"). Attached for filing is Chevron's primary submission on the Proposed Canterbury Regional Air Plan. Please confirm receipt of this submission to this email address. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, Rafael ............................................................................................................................................ RAFAEL KRZANICH | SOLICITOR | BUDDLE FINDLAY
PwC Tower, 188 Quay Street, PO Box 1433, Auckland 1140 Tel +64 9 358 2555 | Direct +64 9 357 9388 | Fax +64 9 363 0688 [email protected] | www.buddlefindlay.com ............................................................................................................................................ Buddle Findlay produces a range of topical legal updates. If you would like to subscribe please click here
This message and any attachments may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
CHEVRON NEW ZEALAND
To: Canterbury Regional Council (the "Council")
Submitter Name: Chevron New Zealand ("Chevron")
This is a submission on the Proposed Canterbury Air Regional Plan (the "Proposal").
Chevron could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission.
1. Introduction
1.1 With a national network of more than 230 Caltex® service stations and diesel truck fueling stations,
Chevron is one of the country’s leading marketers of fuels and lubricants and has been involved in
New Zealand for over 90 years.
1.2 Chevron is a shareholder in New Zealand’s only refinery and plays an important role in meeting the
nation’s fuel needs and keeping the transport network working. Chevron also has a share of the
aviation fuels market through its operations at Auckland Airport and is a shareholder in Coastal Oil
Logistics Limited, which transports finished products by sea to coastal terminals.
1.3 In the Canterbury Region, Chevron is a major supplier of retail fuel outlets and industrial petroleum
products. Chevron owns and operates storage tanks at the Timaru Port, which in addition to storing
Chevron's own products for dispersal, also holds petroleum products owned by the other major
petroleum suppliers. In addition, Chevron stores and disperses petroleum products from fuel tanks
located at Lyttelton Port which are owned by Mobil.
1.4 Chevron's submission on the Proposal relates to:
(a) Definitions in Part 2 of the Proposal. Specifically, Chevron supports the current definitions of
Property, Petroleum Products and Noxious or Dangerous Effect for the purpose of their
application under Rule 7.34 of the Proposal.
(b) Objectives and policies described in Part 5 and Part 6 of the Proposal. Chevron generally
supports objectives and policies in the Proposal which enable regionally necessary and
appropriately located air discharging activities.
(c) Rules relating to industrial and trade air contaminant discharges in Part 7 of the Proposal.
Chevron generally supports the permitted activity status for air contaminant discharges
associated with the storage and transfer of petroleum products under Rule 7.34, but opposes
the conditions requiring dust and odour management plans for any offsite dust and odour
discharges. Chevron is also concerned that the region wide non-complying activity status for
any offsite offensive or objectionable dust, odour or smoke discharges under Rule 7.3 is too
stringent.
(d) The required contents of management plans for dust, odour and smoke discharges in
Schedule 2 of the Proposal. Chevron is concerned that Schedule 2 does not provide
sufficiently certain environmental standards, management methods or directions for permitted
activities within the Proposal which require management plans. Schedule 2 also does not
BF\52837001\1 | Page 2
provide any directions as to how the adequacy of such required management plans will be
assessed for the purpose of enforcement.
2. Submissions
2.1 The table attached at Appendix 1 identifies:
(a) The specific provisions of the Proposal that Chevron's submission relates to;
(b) Chevron's position on those provisions;
(c) The reasons for Chevron's position on the provisions; and
(d) The relief sought by Chevron from the Council.
2.2 Chevron also requests any collateral changes to the Proposal which are required to give effect to
the relief described in Appendix 1.
3. Hearings
3.1 Chevron wishes to be heard in support of its submission.
3.2 If others make a similar submission, Chevron will consider presenting a joint case with them at a
hearing.
PO Box 1433
Reasons for Chevron's Position Relief Sought
Part 2 – Table 2.1
Definition of Petroleum Product
Supports definition without change.
The definition of petroleum product is sufficiently broad to apply to the range of refined petroleum products which Chevron stores and transfers as part of its activities in the Canterbury region for the purpose of Rule 7.34.
Retain definition.
Supports definition without change.
Chevron considers that the definition of noxious and dangerous effect applies a reasonable environmental standard on permitted air contaminant discharges for the purpose of Rule 7.34.
Retain definition.
Supports definition without change.
Chevron supports the definition of property as used throughout the Proposal (but particularly Rule 7.34) as this definition applies to contiguous areas of land used in a single operating unit rather than being restricted to ownership and title boundaries.
Retain definition.
Retain objective.
Chevron supports the location of air discharging activities in appropriate spatial areas.
Retain objective.
Policy 6.7
Opposes policy. Chevron opposes Policy 6.7 as it creates the expectation that existing air discharging activities which are permitted or consented to and are currently located in appropriate zones/areas could be unduly penalised by future neighbouring land use changes which bring more sensitive land use activities (such as residential dwellings) into contact with them. This policy has the potential to undermine the operational certainty of existing air discharging land uses and unduly restrict the operation of regionally important industrial and trade activities.
Delete policy.
Chevron supports the provision of longer duration consents for appropriately located air discharging activities to secure operational certainty.
Retain policy.
Supports policy without change.
Chevron considers that it is crucial that the Proposal contains policy support for enabling industrial and trade air discharges in appropriate locations.
Retain policy.
Part 7 Rules Opposes activity status. Chevron considers that the non-complying activity status for any offensive or objectionable odour, dust or smoke discharges beyond the boundary of
Activity status is changed from non-complying to
BF\52837001\1 | Page 2
Provision Chevron's position on provision
Reasons for Chevron's Position Relief Sought
Rule 7.3
the property of origin provided in this rule is overly stringent and has the potential to unduly stifle necessary air discharging activities. Chevron also considers that this general non-complying activity status clashes with the residual discretionary activity status provided for unspecified air discharging activities under Rule 7.59.
There is no equivalent rule in the operative Canterbury Natural Resources Plan (the "Operative Plan"). However, it is noted that the Operative Plan generally provides a discretionary activity status for such discharges. This is because most permitted air discharge activities in the Operative Plan are subject to the condition that the activity shall not cause offensive or objectionable effects beyond the boundary of the property of origin. If this condition is breached the activity becomes discretionary under Rule AQL57 of the Operative Plan. Chevron considers that the discretionary activity status provided under the Operative Plan is an appropriate standard to address these effects and should be applied in the Proposal.
discretionary.
Chevron also seeks any necessary collateral changes to other provisions of the Proposal (such as the Objectives and Policies in Parts 5 and 6) to allow this activity status change.
Part 7 Rules
Provisionally supports this rule.
This rule is expressed as being subject to activity statuses provided under Rules 7.29 and 7.59. Chevron supports this rule on the basis that any industrial and trade odour contaminant discharges from the storage and transfer of petroleum products permitted elsewhere in Rules 7.29-7.59 will not trigger resource consent requirements under this rule.
Retain rule.
Provisionally supports this rule.
This rule is expressed as being subject to activity statuses provided under Rules 7.30 and 7.59. Chevron supports this rule on the basis that any industrial and trade dust contaminant discharges from the storage and transfer of petroleum products permitted elsewhere in Rules 7.30-7.59 will not trigger resource consent requirements under this rule.
Retain rule.
Supports rule with amendments.
Chevron supports a permitted activity status for air discharges associated with the storage and transfer of petroleum products. This activity status is necessary to allow storage and distribution of fuels and other materials necessary to maintain the transport network. The permitted activity status also aligns with the treatment of such air discharges under the Operative Plan and other regional plans. The permitted activity status reflects the fact that air contaminant discharges from the storage and transfer of petroleum products are already regulated and controlled under other legislative enactments, such those relating to workplace safety and hazardous substances.
However, Chevron opposes the dust and odour management plan conditions provided in Rule 7.34(2) and 7.34(3). Applying a management
Rule is amended to remove the dust and odour management plan conditions. Text of the amended rule would read as follows:
7.34 The discharge of contaminants into air from the storage or transfer of petroleum products, including vapour ventilation and displacement, is a permitted activity provided the following conditions are
BF\52837001\1 | Page 3
Provision Chevron's position on provision
Reasons for Chevron's Position Relief Sought
plan condition is an overly stringent and disproportionate response as these conditions apply to any offsite odour and dust discharges, regardless of quantity of the discharge and the scale of the impact on the environment. Chevron also questions the legality of applying management plan conditions to a permitted activity as it raises questions as to how the adequacy of such self-formed management plans would be assessed for the purpose of enforcing this condition. Chevron also notes that the neither Operative Plan nor any other regional air plan in New Zealand applies such requirements on permitted air contaminant discharges from the storage and transfer of petroleum products. Furthermore, it is redundant to require management plans to control offensive and objectionable discharges of dust and odour (which is the stated goal of such plans in Schedule 2 of the Proposal) as Rule 7.3 already manages such discharges by requiring resource consent.
For these reasons, Chevron considers that the dust and odour management plan conditions in Rule 7.34(2) and 7.34(3) should be deleted.
met:
1. The discharge does not cause a noxious or dangerous effect.
2. If there is a discharge of odour or dust beyond the boundary of the property of origin, an odour and/or dust management plan prepared in accordance with Schedule 2 must be held and implemented by the persons responsible for the discharge into air; and
3. The odour and/or dust management plan is supplied to the CRC on request.
Part 7 Rules
Supports rule without change.
Chevron supports a discretionary activity status for air discharging activities which do not comply with permitted activity conditions and/or are not otherwise provided for in the Proposal.
Retain rule.
Schedule 2
Content of dust, odour and smoke management plans (as described on pages 8-17 and 8- 18)
Opposes management plan required contents.
The management plan contents described in Schedule 2 of the Proposal are generally worded and lack sufficient detail. While these provisions may provide general guidance as to what kind of information is expected in a management plan, Schedule 2 does not provide specific environmental standards, management methods or directions for particular activities. This is especially concerning for permitted activities within the Proposal (such as Rule 7.34) which currently require management plans to be held and self- implemented in relation to any offsite dust and odour effects. By substituting specific measures and environmental standards with what is largely a self-monitoring management plan scheme, the Proposal lacks certainty as to the basis on which such permitted activities can proceed.
In addition, Schedule 2 also does not provide any details as to how the adequacy of management plans will be determined for the purpose of enforcing permitted activity conditions which require management plans to be held and implemented. This lack of detail creates significant uncertainty for plan users in complying with such conditions and strongly implies the
The text describing management plan contents in Schedule 2 of the Proposal is deleted. Chevron also seeks any necessary collateral changes to other provisions of the Proposal (including the Rules in Part 7) to allow this change.
As an alternative to the above relief, should management plan requirements for permitted activities be retained in the Proposal (such as in Rule 7.34), Chevron seeks that the Schedule 2
BF\52837001\1 | Page 4
Provision Chevron's position on provision
Reasons for Chevron's Position Relief Sought
retention of a discretionary power by the Council to assess the adequacy of management plans for enforcement purposes.
It is noted that the Operative Plan air quality provisions do not provide such general management plan requirements and only refer to management plans in relation to activities which require resource consent. By way of comparison, this is an a more appropriate methodology for utilising management plans as it allows management plans to be developed and tailored with sufficient certainty as part of the resource consenting and monitoring process.
management plan provisions are amended to provide greater guidance for specific permitted activities (in particular, air discharges from the storage and transport of petroleum products). Such details may include specific environmental standards as well as mitigation methods and technological measures to be adopted. Directions will also need to be included in the Proposal regarding how the adequacy of management plans will be assessed for enforcement purposes.
CHEVRON NEW ZEALAND
To:
Chevron New Zealand ("Chevron")
This is a submission on the Proposed Canterbury Air Regional Plan (the "Proposal").
Chevron could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission.
1. Introduction
1.1 With a national network of more than 230 Caltex® service stations and diesel truck fueling stations,
Chevron is one of the country's leading marketers of fuels and lubricants and has been involved in
New Zealand for over 90 years.
1.2 Chevron is a shareholder in New Zealand's only refinery and plays an important role in meeting the
nation's fuel needs and keeping the transport network working. Chevron also has a share of the
aviation fuels market through its operations at Auckland Airport and is a shareholder in Coastal Oil
Logistics Limited, which transports finished products by sea to coastal terminals.
1.3 In the Canterbury Region, Chevron is a major supplier of retail fuel outlets and industrial petroleum
products. Chevron owns and operates storage tanks at the Timaru Port, which in addition to storing
Chevron's own products for dispersal, also holds petroleum products owned by the other major
petroleum suppliers . In addition, Chevron stores and disperses petroleum products from fuel tanks
located at Lyttelton Port which are owned by Mobil.
1.4 Chevron's submission on the Proposal relates to:
(a) Definitions in Part 2 of the Proposal. Specifically, Chevron supports the current definitions of
Property, Petroleum Products and Noxious or Dangerous Effect for the purpose of their
application under Rule 7.34 of the Proposal.
(b) Objectives and policies described in Part 5 and Part 6 of the Proposal. Chevron generally
supports objectives and policies in the Proposal which enable regionally necessary and
appropriately located air discharging activities.
(c) Rules relating to industrial and trade air contaminant discharges in Part 7 of the Proposal.
Chevron generally supports the permitted activity status for air contaminant discharges
associated with the storage and transfer of petroleum products under Rule 7.34, but opposes
the conditions requiring dust and odour management plans for any offsite dust and odour
discharges. Chevron is also concerned that the region wide non-complying activity status for
any offsite offensive or objectionable dust, odour or smoke discharges under Rule 7.3 is too
stringent.
(d) The required contents of management plans for dust, odour and smoke discharges in
Schedule 2 of the Proposal. Chevron is concerned that Schedule 2 does not provide
sufficiently certain environmental standards, management methods or directions for permitted
activities within the Proposal which require management plans. Schedule 2 also does not
BF\52837001 I 1 I Page 1
provide any directions as to how the adequacy of such required management plans will be
assessed for the purpose of enforcement.
2. Submissions
2.1 The table attached at Appendix 1 identifies:
(a) The specific provisions of the Proposal that Chevron's submission relates to;
(b) Chevron's position on those provisions;
(c) The reasons for Chevron's position on the provisions; and
(d) The relief sought by Chevron from the Council.
2.2 Chevron also requests any collateral changes to the Proposal which are required to give effect to
the relief described in Appendix 1.
3. Hearings
3.1 Chevron wishes to be heard in support of its submission.
3.2 If others make a similar submission, Chevron will consider presenting a joint case with them at a
hearing.
PO Box 1433
APPENDIX 1: Chevron's Primary Submission
Provision I Che~~n·s position on ReaS'Ons for Chevron's Position Relief Sought 'prOVISIOn
Part 2- Table 2.1 Supports definition The definition of petroleum product is sufficiently broad to apply to the range 'Retain definition. ---~
Definition of without change. of refined petroleum products which Chevron stores and transfers as part of
Petroleum Product its activities in the Canterbury region for the purpose of Rule 7.34.
Part 2 -Table 2.1 Supports definition Chevron considers that the definition of noxious and dangerous effect Retain definition.
Definition of without change. applies a reasonable environmental standard on permitted air contaminant
Noxious or discharges for the purpose of Rule 7 .34.
Dangerous Effect
Part 2- Table 2.1 Supports definition Chevron supports the definition of property as used throughout the Proposal Retain definition.
Definition of without change. (but particularly Rule 7.34) as this definition applies to contiguous areas of
Property land used in a single operating unit rather than being restricted to ownership and title boundaries.
Part 5 Objectives Supports objective Chevron supports the enablement of nationally and regionally significant Retain objective.
Objective 5.7 without change. infrastructure across the Proposal.
Part 5 Objectives Supports objective Chevron supports the location of air discharging activities in appropriate Retain objective.
Objective 5.9 without change. spatial areas.
Part 6 Policies Opposes policy. Chevron opposes Policy 6.7 as it creates the expectation that existing air Delete policy.
Policy 6.7 discharging activities which are permitted or consented to and are currently located in appropriate zones/areas could be unduly penalised by future neighbouring land use changes which bring more sensitive land use activities (such as residential dwellings) into contact with them. This policy has the potential to undermine the operational certainty of existing air discharging land uses and unduly restrict the operation of regionally important industrial and trade activities.
Part 6 Policies Supports policy without Chevron supports the provision of longer duration consents for Retain policy.
Policy 6.8 change. appropriately located air discharging activities to secure operational
certainty.
Part 6 Policies Supports policy without Chevron considers that it is crucial that the Proposal contains policy support Retain policy.
Policy 6.19 change. for enabling industrial and trade air discharges in appropriate locations.
Part 7 Rules Opposes activity status. Chevron considers that the non-complying activity status for any offensive Activity status is changed from or objectionable odour, dust or smoke discharges beyond the boundary of non-complying to
BF\52837001\1 1 Page I
Provision 1 Chevron's position on l Reasons for Chevron's Position Relief Sought I
i l provision ! ' r----- -- - - -- ----+--- -------~--1--- ' --------~
I 1 the property of origin provided in this rule is overly stringent and has the discretionary
Rule 7.3 I potential to unduly stifle necessary air discharging activities. Chevron also Chevron also seeks any
I considers that this general non-compiying activity status clashes with the necessary collateral changes
residual discretionary activity status provided for unspecified air discharging i to other provisions of the I activities under Rule 7.59.
Proposal (such as the I I
There is no equivalent rule in the operative Canterbury Natural Resources Objectives and Policies in I Plan (the "Operative Plan"}. However, it is noted that the Operative Plan Parts 5 and 6} to allow this
I , generally provides a discretionary activity status for such discharges. This is activity status change. I
I 1 because most permitted air discharge activities in the Operative Plan are I I subject to the condition that the activity shall not cause offensive or
I I
I objectionable effects beyond the boundary of the property of origin. If this condition is breached the activity becomes discretionary under Rule AQL57 I
I 1 of the Operative Plan. Chevron considers that the discretionary activity I I I status provided under the Operative Plan is an appropriate standard to
! I address these effects and should be applied in the Proposal. !
Part 7 Rules I Provisionally supports I This rule is expressed as being subject to activity statuses provided under Retain rule.
I Rule 7.28 this rule .
1 Rules 7.29 and 7.59. Chevron supports this rule on the basis that any
I i 1 industrial and trade odour contaminant discharges from the storage and I
: transfer of petroleum products permitted elsewhere in Rules 7.29-7.59 will not trigger resource consent requirements under this rule.
Part 7 Rules Provisionally supports This rule is expressed as being subject to activity statuses provided under Retain rule.
Rule 7.29 this rule. Rules 7.30 and 7.59. Chevron supports this rule on the basis that any I industrial and trade dust contaminant discharges from the storage and
transfer of petroleum products permitted elsewhere in Rules 7.30-7.59 will not trigger resource consent requirements under this rule.
----1 Part 7 Ruies Supports rule with Chevron supports a permitted activity status for air discharges associated Rule is amended to remove ·
Rule 7.34 amendments. with the storage and transfer of petroleum products. This activity status is the dust and odour necessary to allow storage and distribution of fuels and other materials management plan conditions .
1 necessary to maintain the transport network. The permitted activity status Text of the amended rule i also aligns with the treatment of such air discharges under the Operative would read as follows:
I I Plan and other regional plans. The permitted activity status reflects the fact
7.34 The discharge of I I
1 that air contaminant discharges from the storage and transfer of petroleum contaminants into air from I I
products are already regulated and controlled under other legislative the storage or transfer of enactments, such those relating to workplace safety and hazardous petroleum products, I
I substances. including vapour ventilation I I
However, Chevron opposes the dust and odour management plan and displacement. is a
J permitted activity provided
conditions provided in Rule 7.34(2} and 7.34(3}. Applying a management the followinq conditions are
BF\5283700 1\1 I Page 2
Provision
f------'--- ---
Schedule 2
Content of dust, odour and smoke management plans (as described on pages 8-17 and 8- 18)
BF\5283700 1\1 I Page 3
Che~~n•s position on I Reasons for Chevron's Position prOVISIOn i
Relief Sought
Supports rule without change.
Opposes management plan required contents.
conditions apply to any offsite odour and dust discharges, regardless of 1_ The discharge does not quantity of the discharge and the scale of the impact on the environment. cause a noxious or Chevron also questions the legality of applying management plan dangerous effect. conditions to a permitted activity as it raises questions as to how the 2. If there is a dischar§e of adequacy of such self-formed management plans would be assessed for odour or dust beyond the the purpose of enforcing this condition. Chevron also notes that the neither boundary of the property Operative Plan nor any other regional air plan in New Zealand applies such of ori§in, an odour requirements on permitted air contaminant discharges from the storage and and/or sust mana§ement
plan prepared in transfer of petroleum products. Furthermore, it is redundant to require accor9ance IIIith management plans to control offensive and objectionable discharges of Sches~,~le 2 must be held dust and odour (which is the stated goal of such plans in Schedule 2 of the ana imJ:llementes by the Proposal) as Rule 7.3 already manages such discharges by requiring peFSons responsible for resource consent. the aischaF§e into air;
For these reasons, Chevron considers that the dust and odour management plan conditions in Rule 7.34(2) and 7.34(3) should be deleted.
Chevron supports a discretionary activity status for air discharging activities which do not comply with permitted activity conditions and/or are not otherwise provided for in the Proposal.
The management plan contents described in Schedule 2 of the Proposal are generally worded and lack sufficient detail. While these provisions may provide general guidance as to what kind of information is expected in a management plan, Schedule 2 does not provide specific environmental standards, management methods or directions for particular activities. This is especially concerning for permitted activities within the Proposal (such as Rule 7.34) which currently require management plans to be held and self implemented in relation to any offsite dust and odour effects. By substituting specific measures and environmental standards with what is largely a self-monitoring management plan scheme, the Proposal lacks certainty as to the basis on which such permitted activities can proceed.
In addition, Schedule 2 also does not provide any details as to how the adequacy of management plans will be determined for the purpose of enforcing permitted activity conditions which require management plans to be held and implemented. This lack of detail creates significant uncertainty for plan users in complying with such conditions and stron_gly_implies the
aM 3. The odour and/or dust
management 13lan is supplies to the CRC on rOf1UeSt.
Retain rule.
The text describing management plan contents in Schedule 2 of the Proposal is deleted. Chevron also seeks any necessary collateral changes to other provisions of the Proposal (including the Rules in Part 7) to allow this change.
As an alternative to the above relief, should management plan requirements for permitted activities be retained in the Proposal (such as in Rule 7.34), Chevron seeks that the Schedule 2
Provision ! Relief Sought i Chevron's position on , Reasons for Chevron's Position I provision j
--~~----------~. -~~-----~~-----------+---~--~--~~------------~~~-:----~----------~-------~~---------------~~~-~ I . ! retention of a discretionary power by the Council to assess the adequacy of management plan provisions
J management plans for enforcement purposes. are amended to provide
i I It is noted that the Operative Plan air quality provisions do not provide such greater guidance for specific ' 1 permitted activities (in 1 general management plan requirements and only refer to management particular, air discharges from
I
I plans in relation to activities which require resource consent. By way of the storage and transport of comparison, this is an a more appropriate methodology for utilising petroleum products). Such
I management plans as it allows management plans to be developed and details may include specific
I tailored with sufficient certainty as part of the resource consenting and environmental standards as
I I monitoring process.
I, I,
be adopted. Directions will I i also need to be included in the I Proposal regarding how the I adequacy of management
I ' plans will be assessed for
enforcement purposes.