comparison of the hazardous substance plans and rules among regional councils

©PDP 2007

solutions for your environment PATTLE DELAMORE PARTNERS LTD

Comparison of the Hazardous Comparison of the Hazardous Substance Plans and Rules Substance Plans and Rules

among Regional Councilsamong Regional Councils

Lynn TorgersonEnvironmental EngineerPattle Delamore Partners LtdChristchurch

WasteMINZ Conference 2009Christchurch

©PDP 2007


Presentation Outline

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

©PDP 2007


Background

Environment Southland are preparing a component their regional plan, which includes the management of hazardous substances.

In effort to assist in the development of their plan, consideration was given to other regional councils plans and rules.

How are other councils managing hazardous substances?

©PDP 2007


Hazardous Substances

Provide source and pathways (opportunities) to reach the receptor (sensitive receiving environment).

Management Measures to mitigate or avoid effects

©PDP 2007


Current Legislative Framework

Three Acts directly address the management of hazardous substances:

Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 HSNO

Land Transport Rule 45001: Dangerous Goods 1999 (Amended in 2005)

Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) Discharges Control of the use of land

©PDP 2007


Control of the Use of Land

Responsibility to both regional and district councils

To prevent or mitigate effects from the storage, use, transport and disposal of hazardous substances

Delegation identified in the regional policy statement

So how many regional councils control the use of land for this purpose?

©PDP 2007


Key Questions

Are there any regional councils that control the use of land for the storage, use, transport and disposal of hazardous substances?

How are the regional rules drafted?

How easy is it to understand the regional rules?

©PDP 2007


Review of Existing Regional Plans and Rules

Twelve regional councils and four unitary authorities

Method:

Regional Policy Statements Regional Plans and Rules Environmental Outcomes Ease of Interpretation of Rules

©PDP 2007


Regional Policy Statements

16 operative regional policy statements and 2 proposed regional policy statements

Hazardous substances chapter

Mitigating effects to environment from hazardous substances is key issue.

Objectives and policies built around the issue.

©PDP 2007



Regulation of hazardous substances identified as a method for managing effects

Discharges are the responsibility of regional councils

Delegation of the control of the use of land identified in 10 of 12 regional council regional policy statements

©PDP 2007



Use, transport and storage delegated to 2 regional councils (Auckland Regional Council and Environment Canterbury)

Disposal delegated to 4 regional councils (ARC, ECan, Horizons, Environment Bay of Plenty)

2 regional policy statements did not provide any delegation (West Coast Regional Council and Northland Regional Council), so by default, the responsibility goes to the region.

©PDP 2007


Regional Plans and Rules

Reviewed 6 regional plans with respect to rules to control land.

Plan status varied: operative, operative in part and proposed.

Very limited rules for managing the use of land for hazardous substances

©PDP 2007


Regional Rules

Use of land for storage and use (ECan and ARC)

Use of land for disposal of hazardous substances (ARC)

Most disposal issues were linked to the discharge rules

Use of land for transport of hazardous substances None, although contingency plans were incorporated in ECan and

ARC rules

©PDP 2007


Comparison of Regional Rules

ARC approach: Use of land for industrial or trade processes – determining the risk level associated with scheduled activities

Activities schedule relates to risk and area of activity.

Higher risk activities require resource consent, where as low or moderate risk activities may be permitted (with conditions)

©PDP 2007



ECan approach: Use of land to store or use hazardous substances – based on specified list of substances (HSNO classification of 9.1A, 9.1B or 9.1C) and their aggregate quantity

Use rules include removal of a storage container.

Classifications include non-complying and prohibited

Sensitive receiving environments (especially the unconfined aquifer areas of Christchurch) trigger more restrictive classifications.

©PDP 2007



Both ARC and ECan include management measures in the conditions of their rules

Spill contingency plans (which indirectly picks up some transport risk) and hazardous substance containment measures.

Use of land does not relinquish responsibility to obtain separate authorisation for the discharge of a hazardous substance.

©PDP 2007


Ease in Interpretation of Rules

ECan Rule Challenges

Quantity of hazardous substances and HSNO classification

Groundwater protection zones and community drinking water supply protection zones

Failure to meet certain conditions results in a different planning classification - not easy to follow in the drafted rule

Weight of activities when plan is not yet operative (ie prohibited activity)

©PDP 2007


Ease in Interpretation of Rules

ARC Rule Challenges

Determination of risk level according to Schedule 3 based on area coverage

Prescriptive conditions for management measures, may be over the top for some low risk activities

Use for disposal of hazardous substances listed as high risk in Schedule 3 and resource consent is required regardless of quantity.

©PDP 2007


Conclusions

Most regional councils have delegated the responsibility.

Of those who kept the responsibility, regional plans and rules have only been drafted for two councils.

While there may overlap in responsibilities, at this time there is a gap in the knowledge of the control of land for those who have not prepared regional rules.

©PDP 2007


Conclusions

The rules prepared for the control of the use of land for ARC and ECan based their control using different trigger mechanisms.

Both plans have components which affect the ease in which the regional council officers and the landowner can make a determination of the activity status.

Efficacy of rules has not yet been assessed.

comparison of the hazardous substance plans and rules among regional councils

Documents