decision report of the independent hearing … · the proposed facility will comprise a fully...

IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER OF an application by Greenlea Premier Meats Ltd for a

comprehensive landuse consent from Matamata-Piako District Council and a discharge permit from the Waikato Regional Council associated with a proposal to construct and operate an onsite wastewater treatment plant.

DECISION REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING COMMISIONER FOR:

MATAMATA-PIAKO DISTRICT COUNCIL AND

WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL

1 HEARING

I, William Wasley of Tauranga was appointed by both the Waikato Regional Council (WRC) and Matamata-Piako District Council (MPDC) as Independent Hearing Commissioner to hear and determine the above applications before the Councils. My appointment was: In the case of WRC, pursuant to a resolution dated 23 November 2010; and:

In the case of MPDC, pursuant to an appointment made by the Environmental Services

Manager under delegation, in terms of section 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

As advised at the hearing, I conducted a site inspection prior to the hearing on the 3 December 2010. No parties were present. I was accompanied by MPDC’s Environmental Services Manager, Mr Dennis Bellamy The hearing was held at the offices of MPDC in Te Aroha on the 3 December 2010. I heard the applications to WRC and MPDC jointly and subsequently adjourned the hearing to enable me to assess the adequacy of evidence heard, prior to closing the hearing. I closed the hearing on the 7 December 2010.

2 APPLICATIONS

Greenlea Premier Meats Limited (the applicant) had lodged the following resource consent applications with WRC and MPDC:

Waikato Regional Council: Resource Consent No- 121639 To discharge contaminants to air associated with the operation of an onsite wastewater

treatment plant involving the collection and flaring of biogas – Discretionary Activity. Matamata-Piako District Council: Comprehensive Land Use Consent No- 2010.10181 Biogas produced by anaerobic fermentation of waste exceeding 4m³ per day in the

Rural Zone – Non-Complying Activity. Sewage and wastewater treatment plants (exclusive of septic tanks), treated waste

disposal sites, including composting, stormwater treatment device in the Rural Zone – Discretionary Activity.

Any trimming, pruning or maintenance of a scheduled tree (including roots) specified in Schedule 3 to the District Plan not otherwise permitted – Discretionary Activity.

Any works or activity within the drip-line of any scheduled tree or which may impact on the root system of the tree – Discretionary Activity.

Removal of any scheduled tree– Non-Complying Activity. Cleanfill activities involving the deposit of 1,000 m3 or more of material (as measured

compacted in place) in the Rural Zone – Discretionary Activity. Erection or placement of new structures, addition, alteration or replacement of existing

authorized structures on or over the surface of water with the exception of upgrading of electrical lines– Discretionary Activity.

The site of the proposed wastewater treatment plant is legally described as Lot 1 DPS 61200, owned by the applicant’s subsidiary company. A new wastewater pipeline between the Greenlea Meatworks and the wastewater treatment plant will cross over land legally described as Pt Lot 1 DP 17820 and Section 1 SO 58344 owned by the applicant, and the East Coast Main Trunk Railway which is Crown Land administered by the New Zealand Railway Corporation. I was advised that the applications were processed on a limited notified basis, with the following parties deemed to be potentially affected: Owners and occupiers of Lot 1 DPS 47020; Owners and occupiers of the dwellings at 28 – 44 Eynon Road; New Zealand Railway Corporation Matamata-Piako District Council, Infrastructure Manager. Notice to potentially affected parties was served on 24 September 2010 with the closing date for receipt of submissions being 26 October 2010.

3 SUBMISSIONS

Within the prescribed submission period seven submissions were lodged with MPDC and two submissions were lodged with WRC, from the following parties: A Nicholas, submitter to MPDC (in opposition); J and R Wilson, submitters to MPDC and WRC (in opposition); RJ Butterfield, submitter to MPDC (in opposition); Matamata-Piako District Council, submitter to MPDC and WRC (in support); TL McKinnon, submitter to MPDC (in opposition); MA Treweek, submitter to MPDC (in opposition); New Zealand Railway Corporation, submitter to MPDC (neutral)

In addition, MPDC received a late submission in opposition from A Wetton and S Blank. I was advised at the hearing that neither the applicant nor the Councils had any objection to this submission being considered. I therefore, pursuant to s37 of the RMA, extend the time frame for the receipt of Wetton and Blank submission.

4 APPEARANCES

The following appeared at the hearing: Applicant: G Green, Operations Manager, Greenlea Premier Meats Limited; A Khan, Senior Environmental Engineer, Pattle Delamore Partners Limited Submitters: S Blank attended part of the hearing, but did not wish to be heard. Councils: M Rademeyer, Resource Management Consultant and reporting planner on behalf of

both WRC and MPDC J Caldwell, Air Quality Scientist, WRC.

5 PROPOSAL

The proposal was described in the application documents, the joint Section 42A report prepared for WRC and MPDC, and in the evidence of Mr Khan. In summary, the applicant intends to construct a wastewater treatment plant on Rural Zoned land south-east of Greenlea’s established meat processing plant located on the outskirts of Morrinsville. The proposed facility will comprise a fully covered anaerobic lagoon and an open activated sludge Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR), designed to pre-treat effluent from the meat works, prior to discharge into the Morrinsville sewerage system. Gas generated by the biological treatment of wastewater in the covered lagoon will be abstracted and combusted in a flare. As a contingency, when the flare is not operating, the gas will be directed to a stand-by bio-filter system designed to strip out odour, prior to discharge to the atmosphere. The proposed wastewater treatment plant is located between a protected woodland comprising oak and eucalyptus trees, and the East Coast Main Trunk Railway. The proposed wastewater lagoons will be excavated into the existing landform. The construction of the ponds will require the removal of a maximum of 19 of the scheduled trees at the eastern extent of the woodland. Access to the wastewater treatment plant will be from the end of Eynon Road, a “no exit” road serving farm land and a number of privately owned cottages. The access track to the wastewater treatment plant will wind through the woodlot, requiring the pruning of some of the protected trees, and formation of the metalled carriageway within the dripline of the trees. New wastewater pipelines will be installed between the meat works and the wastewater treatment plant, crossing the Morrinsville Stream at an existing pipe crossing, and the Waitakaruru Steam using the existing railway bridge. The consent being sought from WRC is to discharge contaminants to air associated with the operation of the wastewater treatment plant, involving the collection and treatment of biogas.

The application to MPDC is for a comprehensive land use consent to construct a wastewater treatment plant involving the production of biogas in the Rural Zone, earthworks, pipe crossings, and the removal, pruning and works within the dripline of scheduled trees. All of the consents being sought were new consents.

6 EVIDENCE PRESENTED 6.1 Applicant

Mr Graham Green

Mr Green, Operations Manager at the applicant’s meat processing facilities gave an overview of the company’s operations, values and aspirations. He told the hearing that the company has been engaged in the business of export beef production since 1993 with processing plants located in Hamilton City and Morrinsville. The Morrinsville plant has the capacity to process around 90,000 animals per year and employs 160 staff. Mr Green’s evidence was that the applicant’s meat processing plant is a major contributor to the wastewater stream currently having to be treated by the Morrinsville sewerage treatment plant. Except for the screening out of fats, wastewater from the meat works is discharged, untreated to the town’s wastewater treatment plant. He outlined the reasons for the proposal to pre-treat wastewater as follows: MPDC is currently undertaking major upgrading of Morrinsville’s sewerage treatment

plant. Under the applicant’s trade waste agreement with MPDC, there would be significant cost implications to continue to discharge untreated waste water from the meat works into the town’s upgraded sewerage treatment plant.

The proposed pre-treatment of wastewater from the applicant’s meat works prior to discharge to the town’s upgraded facility, will have financial benefits both for the applicant (in terms of savings in capital contributions to the upgrade and ongoing trade waste charges) and MPDC (in terms of savings to the works required to upgrade the town’s sewerage system due to the reduction in the contaminant load of wastewater from the meat works).

In addition, the pre-treatment will have sustainability benefits such as enabling the disposal of bio-solids (produced in the lagoons over time) to land as fertiliser, the potential for energy recovery from the biogas produced at the proposed facility, and the reuse of pre-treated wastewater for non-potable purposes (thereby reducing water demand).

Mr Green outlined that the applicant had consulted with the submitters and in his view, the submitters’ concerns have been recognised and addressed in the proposal. As far as he was aware, there have been no complaints regarding the applicant’s current operations during the five-and-a-half years that he has been employed by the Company. He confirmed that, in the event that the consent was granted, the applicant was willing to accept all the draft conditions recommended in the Section 42A report except for a minor change to the implementation of the landscaping requirement in respect of the MPDC consent. To ensure minimal outages of the biogas flare, Mr Green advised that the applicant would bind the equipment supplier to a maximum one hour response time to attend at the site in case of flare outages, and a maximum four hour repair time to reinstate the flare function.

Mr Azam Khan Mr Khan, a Senior Environmental Engineer at Pattle Delamore Partners, outlined the proposal and the associated environmental effects. He advised the hearing that the

proposed treatment plant would comprise of a covered anaerobic lagoon and an activated sludge treatment plant operated as a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR). He noted that the first (anaerobic) lagoon would be fully lined and covered while the second (aerobic/anoxic) lagoon would be lined, but not covered, with mechanical aerators and mixers installed. The anaerobic lagoon will significantly reduce the contaminant organic loading and suspended solids in the wastewater and produce gaseous by-products consisting mainly of methane and carbon dioxide and small amounts of hydrogen sulphide and other odour producing agents. These gaseous by-products, referred to as “biogas” will be collected under the lagoon cover, extracted, and then thermally destroyed by burning through a biogas flare unit. The resulting discharge from the flare unit will be combustion by-products comprising generally of carbon dioxide and water. He noted that, depending on the actual biogas generation potential once the treatment plant is fully operational, energy recovery for use at the applicant’s site may be undertaken. The purpose of the SBR is to reduce the nitrogen contaminant loading remaining in the wastewater after treatment in the anaerobic lagoon, and prior to discharge to the town’s sewerage treatment plant. If consent was to be granted, Mr Khan explained that the applicant would construct the pre-treatment facility in the first half of 2011 with the facility becoming operational by June 2011, prior to MPDC commissioning the town’s upgraded sewerage treatment plant. The construction timeframe for the applicant’s pre-treatment plant is 12 weeks, with 6 weeks allocated to undertaking earthworks and the remaining 6 weeks to complete the mechanical phase. During construction, Mr Khan estimated that there will be a maximum of 10 vehicle movements per day. Once operational, the site would normally be visited once a day only, for monitoring purposes. Mr Khan discussed the nature of the air discharges and management of biogas to address the potential for odour effects. He outlined that the proposal included a primary odour treatment system with various contingency provisions in case of failure. The primary system comprises complete thermal destruction of the biogas produced in the anaerobic lagoon, via an automatic flare with temperature sensor, pressure sensor, gas flow rate measurement, and variable speed blower control designed to maintain an optimum flaring temperature of at least 750oC, but no higher than 900 oC. Mr Khan advised that any noise from the operation of the flare will be minimal, not noticeable at adjoining properties, because the biogas will burn at a low flow rate. In the event of failure of the flare, biogas extraction can be closed off, with sufficient capacity to store one day’s production of biogas under the lagoon cover. In the event of a prolonged outage of the flare, biogas stored under the lagoon cover will be diverted, either automatically or through manual control, to a contingency odour biofilter. It is expected that the biofilter contingency use will be limited to no more than 8 hours. The number of expected contingency events per year would be no more than 5 discrete days when the flare unit may be out of service. In the event of catastrophic failure of both the flare and the biofilter, then the pre-treatment plant can be by-passed, and the wastewater discharged directly to the town’s sewerage treatment system. Mr Khan did not propose that a stand-by generator be installed for use in the event of power outages. In his view, the installation of a stand-by generator was not justified because, the meat plant would necessarily also cease to operate in the event of a power failure, thereby not producing any waste. Furthermore, there is the ability to store one day’s peak waste production under the lagoon cover in the event of a power failure that affects the pre-treatment facility but not the meat processing plant. There is also the ability to

transport a temporary mobile power generator to the wastewater treatment plant in the event of a prolonged power outage that does not affect the meat works. In response to a question about the process for dealing with the removal of sludge that, in time, will accumulate at the wastewater pre-treatment plant, Mr Khan advised that sludge removal will not be required for the first 6 – 8 years of the plant’s operation and thereafter will be infrequent. During sludge removal, a hatch in the lagoon cover will be opened, a submersible pump inserted, and the hatch closed except for a pipe to convey the sludge to a sealed bin. As the sludge is progressively pumped out, filled bins will be removed for disposal off site as fertiliser on farm land or to an authorised landfill. Mr Khan stated that the applicant generally accepted the proposed consent conditions recommended in the s42A report, subject to minor wording changes and clarification as agreed with WRC and MPDC staff prior to the hearing. He presented a “tracked” version showing agreed changes to the draft conditions. He raised the following two outstanding matters regarding the proposed draft consent conditions that he wanted me to consider: WRC Condition 16(iv) – This condition requires the biofilter bed to be irrigated weekly.

Mr Khan wanted the wording to be amended to avoid technical non-compliance in the event that the bed is already moist thus not requiring irrigation.

MPDC Conditions 9 and 15 – Mr Khan requested that the preparation and

implementation of the replanting plan be delayed to provide more time for landscaping options to be considered.

Mr Khan concluded that, in his opinion, the applicant’s proposal is the most sustainable option, and is consistent with the policies and objectives of both the Waikato Regional Plan and the Matamata Piako District Plan. Mr Khan considered that the engineering design for the proposed wastewater treatment system was robust and represented “best practise”. It was his view that the proposed wastewater treatment plant, subject to site management and ongoing monitoring, in accordance with the proposed consent conditions, would not result in adverse environmental effects that were more than minor.

6.2 Submissions Mr Blank was the only submitter who attended the hearing but he did not wish to be heard. However, the Councils received a number of written submissions in response to the limited notification of the applications which I am required to consider. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Rademeyer advised that the Wilsons, who were submitters in opposition to the applications, resided in Perth and were unable to attend the hearing but still wished me to consider their written submissions. In summary, submissions in opposition to the applications were received from the owners of the Eynon Road cottages. These submissions raised the following concerns: Odour and health effects associated with the discharge of biogas; Visual impact of the proposed wastewater treatment plant, exacerbated by the removal

of some of the trees from the protected woodlot; Traffic effects associated with both the construction, and later operation, of the

wastewater treatment plant. Noise associated with the operation of machinery and pumps, and flaring of the biogas; Impact on the amenity of Eynon Road residents and on the heritage value of the

cottages; Loss of biodiversity and habitat of local wildlife due to the removal of the trees; Insect infestation of the uncovered SBR lagoons; Impact on the integrity of the District plan, given that the proposed wastewater

treatment plant was to be located in the Rural Zone;

Decrease in property value due to the negative perception associated with living in proximity to a wastewater treatment plant.

The submitters in opposition requested that the applications be refused consent, but if approved, they requested the following: To deny access to the wastewater treatment plant from Eynon Road; Ensure that there were no odour or health effects; Make provision for independent, objective, monitoring of odour in accordance with clear

guidelines; Ensure replacement planting to mitigate the effects of the removal of the trees; Provide compensation for the decrease in property value; Require an insect eradication plan; Provide for a protocol to advise neighbours of unintended adverse odour events.

A neutral submission was received from the New Zealand Railway Corporation, wanting assurance that the facility would not encroach on the railway corridor, and would be fenced to ensure the integrity of the railway line. MPDC’s Community Facilities Manager lodged a submission supporting the proposal on the grounds that the proposed wastewater treatment plant would reduce the contaminant loading being discharged into the town’s sewerage system. If the consent was to be granted, MPDC wished to see conditions imposed to ensure that adverse effects could be avoided, remedied, or mitigated.

6.3 Councils: Mr Rademeyer and Mr Caldwell Mr Rademeyer advised that he was responsible for the assessment of the applications on behalf of both WRC and MPDC and was the author of the joint Section 42A report prepared for the Councils. He was assisted in his assessment and in the preparation of the report by Mr Caldwell, an Air Quality Scientist employed by WRC. I was already familiar with the s42A report which had been circulated to all parties prior to the hearing, and I therefore accepted Mr Rademeyer’s request that the report be taken as read. Mr Caldwell then proceeded to give a summary of his views regarding the discharges to air associated with the operation of the proposed wastewater pre-treatment plant. He told the hearing that he regarded the Applicant’s proposal as “best practice” incorporating adequate contingency measures. He confirmed that he supported the proposed changes to the WRC recommended conditions as outlined by Mr Khan in his evidence, and that he had no objection to further amendments to Condition 16 to avoid technical non-compliance. Mr Caldwell advised that recommended condition 36 for the air discharge consent would require a management plan that provides for management and operational procedures for future sludge removal from the wastewater treatment plant that will address the need to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse odour effects that may be associated with the process. He also discussed the level of redundancy provided for by condition 9 that requires a minimum of 66 kilowatts of aeration capacity at all times in the SBR which is more than the 40 or so kilowatts of aeration that Mr Khan had calculated were needed. This high level of aeration will ensure that adverse effects relating to odour from this source are avoided. He then confirmed his recommendation that the WRC consent could be granted subject to the recommended consent conditions incorporating the changes suggested by Mr Khan and rewording of condition 16 to avoid technical non-compliance. Mr Rademeyer gave a brief summary of the planning analysis undertaken as part of the s42A report, focussing on the assessment of environmental effects. He advised that in addition to the assessment of odour effects undertaken by Mr Khan for the Applicant and Mr Caldwell for the WRC, an independent peer review has also been carried out for WRC

by Ms Tracy Freeman, an air quality expert at BECA Infrastructure. He referred to Ms Freeman’s report, specifically her findings that: The odour effects of the proposed wastewater treatment plant, if operated in

accordance with the procedures outlined in the application and subject to appropriate conditions, would be no more than minor; and:

The uncovered SBR which would contain only significantly diluted, aerated, wastewater would not produce adverse odour effects.

Mr Rademeyer concluded that, in his opinion, the application was consistent with the relevant planning documents, and that with suitable conditions of consent, the adverse effects could be suitably avoided, remedied or mitigated. He confirmed his recommendation that the applications could be granted subject to the recommended consent conditions with the necessary amendments that I referred to previously. He had no objection to extending the timeline for preparation and implementation of the replanting program as requested by Mr Khan in his evidence.

6.4 Adjournment

After hearing from the Councils, I briefly adjourned the hearing to enable Mr Khan to confer with Mr Rademeyer and Mr Caldwell regarding the proposed changes to the recommended draft consent conditions. During the hearing, I was provided with an email from Ms Treweek, a submitter in opposition to the application who could not attend the hearing. In her email, Ms Treweek advised that she would not be opposed to the application being granted if she had the assurance that the effects would be as minor as asserted by the applicant. However, based on her “past experience”, she was concerned that the applicant could not be trusted. She was also annoyed that, notwithstanding her request at the recent liaison meeting, the applicant’s staff were continuing to spread misinformation that suggested neighbours would be disadvantaged by the proposed wastewater treatment plant. I asked the applicant and the Councils’ representatives to consider Ms Treweek’s email during the adjournment and indicated that I planned to provide an opportunity for comments on the email, when the hearing reconvened.

6.5 Applicant's Right of Reply

In his right of reply Mr Khan emphasised that he considered the design of the proposed wastewater treatment plant to be robust, with provision for adequate contingency measures. He then proposed amended wording for WRC condition 16 and MPDC conditions 9 and 15, as agreed with the Councils’ representatives during the adjournment. Mr Green commented on Ms Treweek’s email, stating that he was uncertain what Ms Treweek’s reference to “past experience” with the applicant, meant. He was not personally aware of any past interaction with Ms Treweek that could have caused her disappointment in the Company. However, he offered to contact Ms Treweek outside of the hearings process, to discuss any issues that she may have as the applicant was committed to maintaining good relationships with the neighbours. Mr Green stated that, if consent was granted, he would inform staff at the first opportunity of the details of the proposed wastewater treatment plant so that the spreading of further misinformation could be stopped.

7 EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL 7.1 Statutory Provisions Considered

The applications to the WRC and MPDC were received on 20 August 2010. Therefore, the provisions of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining Act) 2009, and all

previous amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), apply to this assessment. All resource consent applications must be considered in accordance with Part II (s5 – 8) of the RMA. The sustainability purpose of the RMA as set out in Section 5, is as follows:

(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and

physical resources. (2) In this Act, ―sustainable management‖ means managing the use development and

protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well being and for their health and safety while-

(a) Sustaining the potential for natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating, any adverse effects of activities on the

environment.

Section 6 describes matters of national importance which must be recognised and provided for when exercising functions and powers under the RMA. Section 6 matters are not particularly relevant to the proposal. Section 7 identifies the matters to which particular regard must be given. Sub-sections 7(c) and (f) are relevant to the applications and require the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values and the quality of the environment, to be given particular regard to in deciding the outcome of these applications. Section 8 requires the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to be taken into account in achieving the purpose of the Act. Such matters are not particularly relevant to these applications. At the hearing, the applicant and the Councils were in agreement that: The application before MPDC is to be assessed as a non-complying activity; while: The application before WRC falls to be considered under the discretionary class. The activity status of the applications under the Regional and District Plans were not disputed by any of the submitters in their written submissions. I therefore proceeded to assess the applications under the relevant activity classes as set out above. The matters that I have to give regard to, in considering the applications are set out under Section 104(1) of the RMA, and are as follows: 104 Consideration of applications

(1) When considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to– (a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and (b) any relevant provisions of—

(i) a national environmental standard: (ii) other regulations: (iii) a national policy statement: (iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement: (v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement: (vi) a plan or proposed plan; and

(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

There are no National Policy Statements relevant to the assessment of the applications. The remaining s104 matters that I have to give regard to, subject to Part 2 RMA, are: National Environmental Standards for Ambient Air Quality (NESAQ);

Proposed Regional Policy Statement; Operative Regional Policy Statement; Operative Waikato Regional Plan; Operative Matamata-Piako District Plan; and: Any actual or potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity. There are specific provisions in the RMA that apply to the determination of applications for discretionary and non-complying activities. These provisions are set out in Section 104B and 104D of the Act as follows: 104B Determination of applications for discretionary or non-complying activities

After considering an application for a resource consent for a discretionary activity or non-complying activity, a consent authority—

(a) may grant or refuse the application; and (b) if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108.

104D. Particular restrictions for non-complying activities

Despite any decision made for the purpose of section 93 in relation to minor effects, a consent authority may grant a resource consent for a non-complying activity only if it is satisfied that either –

(a) the adverse effects of the activity on the environment (other than any effect to which section 104(3)(b) applies) will be minor; or

(b) the application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of – (i) the relevant plan, if there is a plan but no proposed plan in respect of

the activity; or (ii) the relevant proposed plan, if there is a proposed plan but no relevant

plan in respect of the activity; (iii) or both the relevant plan and the relevant proposed plan, if there is

both a plan and a proposed plan in respect of the activity.

With reference to the above provisions, I note that I have the discretion to either grant or refuse both the WRC and MPDC applications and if it is my decision to grant the applications, then I can impose conditions under s108 of the RMA. In so far as the application to MPDC is concerned, I am precluded from granting the landuse consent, except if I am satisfied that either the adverse effects on the environment will be minor, or the activity will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan. Section 105 of the RMA, outlined below, is relevant to the assessment of the application to WRC:

105. Matters relevant to certain applications

(1) If an application is for a discharge permit or coastal permit to do something that would contravene section 15 or section 15B, the consent authority must, in addition to the matters in section 104(1), have regard to – (a) the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment

to adverse effects; and (b the applicant’s reasons for the proposed choice; and (c) any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any

other receiving environment.

7.2 Section 104(1)(b)(ii)- National Environmental Standards for Ambient Air Quality (NESAQ) The s42A report has considered the National Environmental Standards for Ambient Air Quality (NESAQ) and came to the conclusion that the proposed discharge will not: Result in the ambient air quality standard for PM10 being exceeded; or:

Cause the concentration of nitrogen dioxide or ozone in the airshed to breach its ambient air quality standard.

I did not hear any evidence to the contrary, nor have any of the submitters disputed the above conclusion in their written submissions. Therefore, I find that the proposed discharge complies with the NESAQ.

7.3 Section 104(1)(b)(v) – Operative and Proposed Regional Policy Statements

Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement The s42A report sets out the provisions of the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement relevant to the assessment of the applications, and will not repeat them here. In summary, the objective seeks that any degradation in air quality is as low as reasonably achievable, and that unacceptable risks to human health and ecosystems and adverse effects on local amenity values, are avoided. I find that the applications are consistent with the above provisions, as agreed by Mr Khan, Mr Rademeyer and Mr Caldwell at the hearing, with no counter arguments raised by submitters in their written submissions.

Operative Waikato Regional Policy Statement The s42A report sets out the provisions of the Operative Waikato Regional Policy Statement relevant to the assessment of the applications, and will not repeat them here. In summary, the Applicant’s site is not considered to be in an area of either “high” air quality or “degraded” air quality. Therefore, the provisions require the adverse effects of the discharge (including effects on human health, flora and fauna) to be avoided, remedied, or mitigated. I find that the applications are consistent with the above provisions, as agreed by Mr Khan, Mr Rademeyer and Mr Caldwell at the hearing, with no counter arguments raised by submitters in their written evidence.

7.4 Section 104(1)(b)(vi)- Regional and District Plans

Regional Plan Provisions Mr Khan, Mr Rademeyer and Mr Caldwell agreed at the hearing that the rate of production and collection of biogas at the proposed wastewater treatment plant will exceed the Regional Plan’s Permitted Activity Standard, meaning that I need to assess the application to WRC as a discretionary activity under Rule 6.1.9.2, quoted below:

6.1.9.2 Discretionary Activity Rule - General Rule Except as provided for in any other rule in this Plan, the discharge of contaminants into air from:

(1) Any process or activity that is on an industrial or trade premises and is not permitted by or does not comply with Rules 6.1.9.1, 6.1.10.1 to 6.1.19.1; or

(2) A mobile source or premises that are not industrial or trade premises, and does not comply with Rules 6.1.9.1, 6.1.10.1 to 6.1.19.1

is a discretionary activity (requiring resource consent).

The s42A report contains a detailed assessment of the application to WRC under the Regional Plan provisions. I do not intend to repeat that assessment here. Suffice it to say that the technical experts at the hearing contended that the application was consistent with the objectives and policies of the Regional Plan, a matter not disputed by the submitters in their written submissions.

District Plan Provisions The s42A report contains a detailed description of the relevant objectives and policies and rules of the Operative Matamata-Piako District Plan. The District Plan provisions were not

challenged at the hearing and I do not intend to repeat them here. Under the District Plan, the proposal requires a suite of landuse consents within the Discretionary and Non-Complying Activity Classes (as explained before), with an overall non-complying activity classification. Some of the submitters, in their written submissions, had concerns that the granting of consent for a wastewater treatment plant in the Rural Zone would undermine the integrity of the District Plan. Mr Rademeyer advised that the wastewater treatment plant was a Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule 8.1.41 of the District Plan. I note that Rule 8.1.41 does not provide for wastewater treatment plants as a permitted activity in any of the District Plan’s zones. Rather, it is provided for as a Discretionary Activity in the Residential and Rural-Residential Zones, the Business Zone, the Industrial Zone and the Rural Zone; while it is a non-complying activity in the Kaitiaki (Conservation) Zone. Considering that a resource consent would be required for a wastewater treatment plant in all of the District Plan’s zones, I find that the granting of this consent will not undermine the integrity of the Plan.

7.5 Section 104(1)(a)- Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment

Effects of the Discharges to Air The effects of relevance to the assessment of the application to WRC are odour, and the health and environmental effects of the products of combustion of the biogas, and discharges from the contingency biofilter. The magnitude of these effects is being disputed, with the applicant and the Councils arguing that the effects are no more than minor, while the submitters in their written submissions expressed concerns that they could be adversely affected by the discharges to air. I was advised by the applicant that the anaerobic lagoon will produce biogas which, if discharged directly into the atmosphere, would be a significant source of odour. To avoid odour from the discharge of biogas, the Applicant proposes to flare the gases thereby destroying the odorous compounds. Provided the flare operates to specification, there is no risk of adverse odour effects. However, there is the potential for adverse odour to occur, if the operation of the flare is not managed to specifications, or if it malfunctions. To ensure that the flare will operate to specification, the applicant proposes to install monitoring equipment and to implement a management plan. The applicant advised that the design, monitoring, and operation of the flare will comply with “best practice”. The monitoring equipment will detect malfunction of the flare, and outages. In these events, the biogas extraction point will be closed to allow gas to be stored under the lagoon cover. In the event that the flare is unable to be reinstated in a timely manner, then the biogas will be diverted to a contingency biofilter. I was assured by the applicant at the hearing that while the biofilter was not as efficient as the flare in mitigating odour, adverse odour effects on nearby neighbours would be able to be avoided provided that the biofilter operated to specifications. The WRC has recommended a suite of conditions that will ensure that the biofilter is maintained to specifications. In the event of a catastrophic failure of both the flare and the biofilter, then the pre-treatment plant is able to be disconnected from the waste stream while wastewater from the meat plant is discharged directly into the town’s sewer system (although I understand this will incur a penalty charge under the applicant’s trade waste agreement with MPDC).

The applicant advised at the hearing that the provision of the contingency measures as outlined above, are robust, so that there is a high degree of confidence that the risk of unintentional discharges of malodours is low. I had concerns that the SBR which is uncovered, could be another source of odour. However, the applicant stated that the SBR will not produce odours because it is designed to hold only significantly diluted wastewater that is well aerated. Having heard all of the evidence, noting that the discharge from the biofilter (when the potential for odour is higher) will only be used as a contingency (with the expectation that it will be used for no more than five days per year), and subject to the conditions as recommended at the hearing, I am satisfied that the adverse odour effects from the discharge of biogas associated with the applicant’s proposed wastewater treatment plant are no more than minor. I was advised that the combustion of the biogas by the flare unit will result in the discharge of primarily carbon dioxide and water vapour into the air, but that, in the quantities discharged, any associated health or environmental effects would be no more than minor. There will be secondary discharges of nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, fine particulate (PM10), sulphur dioxide and possibly complex organic compounds including dioxins in trace amounts. Mr Khan advised that these secondary discharges will not be significant compared to other possible sources in the area such as vehicle exhausts and domestic fires. For these reasons, I find that the health and environmental effects of the discharges to air associated with the combustion of the biogas by the flare, are no more than minor. The applicant estimated that the discharge from the biofilter will comprise 40% - 50% carbon dioxide, and 50% - 60% methane. Other discharges to air from the biofilter will include trace gases such as hydrogen, nitrogen and hydrogen sulphide. Mr Caldwell, in the s42A report, states that the contingency discharge from the biofilter will not contribute significantly to background concentrations of methane resulting from intensive dairy farming in the local vicinity of the applicant’s site The s42A report states that the discharges to air from both the flare and the biofilter will meet Waikato Regional Ambient Air Quality Guidelines. Having heard the evidence and for all of the reasons above, I find that the discharge to air from the combustion of biogas and from the contingency discharge from the biofilter will not result in adverse health or other environmental effects, that are more than minor.

Construction Effects Mr Khan advised that if consent was granted, the wastewater treatment plant would be constructed over a period of 12 weeks, during the first half of 2011. Construction traffic would be minimal (a maximum of 10 vehicle movements per day). Noise would comply with the relevant New Zealand Standard. To avoid nuisance dust effects, dust suppression would be employed as necessary. Both Mr Rademeyer and Mr Khan agreed that construction effects would be no more than minor. Some of the submitters, in their written submissions to MPDC had concerns that construction effects would be more significant. Having regard to the short duration of the construction event and subject to conditions to require traffic management and dust suppression during construction, and compliance with the noise standards, I find that construction effects will be no more than minor.

Operational Noise Mr Rademeyer and Mr Khan both stated that the operation of the wastewater treatment plant would comply with the District Plan’s noise limits for the Rural Zone. Mr Khan in

response to a question regarding possible noise from the burning of biogas at the flare unit, advised that, in his experience, the flare produced minimal noise that will not be discernable at the neighbouring dwellings, because of the low flow rate of the biogas. The submitters, in their written submissions to MPDC, had concerns that they will be adversely affected by noise from the wastewater treatment plant. Having regard to the evidence presented by Mr Khan and Mr Rademeyer, I find that the adverse effects of operational noise from the proposed wastewater treatment plant will be no more than minor and able to comply with the District Plan’s noise performance standards.

Operational Traffic Effects Mr Khan noted that once the wastewater treatment plant had been commissioned, traffic movements associated with the proposal would be minor, usually confined to only one vehicle per day to inspect the operation. Some of the submitters expressed concerns in their written submissions to MPDC that they would be adversely affected by operational traffic, and requested consideration to requiring alternative access to the site, so that Eynon Road would not need to be used. Mr Rademeyer in response to questions at the hearing, described the permitted activities that the District Plan allowed as of right in the Rural Zone. He advised that a dwelling was a permitted activity as was farming. He considered that a property of the size of the applicant’s land would most likely be used as a “run-off” or for maize production. He also noted that the District Plan equates the traffic generation associated with a single dwelling to 8 movements per day (4 vehicles, entering and leaving the dwelling), and a “run-off” block or a farm, producing maize, would have associated heavy vehicle movements such as occasional stock trucks, tractors and other farm machinery. Having regard to the traffic generation associated with the use of the applicant’s land for permitted activities provided for as of right in the District Plan, I find that the operational traffic associated with the applicant’s proposal will be minor.

Vegetation Removal, Landscape, Visual, Heritage and Amenity Effects Mr Khan and Mr Rademeyer advised that, subject to appropriate consent conditions, the landscape and visual effects and the effects of the removal and pruning of the trees, and works within the dripline would be no more than minor. Mr Khan explained the recommended consent conditions that would ensure that the remaining trees were fenced for protection during construction and the need for supervision of the construction impacts by an arborist. Mr Rademeyer stated that the woodlot, as a unit, rather than the individual trees, was the feature that the District Plan sought to protect. In his view the trees were not native species, and none of the trees individually, were significant. He noted that the trees in the woodlot were around 80 years old and that a replanting programme needed to be put in place to ensure the long term existence of the woodlot. He considered that the removal of the 19 trees would not compromise the significance of the woodlot long term, provided that replacement trees were planted. Mr Khan provided me with a visual simulation of the proposed wastewater treatment plant both with the trees in the woodlot in leaf, and during winter when the trees would have minimal foliage. Mr Rademeyer expressed the view at the hearing that the amenity and heritage value of the neighbouring cottages would not be affected because there would be no physical changes to the Eynon Road formation if the consent was granted. Mr Rademeyer advised that the cottages were not specifically protected under the District Plan.

The submitters, in their written submissions to MPDC, had concerns that the proposal would affect the health of the remaining trees, that the proposed wastewater treatment plant would be visually obtrusive, that the removal of the trees would impact on the habitat of local wildlife, and that the amenity of Eynon Road and the heritage values of the cottages would be adversely affected. Having regard to the evidence that I have heard and subject to appropriate consent conditions, I am satisfied that the effects of vegetation removal, and adverse landscape, visual, heritage and amenity effects associated with the applicant’s proposal; are no more than minor.

Insect Infestation In their written submissions, some of the submitters expressed concerns that the open SBR could give rise to an insect infestation. Mr Khan stated that this was not possible, because the water in the SBR is intermittently aerated and therefore not a habitat that would attract insects. Therefore, I find that there is no need to require the applicant to prepare an insect eradication plan, as requested by some of the submitters.

Decrease in Property Value Some of the submitters expressed concern in their written submissions that the proposal, if consented, will lead to a devaluation of their properties. They requested the payment of compensation, if consent was to be granted. I note that devaluation of property is not a matter that I am able to consider under the RMA, nor do I have the ability to require payment of compensation. Therefore, I have not considered these matters any further.

Effects on the East Coast Main Trunk Railway The New Zealand Railways Corporation advised, prior to the hearing that they had no further objection to the consent being granted, provided that conditions requiring adequate fencing of the railway line were imposed.

7.6 Section 104D – “Gateway” Test

Having regard to the evidence presented to me regarding the assessment of effects and the District Plan provisions (as summarised above), I am satisfied that the effects of the application are minor and that the application is not for an activity that will be contrary to the District Plan’s objectives and policies. I find therefore that the application to MPDC can pass the Section 104D RMA “gateway” test, so that I am not precluded from granting the landuse application to the MPDC.

7.7 Section 105 – Matters relevant to Applications for Discharge Permits

Section 105 requires that I have regard to the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects, the reasons for, and alternative methods of the proposed discharge to air. Mr Khan’s description of the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment is summarised in paragraph 7.5 above. Having regard to the evidence heard at the hearing and further clarification provided in the s42A report, I am satisfied that the proposed discharge is the appropriate method to avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the biogas that will accumulate within the covered anaerobic lagoon, because: The discharge will predominantly be flared, thereby destroying odours and reducing

greenhouse gases. The contingency biofilter will enable odour effects to be mitigated, during flare outages.

7.8 Part II Matters

Having regard to the evidence that I heard, I find that the applications support the RMA’s sustainability purpose, because the proposal will: Enable the harvesting of renewable energy in the long-term; Provide for the reuse of pre-treated wastewater for non-domestic purposes; Not adversely affect amenity values or the quality of the environment; Not adversely affect the health and safety of the community or the life-supporting

capacity of the air; 7.9 Consent Duration (Waikato Regional Council Consent)

The Applicant has applied to WRC for a 25 year term for the air discharge consent. Mr Rademeyer and Mr Caldwell have recommended that a 25 term would be appropriate. No submitters have in their written submissions, proposed for a different consent term. Therefore, I find that a 25 year term for the air discharge consent would be appropriate.

8.0 CONCLUSION

On hearing and considering the evidence and after reviewing the s42A report and all of the written submissions received, I consider that the resource consent applications can be granted subject to conditions, for the reasons outlined below:

8.1 Waikato Regional Council – Resource Consent 121639 - Reasons The granting of the discharge consent will not lead to a breach of the National

Environmental Standards for Ambient Air Quality; The adverse effects from the discharge of contaminants (including odour) to air

associated with the proposed onsite wastewater treatment plant, will be no more than minor;

The proposal includes adequate contingency measures so that the risk of adverse effects from the discharge of contaminants (including odour) to air associated with the proposed onsite wastewater treatment plant in the event of failure of the flare unit, will be no more than minor;

The proposal is consistent with “best practice” for discharge of contaminants to air associated with the operation of onsite wastewater treatment systems;

The proposed discharge is consistent with the provisions of the Operative and Proposed Regional Policy Statements, and the objectives and policies of the Operative Regional Plan;

The proposal supports the sustainability purpose of the RMA because it will enable the reuse of treated wastewater for non-potable purposes and provide for the harvesting of renewable energy in the longer term.

8.2 Matamata-Piako District Council – Resource Consent 2010.10181 - Reasons

Subject to appropriate conditions, the adverse effects of the construction and operation of the proposed wastewater treatment plant and the associated removal, pruning, and works within the dripline of trees in the protected woodland, are no more than minor;

The proposal is not for an activity that is contrary to the objectives and policies of the Operative Matamata-Piako District Plan;

The proposal supports the sustainability purpose of the RMA because the adverse effects are able to be avoided, remedied, and mitigated; and the activity will not impact adversely on the quality and amenity of the environment.

9.0 MATAMATA-PIAKO DISTRICT COUNCIL- DECISION

That pursuant to section 104, 104B, 104D, and 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991, Matamata-Piako District Council grants comprehensive landuse consent 2010.10181 for the construction and operation of a wastewater treatment plant and biogas facility and associated activities that require earthworks, the removal, pruning, and works within the drip-line of scheduled trees, and pipe crossings over the Morrinsville Stream and the Waitakaruru Stream, on land at Eynon Road, Morrinsville, legally described as Lot 1 DPS 61200, Pt Lot 1 DP 17820, Section 1 SO 58344, and the East Coast Main Trunk Railway, subject to the attached conditions.

_________________________________________________________ William Wasley Independent Commissioner for the Matamata-Piako District Council DATED this 22nd day of December 2010

10.0 WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL- DECISION That pursuant to section 104, 104B, and 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Waikato Regional Council grants consent, subject to the attached conditions, to Greenlea Premier Meats Limited to discharge contaminants to air associated with the operation of an onsite wastewater treatment plant at Eynon Road, Morrinsville, involving the collection and treatment of biogas.

__________________________________________________________ William Wasley Independent Commissioner for the Waikato Regional Council DATED this 22nd day of December 2010

SCHEDULE OF CONSENTS GRANTED

Waikato Regional Council Schedule A: Resource Consent No 121639 - To discharge contaminants to air associated with the operation of an onsite wastewater treatment plant involving the collection and treatment of biogas. Matamata-Piako District Council

Schedule B: Resource Consent 2010.10181 - Comprehensive resource consent (landuse) to construct and operate a wastewater treatment plant and biogas facility and associated activities that require earthworks, the removal, pruning, and works within the drip-line of scheduled trees, and pipe crossings over the Morrinsville Stream and the Waitakaruru Stream.

Environment Waikato Resource Consent

Schedule

Resource Consent: 121639

File Number: 61 46 06A

Pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991, the Waikato Regional Council hereby grants consent to:

Greenlea Premier Meats Ltd PO Box 87 Waikato Mail Centre Hamilton 3240

(hereinafter referred to as the Consent Holder)

Consent Type: Discharge permit

Consent Subtype: Discharge to air

Activity authorised: Discharge contaminants to air associated with the operation of an

onsite wastewater treatment plant involving the collection and treatment of biogas

Location: Pickett Place - Morrinsville

Map Reference: NZMS 260 T14:341-904

Consent Duration: Granted for a period expiring on 30 November 2035

Subject to the conditions overleaf:

General 1. Except as specifically provided for by other conditions of this consent, all activities to which this

consent relates shall be undertaken generally in accordance with the information contained in the application for this consent and the documents submitted in support of the application including ―Greenlea Premier Meats Ltd On-site Wastewater Treatment System – Application & Assessment of Environmental Effects‖, dated August 2010 and prepared by Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd; ―S92(1) and s92(2) Matters – Resource Consent Application No. 121639 – Greenlea Premier Meats Ltd‖ dated 31 August 2010 and prepared by Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd.

2. The Consent Holder shall pay to Waikato Regional Council any administrative charge fixed in

accordance with section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991 or any charge fixed in accordance with regulations made under the section 360 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

3. The Waikato Regional Council may, within three months of November 2012, November 2015,

November 2018, November 2021, November 2024, November 2027, November 2030 and November 2033 serve notice on the Consent Holder under section 128 (i) of the Resource Management Act 1991, of its intention to review the conditions of this resource consent for the following purposes:

(i) to generally review the effectiveness of the conditions of this consent in avoiding or mitigating any adverse effects on the environment from the exercise of this resource consent and if necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate such effects by way of further or amended conditions; or

(ii) if necessary and appropriate, to require the Consent Holder to adopt the best practicable option to remove or reduce adverse effects on the surrounding environment due to odour or particulate matter; or

(iii) to review the adequacy of and the necessity for monitoring undertaken by the Consent Holder including, but not limited to, the need for odour monitoring by an appropriately qualified independent third party.

Performance Standards 4. There shall be no discharge of particulate matter that is objectionable to the extent that it

causes an adverse effect at or beyond the boundary of the subject property. 5. There shall be no discharge of odour that is objectionable to the extent that it causes an

adverse effect at or beyond the boundary of the subject property. Operational Measures 6. The Consent Holder shall at all times operate, maintain, supervise, monitor and control all

processes on site so that emissions authorised by this consent are maintained at the minimum practicable level.

7. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the anaerobic lagoon is completely covered with a synthetic cover that is designed to allow for the storage of up to 24 hours of biogas production and shall undertake maintenance as necessary in order to minimise the risk of objectionable odour effects as a result of failure of the lagoon cover and associated infrastructure.

8. The consent holder shall ensure that effluent from the anaerobic lagoon is discharged to the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) via a submerged inlet.

9. The consent holder shall ensure that a minimum of 66 kilowatts of aeration capacity is maintained in the SBR at all times.

Biogas Management 10. The biogas combustion equipment shall include:

(i) a temperature detection system to detect any failure of the biogas combustion and activation of an automatic alarm;

(ii) a blower malfunction detection system and activation of an automatic alarm; and

(iii) an automated re-ignition system.

11. The Consent Holder shall ensure that biogases generated from the anaerobic lagoon are

combusted via a flare or an energy recovery system described in condition 10 at all times except under the following circumstances:

(i) in the event of a combustion equipment failure;

(ii) for combustion equipment maintenance purposes; or

(iii) for periodic venting of biogases via the flare blower as part of the routine maintenance programme; or

(iv) for purposes of supplying a continuous supply of small amounts of biogases from the anaerobic lagoon cover hatches, level control sump and emergency vents on top of the lagoon cover to enable maintenance of the biofilter described in conditions 15 to 17.

12. Under the circumstances described in condition 11 where biogases are not flared and/or

utilised for energy recovery then biogases shall be vented to the biofilter, designed and maintained in accordance with conditions 15 to 17.

13. The Consent Holder shall undertake immediate action to identify the causes and to implement

the necessary actions to ensure that the biogas combustion equipment is made operational as soon as practicable following any malfunction of the combustion equipment.

14. The Consent Holder shall maintain a record of all flare outages and shall indicate the dates and

times for which biogas was discharged un-combusted. The record shall be made available to the Council at all reasonable times and a copy shall be forwarded to the Waikato Regional Council annually as required by condition 23.

Biofilter Design and Management 15. The consent holder shall advise the Waikato Regional Council in the event that the flare is not

operated as a result of a fault and the storage capacity under the anaerobic lagoon cover is not available and the extent of biofilter operation during this contingency may exceed 48 hours. In the event that there is a likelihood of objectionable odour beyond the boundary of the site during this or any other contingency, then the consent holder shall in addition advise all neighbouring owners and occupiers likely to be affected by objectionable odour.

16. The biofilter shall be designed with an empty bed residence time of 240 seconds, a loading rate of no more than 50 m3/hr per m3 media and operated in accordance with the following requirements:

(i) The bed media shall be a fine bark/compost mixture.

(ii) The bed media pressure-drop shall be recorded at least once during the first 24 hours that biogases have been diverted from the flare to the biofilter under contingency circumstances and where the biofilter has been operated for at least 5 minutes. Thereafter, recording of the pressure drop shall be at seven day intervals during contingency circumstances where the biofilter has been in continuous use. At all other times the bed pressure drop shall be recorded once per month. The bed pressure drop shall be generally maintained between 20 to 100 mm water-gauge.

(iii) The bed pH, at representative locations and depths within the biofilter, shall be recorded monthly for the biofilter, and shall be maintained at a pH of between pH 5 to pH 8 in the upper two-thirds of the beds.

(iv) If not already moist, the bed media shall be irrigated weekly to maintain moist conditions.

17. If the biofilter parameters listed in condition 16 are out of range then the Consent Holder shall take immediate action to identify the cause(s) and shall thereafter implement any necessary actions to ensure that the biofilter operating parameters are maintained within range.

18. The Consent Holder shall maintain a record of the biofilter operating parameters required to be monitored under condition 16 and that record shall be made available to the Waikato Regional Council at all reasonable times and a copy shall be forwarded to the Waikato Regional Council annually as required by condition 23.

Odour Management Plan 19. The consent holder shall provide an Odour Management Plan to the Waikato Regional Council,

prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s), which documents how compliance will be achieved with the conditions of this consent. As a minimum the Odour Management Plan shall address the following specific matters:

(i) Management and operational procedures for ensuring flare optimisation, burner efficiency and maintenance;

(ii) Management and operational procedures relating to flare outages;

(iii) Management and operational procedures for ensuring integrity of the anaerobic lagoon cover and related infrastructure;

(iv) Management and operational procedures for ensuring sufficient aeration of the SBR;

(v) Management and operational procedures for desludging of the SBR and anaerobic lagoon;

(vi) Management and operational procedures for the biofilter including, the monitoring regime for loading rate, pH, moisture content and back pressure, ensuring an even flow distribution of air through the biofilter beds, inspection of overall condition (for instance weeds, compaction and channelling) and the action that will be taken in the event of the biofilter becoming “out of range” for any of the monitored parameters, and reporting details of the biofilter monitoring data;

(vii) Contingency plans for events including non-compliant emissions;

(viii) Procedures for reviewing and / or improving the Odour Management Plan;

(ix) Complaint response procedures and contact telephone numbers, including after hours, for staff of the consent holder who are responsible for responding to complaints;

(x) Reporting requirements and timeframes.

20. The Odour Management Plan shall be provided to the Waikato Regional Council within three months of the first exercise of this consent and copies of any subsequent revisions of or amendments to the Plan shall be provided to the Council on an ongoing basis.

Note: the Council reserves the right to make comment on the Management Plan submitted and any subsequent changes to the Management Plan.

21. All consented activities shall be conducted in general accordance with the Odour Management Plan.

Complaints

22. The consent holder shall maintain a log of all complaints (including those received from the Waikato Regional Council) regarding particulate, odour or other discharges to air. The consent holder shall notify the Waikato Regional Council of each complaint as soon as practicable. The consent holder shall record the following details in a complaint log:

(i) Time and type of complaint including details of the incident, e.g. duration, location and any effects noted;

(ii) Name, address and contact phone number of the complainant (if provided);

(iii) Where practicable, the weather conditions including wind direction at the time of the incident;

(iv) The likely cause of the complaint and the response made by the consent holder including any corrective action undertaken;

(v) Future actions proposed as a result of the complaint; and

(vi) The response from the consent holder to the complainant.

The complaint log shall be made available to the Waikato Regional Council at all reasonable times and a copy shall be forwarded to the Council annually as required by condition 23.

Reporting 23. The Consent Holder shall provide to the Waikato Regional Council a written report by 31 May

each year that provides at least the following:

(i) Comment on compliance with conditions of this resource consent, particularly with respect to odour discharges;

(ii) Provide any reasons for non-compliance or difficulties in achieving compliance with the conditions of this resource consent;

(iii) Report on and summarise any odour complaints received;

(iv) Report on all flare outages for which biogas was discharged un-combusted;

(v) Data for all biofilter parameter monitoring carried out in accordance with conditions of this consent together with annual and trend summaries of that data;

(vi) Comment on the performance and condition of odour control systems;

(vii) Comment on the implementation of the Odour Management Plan;

(viii) Discussion of any works that have been undertaken to improve the environmental performance of the odour control systems or that are proposed to be undertaken in the up-coming year to improve or that may affect the environmental performance of the odour control systems;

(ix) A copy of the complaints log summarising the information recorded under condition 22(i) to (vi) in respect of all complaints received by the Consent Holder during the previous year.

24. The Consent Holder shall notify the Waikato Regional Council as soon as practicable, and at

least within 24 hours, of the Consent Holder becoming aware of any accidental discharge, plant breakdown, or other circumstances which are likely to result in the performance standards of this resource consent being exceeded. The Consent Holder shall, within 7 days of the incident occurring, provide a written report to the Waikato Regional Council, identifying the exceedence, possible causes, steps undertaken to remedy the effects of the incident and measures that will be undertaken to ensure future compliance.

Commissioning Plan 25. The consent holder shall provide a Commissioning Plan to the Waikato Regional Council,

prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s), which documents how compliance

will be achieved with the conditions of this consent during the initial commissioning of the plant. As a minimum the Commissioning Plan shall address the following specific matters:

(i) Commissioning programme and timescale including details of appropriately qualified staff responsible to oversee commissioning;

(ii) Details of the training programme for staff of the Consent Holder who will be responsible for operating the wastewater treatment plant;

(iii) Management and operational procedures for ensuring that the anaerobic lagoon, SBR and biofilter are seeded appropriately to ensure efficient functioning;

(iv) Methods to minimise the discharge of odour during the commissioning stage when the biofilter will operate continuously until the build-up of biogas in the anaerobic lagoon reaches levels that will enable combustion to commence;

(v) Liaison with neighbouring property owners and occupiers to advise of the upcoming commissioning of the wastewater treatment plant, timescale, and response procedures and contact telephone numbers, including after hours, for staff of the Consent Holder who are responsible for responding to complaints;

(vi) Methodology for ensuring that quantitative analysis of the biogas for hydrogen sulphide and halogenated hydrocarbons is undertaken on completion of commissioning and that the results are forwarded to the Waikato Regional Council.

26. The Commissioning Plan shall be provided to the Waikato Regional Council at least one month prior to exercising this consent.

Note: the Council reserves the right to make comment on the Commissioning Plan submitted.

27. The commissioning of the wastewater treatment plant shall be undertaken in general accordance with the Commissioning Plan.

Advice Notes 1. In accordance with section 125 of the RMA, this consent shall lapse five (5) years after the date

on which it was granted unless it has been given effect to before the end of that period.

2. This resource consent does not give any right of access over private or public property. Arrangements for access must be made between the consent holder and the property owner.

3. This resource consent is transferable to another owner or occupier of the land concerned, upon application, on the same conditions and for the same use as originally granted (s.134-137 RMA).

4. The consent holder may apply to change the conditions of the resource consent under s.127 RMA.

5. The reasonable costs incurred by Waikato Regional Council arising from supervision and monitoring of this/these consents will be charged to the consent holder. This may include but not be limited to routine inspection of the site by Waikato Regional Council officers or agents, liaison with the consent holder, responding to complaints or enquiries relating to the site, and review and assessment of compliance with the conditions of consents.

6. Note that pursuant to s332 of the RMA 1991, enforcement officers may at all reasonable times go onto the property that is the subject of this consent, for the purpose of carrying out inspections, surveys, investigations, tests, measurements or taking samples.

7. If you intend to replace this consent upon its expiry, please note that an application for a new consent made at least 6 months prior to this consent's expiry gives you the right to continue exercising this consent after it expires in the event that your application is not processed prior to this consent's expiry.

Matamata-Piako District Council Resource Consent Schedule

Resource Consent: 2010.10181 Consent Type: Landuse Consent (Non-Complying Activity) Consent Subtype: Comprehensive resource consent (landuse) to construct and operate a

wastewater treatment plant and biogas facility and associated activities that require the removal, pruning, and works within the drip-line of scheduled trees, and pipe crossings over the Morrinsville Stream and the Waitakaruru River.

Pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991, the Matamata-Piako District Council hereby grants consent to:

Greenlea Premier Meats Limited PO Box 87 Waikato Mail Centre Hamilton 3240

(hereinafter referred to as the Consent Holder) Activities authorised:

Rule 8.1.26. Biogas produced by anaerobic fermentation of waste exceeding 4m³ per day – Non-Complying Activity.

Rule 8.1.41: Sewage and wastewater treatment plants (exclusive of septic tanks) treated waste disposal sites, including composting, stormwater treatment device – Discretionary Activity.

Rule 10.2.2(d): Any trimming, pruning or maintenance of a scheduled tree (including roots) specified in Schedule 3 not otherwise permitted – Discretionary Activity.

Rule 10.2.2(e): Any works or activity which is proposed within the drip-line of any scheduled tree or which may impact on the root system of the tree – Discretionary Activity.

Rule 10.2.2(f): Removal of any scheduled tree (excluding those that meet the provisions of 2c) – Non-Complying Activity.

Rule 2.2.9.2: Cleanfill activities involving the deposit of 1,000 m3 or

more of material (as measured compacted in place) – Discretionary Activity.

Rule 12.2.4. Erection, or placement of new structures, addition, alteration or replacement of existing authorized structures on or over the surface of water with the exception of upgrading of electrical lines listed as 8.1.1 and 8.1.5 – Discretionary Activity.

Location: At and in the vicinity of Eynon Road, Morrinsville Legal Description: Lot 1 DPS 61200, Pt Lot 1 DP 17820, Section 1 SO 58344, and the East

Coast Main Trunk Railway Line. Subject to the conditions overleaf:

Generally In Accordance

1. That except as specifically provided for by the conditions below, all activities to which this consent relates shall be undertaken generally in accordance with the information contained in the application for this consent and the documents submitted in support of the application including ―Greenlea Premier Meats Ltd On-site Wastewater Treatment System – Application & Assessment of Environmental Effects‖, dated August 2010 and prepared by Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd; ―S92(1) and s92(2) Matters – Resource Consent Application No. 121639 – Greenlea Premier Meats Ltd‖ dated 31 August 2010 and prepared by Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd.

2. That the Consent Holder shall appoint a representative(s) prior to the exercise of this resource

consent who shall be the Matamata-Piako District Council’s principal contact person(s) in regard to matters relating to this resource consent. The Consent Holder shall inform the Matamata-Piako District Council of the representative’s name and how they can be contacted, prior to this resource consent being exercised. Should that person(s) change during the exercising of this resource consent, the Consent Holder shall inform the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager and shall also give written notice to the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager of the new representative’s names and how they can be contacted.

3. That the Consent Holder shall:

a) Within 5 working days of commencement of any construction works in connection with this resource consent, advise the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager in writing of the date on which works have commenced; and:

b) Within 5 working days of completion of any construction works in connection with this resource consent, advise the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager in writing of the date on which construction was completed.

c) Within 5 working days of commissioning of the wastewater plant, advise the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager in writing of the date on which the plant was commissioned.

Location/ Fencing

4. That prior to commencement of any construction works in association with this resource

consent, the Consent Holder shall demarcate the legal boundary with the East Coast Main Trunk Railway Corridor in the vicinity of the work site by means of survey definition.

5. That all works in association with this resource consent, except for the pipe crossings attached

to the East Coast Main Trunk Railway Bridge at the Waitakaruru River shall be located entirely within the boundaries of the land legally described as Lot 1 DPS 61200, Pt Lot 1 DP 17820, Section 1 SO 58344.

Advice Note: The written approval of New Zealand Railways Corporation is required for any works within the corridor of the East Coast Main Trunk Railway. Such approval must be obtained prior to the commencement of any works.

6. That at completion of construction of the wastewater treatment plant, the Consent Holder shall

fence the entire perimeter of the plant with a 2.1m high chain-link/ barbed wire security fence. The fence shall be maintained for the duration of this resource consent.

7. That for the duration of construction of the wastewater treatment plant, the Consent Holder

shall maintain a “day-glo” fence extending 20m beyond the extent of the construction works along the boundary of the site with the East Coast Main Trunk Railway Line.

8. That the new pipe line shall cross the Morrinsville Stream using the existing MPDC pipe line

crossing and the Waitakaruru Stream using the existing railway bridge.

Advice Note: The written approval of MPDC (Community Facilities Manager) and New Zealand Railways Corporation is required to use the above mentioned pipe crossings.

Replacement Planting/ Landscaping

9. That within one month of the completion of any construction works authorised in this resource

consent the Consent Holder shall provide a Landscaping and Replacement Planting Plan (LRPP) to the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager designed by a suitably qualified and experienced person who shall be approved in writing by the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager.

10. The LRPP shall provide for:

a) Two new replacement trees of a species and size as approved by the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager, for every tree removed.

b) Native grass planting of outside embankment facing the woodlot.

11. That top soiling and re-grassing of all exposed areas shall be undertaken immediately upon completion of earthworks.

12. That the LRPP shall include location, species, height at planting, and an implementation and

maintenance schedule. 13. That the objectives of the LRPP shall be to:

a) Mitigate visual effects associated with the earth embankment; b) Aid the sustainability of the woodland, through commencing replacement planting with

suitable species in a suitable location. 14. That the Consent Holder’s LRPP shall be submitted to the Matamata-Piako District Council’s

Environmental Services Manager for its approval (acting in a technical certification capacity) prior to its implementation. Should the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager not respond in writing within 20 working days of receipt of the LRPP, either providing certification of the LRPP or clearly outlining areas of the LRPP that are not accepted, then the LRPP shall be considered to be approved and this condition satisfied.

15. That the Consent Holder shall implement the LRPP approved pursuant to the condition above,

within 12 months of the date of completion of all construction works authorised under this resource consent in accordance with the implementation programme, and shall maintain the landscaping for the duration of the consent.

Vegetation Removal 16. That, prior to the commencement of any construction works relating to this resource consent,

the Consent Holder shall appoint an arborist approved by the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager in writing, to oversee the pruning, removal, and work within the drip-line of Scheduled Trees. The Consent Holder shall retain the services of the supervising arborist or a replacement approved by the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager in writing, for the entire duration of the construction period.

17. That the Consent Holder shall at all times adhere to the directions of the supervising arborist,

including: a) An initial briefing of contractors and staff to outline issues and protection measures; b) Erecting and maintaining for the duration of the construction works authorised under this

resource consent, tree protection fences in accordance with the ―New Zealand Arboricultural Association’s Tree Protection Specifications, July 2008‖, to prevent damage to the root zones and trunks of the remaining scheduled trees;

c) Locating the edge of the access track a minimum of 4m from the trunk of any trees; and: d) Excavating the route of the access track either under direct supervision of the supervising

arborist or alternatively erecting and maintaining for the duration of the road works, tree

protection fences in accordance with the ―New Zealand Arboricultural Association’s Tree Protection Specifications, July 2008‖, along the entire edge of the access track.

Traffic Management

18. That prior to the commencement of any construction works authorized by this resource

consent, a Traffic Management Plan shall be prepared by the Consent Holder. The Traffic Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the New Zealand Transport Agency’s Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management and shall address, as a minimum, the following: a) Temporary traffic management controls along Eynon Road to the site entrance and at the

Eynon Road/ Morrinsville-Walton Road Intersection; b) Location and details of advisory and hazard signage that will be erected for the duration of

the site works; c) Deployment of traffic marshals along Eynon Road during peak traffic events; d) Methods to advise residents of traffic hazards and peak traffic events; e) Restrictions on times when heavy vehicle movements are permitted; f) Contact details for a nominated person who will be responsible for receiving and

responding to any communication from the public regarding traffic generated as a result of the construction works;

g) Methods to be used to ensure that dirt tracked onto the Eynon Road carriageway as a result of construction activities is avoided and cleaned when necessary.

19. That the Traffic Management Plan required by the condition above shall be submitted to the

Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager for approval as to the above mentioned requirements. Any changes to the Plan shall be confirmed in writing by the Consent Holder following consultation with the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager.

20. That the Consent Holder shall implement the requirements of the Traffic Management Plan

approved pursuant to the condition above, for the duration of the construction works authorized under this resource consent.

21. That prior to the use of the new vehicle access track to the wastewater treatment plant for any

earthworks or construction associated with this resource consent, the Consent Holder shall forward for the approval of the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager, a design plan for the formation of a vehicle entrance from the end of Eynon Road to Lot 1 DPS 61200. The design shall be in general accordance with Figure 1: Light Vehicle Entrance for Rural Roads (without splays) as shown in Appendix 3 of the Operative Matamata-Piako District Plan, with adequate provision for the disposal of stormwater.

22. That prior to the commencement of any earthworks or construction associated with this

resource consent, the Consent Holder shall form the new access track from the end of Eynon Road to the wastewater treatment plant by removing the topsoil and placing of 150mm of compacted gravel GAP65 (or similar) to create a 3.5m wide metalled driving surface with adequate provision for the disposal of stormwater.

Lighting

23. That all outside lighting to be used at the work sites shall be directed so as not to cause a

disturbance by way of glare to any adjacent property or adjacent road. 24. That the flare shall be shrouded so as not to cause a disturbance by way of glare to any

adjacent property or adjacent road.

Advice Note: The Consent Holder’s attention is directed to Rule 5.4 of the District Plan, which limits the permitted added illuminance as a result of lighting on the site.

25. That, if requested in writing by the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager, the Consent Holder shall operate the flare only during daylight hours.

Vibration

26. That as a result of exercising any activities under this resource consent post construction,

vibration generated shall not exceed the following levels as measured at (or beyond) the boundary of any site zoned residential or within 20 metres from any rural dwelling:

Time Average Weighted Vibration Level (Wb or Wd)

Monday to Saturday (7am to 6pm) 45mm/s2

At all other times 15mm/s2

The weighted vibration levels Wb and Wd shall be measured according to BS6841:1987. The average vibration shall be measured over a period not less than 60 seconds and not longer than 30 minutes. The vibration shall be measured at any point where it is likely to affect the comfort of amenity of persons occupying an adjacent site.

Noise

27. That noise from all construction works authorised under this resource consent shall be

measured in accordance with, and meet the limits recommended in, Table 1 of “NZS 6803P:1984- Measurement and Assessment of Noise from Construction, Maintenance, and Demolition Work”. Adjustments provided in Clause 6.1 of NZS 6803P:1984 shall apply, and references in the Tables to “NZS 6802”, shall be read as references to Clause 4.2.2 of “NZS 6802:1991”.

28. That no construction work associated with this resource consent shall take place between 8pm

and 7am. No work that has the ability to create adverse noise effects on neighbours shall be undertaken on Sundays.

29. That the noise level L10 associated with the operation of the wastewater treatment plant and all

related equipment as measured within any residentially zoned boundary or within the notional boundary of any rural dwelling shall not exceed the following: 7.00am to 8.00pm 50dBA 8.00pm to 7.00am 40dBA

30. That the noise levels shall be measured and assessed in accordance with the requirements of NZS6801:1991 Measurement of Sound and NZS6802:1991 Assessment of Environmental Sound.

31. That for any noise with special audible characteristics as defined by NZS6802:1991 the L10

noise level standards shall be reduced in accordance with the standard. 32. That within three months of the date of commissioning of the wastewater treatment plant, the

Consent Holder shall appoint a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic consultant to monitor the noise levels generated by the plant to verify compliance with the noise limits in the conditions above. The results of the monitoring shall be made available the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager within two weeks of completion of the monitoring.

Dust Emissions

33. That as a result of the exercise of this consent there shall be no dust emissions that cause an objectionable effect beyond the boundary of the property legally described as Lot 1 DPS 61200, Pt Lot 1 DP 17820, and Section 1 SO 58344.

34. That for the duration of construction works associated with this resource consent, the Consent

Holder shall deploy dust suppression equipment at the site and shall dampen material at the work site and along the access track to ensure compliance with the condition above.

Odour

35. There shall be no discharge of odour that is objectionable to the extent that it causes an

adverse effect at or beyond the boundary of the land described as Lot 1 DPS 61200. 36. That the Consent Holder shall provide an Odour Management Plan to the Matamata-Piako

District Council’s Environmental Services Manager, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s), which documents how compliance will be achieved with the above condition. As a minimum the Odour Management Plan shall address the following specific matters: (i) Management and operational procedures for ensuring flare optimisation, burner efficiency

and maintenance;

(ii) Management and operational procedures relating to flare outages;

(iii) Management and operational procedures for ensuring integrity of the anaerobic lagoon cover and related infrastructure;

(iv) Management and operational procedures for ensuring sufficient aeration of the SBR;

(v) Management and operational procedures for desludging of the SBR and anaerobic lagoon;

(vi) Management and operational procedures for the biofilter including, the monitoring regime for loading rate, pH, moisture content and back pressure, ensuring an even flow distribution of air through the biofilter beds, inspection of overall condition (for instance weeds, compaction and channelling) and the action that will be taken in the event of the filter becoming “out of range” for any of the monitored parameters, and reporting details of the biofilter monitoring data;

(vii) Contingency plans for events including non-compliant emissions;

(viii) Procedures for reviewing and / or improving the Odour Management Plan;

(ix) Complaint response procedures and contact telephone numbers, including after hours, for staff of the consent holder who are responsible for responding to complaints;

(x) Reporting requirements and timeframes.

37. That the Odour Management Plan shall be provided to the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager within three months of the date of commissioning of the plant and copies of any subsequent revisions of or amendments to the Plan shall be provided to the Council on an ongoing basis.

Note: The Council reserves the right to make comment on the Management Plan submitted and any subsequent changes to the Management Plan.

38. That all consented activities shall be conducted in general accordance with the Odour

Management Plan.

Advice Note: With regard to Conditions 35 – 38 above, the responsibility for issuing air discharge permits and monitoring control of air emissions rests with the Waikato Regional Council. The Matamata-Piako District Council’s responsibility is limited to health issues arising under Section 29 of the Health Act 1956 and amenity values under the Resource Management Act 1991. (See the explanatory note under Rule 5.5.2 on Part B, Page 5:8 of the Operative Matamata-Piako District Plan.)

Hazardous Material 39. That the Consent Holder shall ensure that biogases generated from the anaerobic lagoon are

combusted at all times except under the following circumstances: a) in the event of a combustion equipment failure;

b) for combustion equipment maintenance purposes; or

c) for periodic venting of biogases via the flare blower as part of the routine maintenance programme; or

d) for purposes of supplying a continuous supply of small amounts of biogases from the anaerobic lagoon cover hatches, level control sump and emergency vents on top of the lagoon cover to enable maintenance of the biofilter.

Complaints Register

40. That the Consent Holder shall maintain a log of all complaints (including those received from

the Waikato Regional Council and the Matamata-Piako District Council) regarding any aspect relating to the exercising of this resource consent. The Consent Holder shall notify the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager of each complaint as soon as practicable. The Consent Holder shall record the following details in a complaint log: (i) Time and type of complaint including details of the incident, e.g. duration, location and

any effects noted;

(ii) Name, address and contact phone number of the complainant (if provided);

(iii) Where practicable, the weather conditions including wind direction at the time of the incident;

(iv) The likely cause of the complaint and the response made by the consent holder including any corrective action undertaken;

(v) Future actions proposed as a result of the complaint; and

(vi) The response from the consent holder to the complainant. The complaint log shall be made available to the Matamata-Piako District Council’s Environmental Services Manager at all reasonable times and a copy shall be forwarded to the Council annually by 31 May each year.

Review

41. That the Matamata-Piako District Council may, within three months of November 2012, and

within three months of every November at three yearly intervals thereafter serve notice on the Consent Holder under section 128 (i) of the Resource Management Act 1991, of its intention to review the conditions of this resource consent for the following purpose: (i) to generally review the effectiveness of the conditions of this consent in avoiding or

mitigating any adverse effects on the environment from the exercise of this resource consent and if necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate such effects by way of further or amended conditions.

Advice Note: Costs associated with any review of the conditions of this resource consent will be recovered from the consent holder in accordance with the provisions of section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Advice Note: With regard to Condition 41 above, the responsibility for reviewing the effectiveness of conditions relating to discharges to air rests predominantly with the Waikato Regional Council. The Matamata-Piako District Council’s responsibility is limited to health issues arising under Section 29 of the Health Act 1956 and amenity values under the Resource Management Act 1991. (See the explanatory note under Rule 5.5.2 on Part B, Page 5:8 of the Operative Matamata-Piako District Plan.)

Administrative

42. That the charges, set out in accordance with Section 36 of the Resource Management Act

1991, shall be paid to the Matamata-Piako District Council for the carrying out of its functions in relation to the administration of this resource consent.

decision report of the independent hearing … · the proposed facility will comprise a fully...

Documents