notified resource consent decision (without hearing) · purpose to report to the manager,...

Notified resource consent decision (without hearing)

Summary of decision Activity: To discharge contaminants (namely particulate matter and

other contaminants) to air from: Boilers Spray dryer stacks, and Powder air lift baghouse associated with the production of laundry powder and liquid detergent products.

File Reference: WGN110180 Applicant: Unilever New Zealand Limited Private Bag 39809 Wellington Mail Centre

Lower Hutt 5045 For: Neil Robertson

Decision made under: Sections 104B, 105 and 108 of the Resource Management

Act 1991. Consent Granted: [30828]: Discretionary Activity Discharge permit to discharge contaminants (namely

particulate matter and other contaminants) to air from the production of laundry powder and liquid detergents products.

Location: 486 Jackson Street, Petone, Lower Hutt. Map Reference: At approximate map reference NZTM 1758891.5433858. Legal Description: Lot 3 DP 341820 Background: The application was publically notified on

1 February 2011.

All submitters withdrew their wish to be heard.

As a hearing is not required to be held, the Manager, Environmental Regulation, has the delegated authority to grant or decline the application.

Reasons for decision: 1. The proposed activity is consistent with the Purpose and Principles of the Act.

2. The proposed activity is consistent with the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality, Regional Policy Statement, the Proposed Regional Policy Statement and the Regional Air Quality Management Plan.

3. Conditions of the consent will ensure that the adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

4. The proposal incorporates appropriate mitigation measures, to ensure the adverse effects are appropriately managed.

Duration of consent: [30828]: 25 years

Decision: The above consent is granted subject to conditions for the reasons outlined in this report.

Subject to conditions: Attachment 1 Report prepared by:

Ashlee Farrow Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation

Report peer reviewed by:

Malory Osmond Senior Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation

Report peer reviewed by:

Jeremy Rusbatch

Team leader, Environmental Regulation

Report approved by:

Alistair Cross

Manager, Environmental Regulation

Contents

1. Purpose 1

2. Background 1

3. Location 2

4. Proposal/description of activities 2

5. Resource consents required 3 5.1 Resource Management Act 1991 3 5.2 Regional Plan rules 4

6. Consultation 4

7. Notification and submissions 4 7.1 Notification 4 7.2 Submissions 5 7.3 Issues raised by submissions 5 7.3.1 Issues raised by submissions in support 5 7.3.2 Issues raised by submissions of conditional support or neutral

submissions 5 7.3.3 Issues raised by submissions in opposition 6

8. Further information and meetings 6

9. Statutory reasons for requiring resource consent 6 9.1 Planning instruments and other matters 7

10. Assessment of actual and potential effects 104(1)(a) 7 10.1 Existing Environment 7 10.2 Peer review 8 10.3 Nature of the discharge and potential effects of contaminants 9 10.4 Dispersion modelling 9 10.5 Particulate matter (PM10) 10 10.6 Cumulative effects and background PM10 12 10.7 Oxides of Nitrogen 13 10.8 Carbon Monoxide 14 10.9 Odour 15 10.10 Conditions 17 10.11 Summary 17

11. Objective and policies of the relevant planning instruments 104(1)(b) 18

11.1 National planning instruments 18 11.2 Regional planning instruments 19 11.2.1 Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and Proposed Regional Policy

Statement 19 11.2.2 Regional Air Quality Management Plan for the Wellington Region 20

12. Part 2 of the Act 22 12.1 Section 6 – Matters of National Importance 23 12.2 Section 7 – Other Matters 23 12.3 Section 8 – Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi 23 12.4 Section 5 – Purpose and Principles 24

13. Conclusions 25

14. Recommendation and duration of consent 25

WGN_DOCS-#886236-V1 PAGE 1 OF 34

Reason for Decision:

WGN110180 [30828] – Unilever New Zealand Limited application for resource consent to continue to discharge contaminants (mainly particulate matter and other contaminants) to air from the production of soap and detergents.

1. Purpose To report to the Manager, Environmental Regulation on a resource consent application to the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GW) by Unilever New Zealand Trading Limited (the applicant) under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act).

This report provides an analysis of the resource management issues in respect of Unilever New Zealand Trading Limited (the applicant) WGN110180 [30828]. Application for resource consent to continue to discharge contaminants to air from the production of soap and detergents located at 486 Jackson Street, Petone.

2. Background SKM has applied on behalf of Unilever New Zealand Limited (the applicant) to continue to produce laundry powders and liquid detergent products at the company’s site.

Unilever was established in Petone in 1919 and has been manufacturing a variety of household goods in the Petone region for over 90 years. The company has manufactured a variety of consumer goods over the years with global brands that have become household names throughout the country including Persil, Surf, Dove and Sunsilk. Today the Petone plant continues to produce all of Unilever’s laundry powder for both Australia and New Zealand; it is one of the largest exporters through the port of Wellington. Unilever is a major employer in the Hutt Valley and the plant currently employs around 100 people.

The applicant’s current air discharge permit (WGN950157 [1460]) which was granted on 12 July 1996 expired on July 12 2011; therefore, the applicant commissioned Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) to assist in applying for a renewal air discharge permit to continue operating. Under section 124 of the Act, a consent holder may continue to operate under the existing consents until a new consent is granted or declined, and all appeals are determined, provided the requirements of section 124(2) are met.

Section 124(2) of the Act states that the aforementioned provisions apply when:

OF 34 WGN_DOCS-#886236-V1

(a) a resource consent is due to expire; and

(b) the holder of the consent applies for a new consent for the same activity; and

(c) the application is made to the appropriate consent authority; and

(d) the application is made in the period that –

(i) begins six months before the expiry of the existing consent; and

(ii) ends three months before the expiry of the existing consent; and

(e) the authority, in its discretion, allows the holder to continue to operate.

As the applicant lodged their application six months prior to the expiry date of the existing consents and the consent authority (GW) allowed them to continue to operate, the continued operation and discharge of contaminants are provided for by section 124 of the Act.

3. Location The company is located in Petone, Lower Hutt which is a suburb that consists of residential, mixed industrial, commercial and business activities. The site is located at the east end of Jackson Street at number 486 on land situated between Jackson Street and East Street.

The land in the immediate vicinity of the site is relatively flat; however, the land rises steeply to the east and northwest of the site (approximately 2km away). Just over 2,000 metres to the east and west of the premises the valley floor begins to rise abruptly to a local peak height around 300 metres to the east and 200 metres to the west. The relatively flat valley floor extends northeast and southwest, with Petone foreshore located approximately 340 metres to the southwest.

4. Proposal/description of activities At present the applicant fills liquid personal care products and manufactures liquid detergents; however, the main activities at the site are related to the manufacture and packaging of laundry powders and detergents.

The applicant has provided a detailed explanation of the processes involved in the production of laundry powders as well as the ingredients used in Section 5.2 of the application and a detailed explanation of the process of liquid detergent manufacturing in Section 5.3. I consider the applicant has provided a fair description of these processes and has chosen to adopt these sections of the application in accordance with section 42A(1B)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) I have chose to adopt the process description into this report.


In summary, the production of the laundry powders involves five main processes; slurry making, spray drying, densification, post dosing and packing. The production of liquid detergent is undertaken by mixing the ingredients using in-line high shear and recirculation mixing; the product is then pumped to a bulk storage tank and bottled.

There are over 70 discharges to air from the applicant’s site. Many of these are passive vents, simple extraction ventilation, gas fired water heaters and/or similar small gas fired appliances. The main discharges from site that require consent are particulate discharges from the spray dryer stacks and the Powder Air Lift Baghouse. The location and description of each discharge is presented in table 8 of the application. There are two main stacks for the spray dryer and one main boiler stack on site.

5. Resource consents required

5.1 Resource Management Act 1991 Section 15(1)(c)of the Act places restrictions on the use of the discharges of contaminants into the environment. The activity proposed by the applicant is not permitted as of right under this section of the Act or by the regional plans; therefore, resource consent is required

Section 15(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) relates to the discharge of contaminants into the environment. Section 15(1)(c) states:

(1) No person may discharge any - …

(c) Contaminant from any industrial or trade premises into air…

…unless the discharge is expressly allowed by a rule in a regional plan and in any relevant proposed regional plan, a resource consent, or regulations.

Section 2 of the Act defines contaminant as:

“includes any substance (including gases, odorous compounds, liquids, solids and micro-organisms) or energy (excluding noise) or heat, that either by itself or in combination with the same, similar, of other substances, energy, or heat –

(b) when discharged onto or into land or into air, changes or is likely to change the physical, chemical or biological condition of the land or air onto or into which it is discharged.

Potential discharges from the cremator include hazardous compounds that will change the physical nature of the air into which it is discharged, and can therefore be classed as contaminants under the Act.

Section 2 defines an industrial of trade premises as:

“(a) any premises used for any industrial of trade purposes: or


(b) any premises used for the storage, transfer, treatment, or disposal of waste materials or for other waste-management purposes, or used for composting organic materials; or

(c) any other premises from which a contaminant is discharges in connection with any industrial or trade process...”

The applicant’s proposal therefore will result in contaminants being discharged to the environment from an ‘industrial or trade premises’.

As discussed in Section 5.2 of this report, the discharge of contaminants associated with the production of soap and liquid detergent products is not expressly allowed by a national environmental standard or other regulations, a rule in a regional plan (as well as a rule in a proposed regional plan) or an existing resource consent. Therefore, resource consent is required.

5.2 Regional Plan rules The relevant regional plan is the Regional Air Quality Management Plan for the Wellington Region (RAQMP). The proposed discharges to air from the production of laundry powder and liquid detergents cannot meet the requirements of Rules 1 to 22 (permitted and controlled rules) and therefore defaults to Rule 23, which provides for all remaining discharges to air, as a discretionary activity.

6. Consultation The applicant has described the consultation which they undertook prior to lodging their application in Section 9 of their Assessment of Environmental Effects.

A peer review of the application and supporting documents was undertaken by Golder New Zealand Limited. This is discussed further in Section 10.2 of this report.

Ongoing consultation was also undertaken with Regional Public Health (RPH). RPH’s main involvement was to ensure that adequate consent conditions were placed on the consent. This is discussed further in Section 10.9 of this report.

7. Notification and submissions

7.1 Notification The application was publicly notified in the Hutt News on 1 February 2011 and the Dominion Post on 5 February 2011. In addition, three notification signs were installed around the site. Notice of the application was served on approximately 290 affected/interested parties, including:

Regional Public Health

Iwi

Healthcare Aotearoa Inc


Housing New Zealand

Hutt City Council

Local businesses; and

Local residents

7.2 Submissions At the close of submissions on 4 March 2011 two submissions had been received. One submission was received in support or conditional support of the proposal and one neutral submission was received. No submissions were received in opposition.

A summary of the two submissions received and the issues raised is attached as Appendix 2 to this report.

7.3 Issues raised by submissions

7.3.1 Issues raised by submissions in support Exide Technologies (Exide), a local business located at 57 Waione Street, Petone, immediately south of the applicant’s site, supports the application in its entirety. Exide stated in their submission that there are a number of positive effects on the environment which included:

Providing employment to 75 permanent and 25 temporary staff

Economic benefits in terms of monetary contributions to tax, rates, investment in plant and equipment

Production of products for local and export markets

Exide states that the positive effects of the proposal are significant and that the potential adverse effects are outlined in the AEE which the applicant has demonstrated are adequately mitigated by appropriate conditions of consent and ongoing monitoring of the discharges. They outline that the granting of the consent will allow for the significant positive effects to continue and the local and wider community will receive those benefits.

Exide states that there a number of manufacturing and industrial land uses in the surrounding area, as well as other activities including recreation and residential land use. Exide states that it is their view that the AEE prepared for the application, demonstrates that manufacturing can be carried out in this locality, without significant adverse effects on those other land use activities.

7.3.2 Issues raised by submissions of conditional support or neutral submissions Regional Public Health (RPH) was neutral to the application. RPH’s submission is limited to the potential effects of the proposal on public health.


They state that discharges to air, such as proposed in the application, can result in potential health risks for exposed persons. RPH requested that the issues raised by the Air Quality Management Limited review be addressed.

RPH recommended that if consent was granted, appropriate conditions are required that minimise the potential health risks from discharges of PM10 and NO2. RPH also commented that the duration of consent should be less than the proposed 25 year term sought.

7.3.3 Issues raised by submissions in opposition There were no submissions in opposition to the application.

8. Further information and meetings RPH indicated that their main concern was related to PM10 levels and gaining an understanding of actual background PM10 levels in the Petone region surrounding the applicant’s site. RPH requested further information around the modelled PM10 concentrations and further information to better understand the frequency of localised raised PM10 levels overall. Background PM10 levels have been addressed further in Section 10 of this report.

Following the close of submissions the applicant undertook a number of meetings with RPH to discuss the terms of the consent and consent conditions. The applicant provided a summary of the meetings to GW which indicated the concerns raised by RPH were able to be addressed on 17 June 2011. RPH formally withdrew their wish to be heard on 18 August 2012 following the review of a final set of conditions and agreed any remaining concerns would be addressed by the way of consent conditions.

The consent conditions and the process involved in all parties coming to agree on the conditions are discussed further in Section 10.9 of this report.

9. Statutory reasons for requiring resource consent This section sets out the framework that has been used to assess the application.

The requirements of the Act that relate to the decision making process are contained within sections 104-116. The sections of particular relevance to this application are listed below.

The matters to which a consent authority shall have regard when considering applications for resource consents and submissions are set out in section 104(1) of the Act as follows:

When considering an application for 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 policy statement,

ii. a New Zealand coastal policy statement,

iii. a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement; and

iv. a plan or proposed plan; and

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

The provisions of sections 104 are all "subject" to Part II, which means that the purpose and principles of the Act are paramount. An assessment of the application against Part II is provided in Section 12 of this report.

9.1 Planning instruments and other matters The following planning instruments and documents are relevant to this application:

National

Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004

Regional

The Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region 1995

The proposed Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region (notified 21 March 2009)

Regional Air Quality Management Plan for the Wellington Region 2000

The relevant provisions of the above-mentioned planning instruments are discussed in Section 11 of this report.

Section 105 of the Act lists additional matters that a consent authority must have regard to when considering applications for discharge permits to do something that would contravene section 15 of the Act. These matters are addressed in Section 10 of this report.

10. Assessment of actual and potential effects 104(1)(a)

10.1 Existing Environment The applicant’s site is located at 486 Jackson Street, Petone, Lower Hutt. The area is a mixture of residential, mixed industrial, commercial and business activities. There are three and four storey apartment blocks on the northern side of Jackson Street immediately opposite the applicant’s site and two storey


residences immediately to the west. There are also a number of one storey residences in the vicinity. The area to the south includes a lead smelter (now decommissioned), and various mechanical related businesses. The area is zoned General Business as per the Hutt City District Plan map B5 updated March 2006.

The land in the immediate vicinity of the site is relatively flat and approximately one metre above sea level. Land rises steeply (approximately 2km) to the east and to the northwest of the site with Wellington Harbour located approximately 340 metres to the southwest, Te Mome Stream located 100 metres to the north and the Hutt River located 290 metres to the east.

The nearest meteorological station with suitable data for dispersion modelling purposes is located at Shandon Golf Course just north of the applicant’s site. The site is located in the Lower Hutt airshed.

The Seaview industrial area is located approximately 750 metres to the east of the applicant’s site. There are a number of consented discharges in this area that contribute to the overall contaminate levels in the Lower Hutt airshed.

10.2 Peer review GW commissioned a technical peer review of the modelling and predicted results of the atmospheric dispersion modelling and assessment of environmental effects provided in the application documents (detailed below). Mr Richard Chilton of Golder Associates was commissioned under section 92(2) of the Act to undertake a peer review of the modelling, assessment of environmental effects, to review some additional information provided by the applicant on 30 May 2011 and 8 and 9 November 2011 and provide advice on appropriate consent conditions.

The technical review undertaken by Golder was submitted to GW on 5 September 2011. A number of issues were raised in the peer review which was then addressed by Unilever. The applicant raised concerns that there was a misunderstanding which was apparent in the review and requested the opportunity to consult with Golder directly to clarify any concerns that were raised in the peer review. Mr Chilton and the applicant’s consultant, Mr Nic Conland, corresponded several times regarding the peer review and requested Mr Chilton undertake a site visit so that the applicant had an opportunity to explain the processes on site. Mr Chilton agreed to the site visit which was undertaken on 5 October 2011. During the site visit a number of key issues which were raised in the peer review were discussed. The main issues related to odour, conversion of NO to NO2, powder lines emission concentration, cumulative effects with the discharges from the Exide Technologies, background PM10 and reducing the spray drier emission limit.

In response to the above issues the applicant undertook further assessments of background PM10 levels and powder line particulate emissions which was submitted to GW on 9 November 2011. Upon receiving this information Golder was satisfied that the discharges from the applicant’s site were unlikely to breach the limits specified in the NESAQ and that the assessments which


were undertaken were conservative. Golder considered that any uncertainties which remained could be addressed by way of consent conditions.

I have incorporated the assessments and conclusions reached from the peer review in the wider assessment of environmental effects below.

10.3 Nature of the discharge and potential effects of contaminants The main contaminates identified in the application are:

Particulate matter (PM10)

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

Carbon monoxide

Benzene

Odour, and

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s)

As previously stated, Table 8 of the application details all discharge sources from site.

10.4 Dispersion modelling

Applicant’s assessment

The applicant conducted dispersion modelling for a number of contaminants released/discharged from the site. The applicant used the Gaussian ASPLUME dispersion model version 6.0 to predict the maximum ground level concentrations which are likely to result from their operations. The applicant has stated that the dispersion modelling takes into account a number of factors including the emission rate of the contaminant, the height of the discharge, building downwash effects, local topography and meteorology (wind speed and direction, ambient temperature, atmospheric mixing height and atmospheric stability).

The applicant stated that the model was used to predict the 1-hour, 24-hour and annual average maximum ground level concentrations for key contaminants (PM10 and odour).

GW and peer review assessment

Golder assessed the effectiveness in using the ASPLUME dispersion model and commented that it is likely to be reasonable given the close proximity of the Shandon Golf Course meteorological station (which was used to derive the meteorological information for the model) and the likely effects as confined to the flat area of the Lower Hutt airshed.


I concur with this assessment and consider the ASPLUME dispersion model to be an acceptable model to predict ground level concentrations which are likely to occur from the applicant’s activity.

The table below compares the maximum predicted PM10 discharges from site with the New Zealand Air Quality Standards.

Indicator Threshold concentration

Averaging period

Permissible exceedences per year

Standard 50 µg/m3 24-hour One 24-hour period PM10

Site discharges 27 µg/m3 24-hour –

10.5 Particulate matter (PM10) PM10 is an air pollutant that MfE has recognised as harmful to human health. Health effects include the irritation of the lungs, throat and eyes. The MfE website1 states that these health effects are particularly concerning for the elderly and infants, people with asthma and other respiratory diseases, and sufferers of other chronic diseases, such as heart disease.

PM10 regularly occurs at high levels in New Zealand urban areas particularly during winter in areas where solid fuel heating is common. The NESAQ 2004 place limits on acceptable daily levels for PM10 at 50 μg/m3 and an annual average PM10 level of 20 μg/m3 which takes into account both peak and low pollution periods in an airshed, giving an important long-term picture of air quality.


The applicant undertook atmospheric dispersion modelling of their proposed discharge of PM10 using the ASPLUME model discussed above. The applicant’s modelling used discharge concentrations of 5mg/Nm3 from the powder lines and 50mg/Nm3 from the spray dryer. The resulting predicted maximum ground level concentration for PM10 as a 24-hour average was 27 μg/m3 and an annual average of 5.4 μg/m3. These are both well below the MfE guideline values for PM10. The applicant has stated that this is a conservative assessment as it has been assumed for modelling purposes that processes discharging to air are operating at 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year (excluding the truck dump) and that all particulate matter in the discharge is PM10.

The applicant addressed concerns by Golder that the emission concentrations of 5 mg/Nm3 were not substantiated for the powder lines and that an emission concentration of 15 mg/Nm3 could be more appropriate. The applicant chose to then undertake further assessments using an emission concentration of 15 mg/Nm3. At this level the applicant states that the highest maximum ground level concentration is 33.9 μg/m3 of PM10 as a 24-hour average which they have stated is still well below the NESAQ limit (of 50 μg/m3).

1 http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/air/air-quality/pm10/


The applicant then commissioned particulate matter emission testing to determine the actual emission concentrations from the powder line baghouse and confirmed that emission concentrations are less than 5mg/Nm3. Testing was undertaken on 2 November 2011 by Source Testing NZ (STNZ). The STNZ testing report (submitted to GW on 8 November 2011) measured emission concentrations of around 1mg/Nm3 for the powder lines (PM10) Therefore, the emission concentration will be well below the modelled maximum ground level concentration 27 μg/m3 of PM10 as a 24-hour average and well below the NESAQ limit.

The applicant has requested that condition 11 of their current consent WGN950157 [1460] is retained. The condition states that ‘Total particulate emissions from the stacks venting the NSD spray dryer shall not exceed 50 mg/m3 adjusted to 0 degrees, NTP and a dry gas basis’. The applicant has stated that they wish to retain the 50mg/m3 limit as this provides an upper operating limit for Unilever which is unlikely to give rise to high particulate concentrations at ground level beyond the boundary of the site. I have therefore assessed the effects at this discharge rate which is quite conservative given actual/measured rates of discharge. The applicant has stated the highest predicted maximum ground level concentrations as a 24-hour average for PM10 to be 27 μg/m3 and an annual average of 5.4 μg/m3. The applicant has stated that by retaining the 50 mg/m3 limit it will ensure they can comply with the conditions of their consent at all times.


Given the health effects that can be associated with PM10 Golder and GW required a high degree of information/assessments relating to the discharge of PM10 from the applicant’s site. It was accepted by Golder that mass emission would be relatively low from the baghouse sources with a relatively low gas flow, even if the discharge concentration is 2-3 times higher than the assumed concentration limit of 5mg/Nm3. However, Golder stated they were concerned that for the baghouses that treat relatively large flow, such as the Powder Lines 1 and 2, Dust Extraction, Truck Dump Dust Extractor and the Air Lift Decantation, the effects of these sources having a higher PM10 discharge concentration than assumed could have significant effects on offsite concentrations.

Golder therefore suggested that background air quality for a 24-hour average PM10 be represented by doubling the annual average background. Mr Chilton felt that there was some uncertainty in the PM10 assessment as no assessment of cumulative effects of PM10 had been undertaken. The applicant then provided a more robust analysis that included PM10 ambient monitoring on 9 November 2011 from the Birch Lane monitoring site which coincides with the year used for the dispersion modelling (this is explained in more detail in Section 9.6 of this report).

As previously mentioned, the applicant confirmed that emission concentrations of less than 5mg/Nm3 was correct from the powder line baghouse and maximum ground level concentrations as a 24 hour average for PM10 were modelled to be 27 μg/m3 with an annual average of 5.4 μg/m3 which are well


below the NESAQ. It is recognised that 27 μg/m3 as a maximum ground level concentrations as a 24 hour average for PM10 is 54% of the NESAQ limit. This is considered to be relatively high as this individual site is contributing to more than half the total NESAQ for the Lower Hutt airshed (cumulative effects are discussed in more detail below). However, the applicant has stated that 50mg/m3 was modelled with the three year data set for the adjacent golf course and no breaches of the NESAQ has occurred. I therefore consider that the emission concentrations and PM10 discharged from the applicant’s site is an acceptable level. However, I have recommended conditions of consent which requires them to monitor and ensure PM10 levels in the discharge remain at an acceptable level. An emission limit of 50mg/m3 has been recommended for Total suspended particulates as requested by the applicant.

10.6 Cumulative effects and background PM10 As previously mentioned, the NESAQ states daily levels for PM10 is set at 50μg/m3 and an annual average of 20μg/m3. Therefore it is crucial to take into account cumulative effects and background PM10 levels within an airshed. The closest monitoring station to the applicant’s site is the Birch Lane monitoring site which monitors PM10 approximately 3 kilometres to the northeast of the applicant’s site. This included an assessment of the relevant data from the Birch Lane monitoring site. The PM10 annual mean concentrations for years 2005 to 2009 were between 14 to 15 μg/m3.


The applicant submitted further information which included an assessment of the predicted cumulative PM10 concentrations for the airshed. The information provided showed the highest combined PM10 concentration to be 33.9 μg/m3 of PM10 as a 24-hour average. The applicant has stated that given the conservative assessment of the modelled emission rates (27μg/m3), exceedances of the NESAQ can be considered very unlikely to occur, in particular, at locations where people are likely to be exposed.

The applicant provided a summary of the statistics for the Birch Lane Monitoring site in Table 1 of the further information submitted to GW on 30 May 2011. The table shows background PM10 concentrations for the Lower Hutt airshed. The maximum levels recorded for a 24 hour average was 34μg/m3 in 2006 which has since decreased to 31μg/m3 in 2009 and has a median of 13 to 14μg/m3 for the period of 2006 to 2009.


The applicant undertook a robust analysis to identify cumulative effects of site emissions interacting with background PM10 levels. Of particular concern to this application was the cumulative effects associates with Exide Technologies (a lead and acid battery recycling plant) also located within the Lower Hutt airshed. Golder considered that the assessment provided by the applicant relating to background level concentrations and cumulative effects was acceptable and that the assessment was conservative. Golder considers that a breach of the PM10 limits in the NESAQ from cumulative effects was unlikely. The likelihood of an exceedance has further decreased as Exide Technologies


has decommissioned the plant, further reducing the cumulative effects in the airshed.

It should also be noted that this is not a new discharge and is part of the existing PM10 levels for this airshed as it has been occurring for more than 15 years. The discharges in the Lower Hutt airshed will have improved as Exide closed in March 2012 and decommissioning of the site is expected to be complete at the end of 2012.

Golder also accepts that the conclusions reached by the applicant that the air quality in the vicinity of the applicant’s site would likely be better than at Birch Lane due to the sea breezes, open areas, and less intensive urban development at the Unilever site.

I therefore consider that the discharge from the applicant’s site is based on an acceptable level and it is unlikely that the NESAQ will be breached as a result of the cumulative effects in the Lower Hutt airshed.

10.7 Oxides of Nitrogen The MfE website2 contains information regarding nitrogen dioxide. It states that nitrogen dioxide gas is highly reactive, is corrosive to metals and is a strong oxidising agent. Emissions of NO2 can occur directly from combustion processes and as a result of the conversion of NO gas in the atmosphere. Concentrations of NO2 within the Wellington region have been measured since 1998. Monitoring for NO2 in Upper Hutt, Lower Hutt and Masterton indicates concentrations are typically within the 'excellent' or 'good' air quality categories ie, 1 hour averages are between 10% and 33% of the standard. No exceedance of the 24 hour guideline value for NO2 have been measured in the Wellington region.

NOx formations from the applicant’s site results from thermal fixation of atmospheric nitrogen in the combustion flame and from oxidation of nitrogen bound in the fuel (in particular the gas fired boiler). The applicant has stated that the rate of discharge of oxides of nitrogen generally is directly proportional to the rate of combustion of fuel, combustion temperatures and excess air.


The applicant provided an assessment of NOx in Section 7.1.2 of the application. The applicant states in this section that around 90% or more of NOx emitted from their processes onsite most combustion appliances is NO.

The applicant considered that the original assessment was sufficiently conservative and well below the NOx limits in the NESAQ and therefore no further assessment was required. This was discussed during the site visit Golder undertook.

2 http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/air/air-quality-tech-report-43/html/page6.html



Golder raised concerns that NO2 was not adequately considered in the assessment. During the site visit Mr Chilton observed the applicant’s gas fired boiler and considered that a consent condition around the monitoring and maintenance of the boiler would suffice to ensure these concerns are adequately addressed. Mr Chilton commented further following the site visit that the applicant supplied sufficient evidence to assume the ground level concentrations are likely to be well below the NESAQ given the relatively small scale of combustion discharge sources on site.

I agree with the assessments undertaken by the applicant and Golder and consider that the discharges of NOx from the site will not exceed limits in the NESAQ. I have recommended a condition of consent to ensure the discharge of NOx is adequately addressed.

10.8 Carbon Monoxide The MfE website3 describes carbon monoxide (CO) as a colourless, odourless and tasteless gas that is a product of the incomplete combustion of solid, liquid and gaseous carbon-based fuels. It impacts on health by reducing the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. This occurs because CO binds more readily to haemoglobin than does oxygen and results in the formation of carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb), which leaves less haemoglobin available for transferring oxygen around the body.

The ambient air quality guideline values (Ministry for the Environment, 2002) for CO are 30 mg m-3 (one-hour average) and 10 mg m-3 (eight-hour average). MfE states that the aim of the guideline values is to prevent exposure to levels of ambient CO that would result in blood COHb levels greater than 2.5%, at any level of physical activity.


The applicant has stated that combustion sources on their site have a small capacity so the emission of CO is very low and will have no more than a minor effect beyond the boundary. Table 9 of the application lists all combustion sources on site.


Golder was satisfied with the assessment of CO undertaken by the applicant and consider that the discharge from the site will be minimal from the combustion sources and will have a no more than minor effect beyond the site boundary provided the boilers are well maintained.

I consider that the discharge of CO will be at an acceptable level provided the boilers are well run and maintained. I have recommended a condition of consent which requires the consent holder to maintain and operate their boilers under standard combustion conditions; therefore, CO emissions should be minimised. I have also recommended a condition which requires the applicant to ensure all processes on site shall be operated, maintained, supervised,

3 http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/air/air-quality-tech-report-43/html/page5.html


monitored and controlled to ensure that emissions authorised by this consent are maintained to meet the conditions of this consent at all times.

10.9 Odour The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) provides advice on acceptable ways to undertake odour assessments in a publication ‘Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing Odour in New Zealand (June, 2003)’. This publication lists 10 acceptable methods which can be applied to assess the effects of odour including odour dispersion modelling, site management and contingency plans and whether the best practicable option is being applied.

For an existing activity classed as a Category 1 (existing activity) by the MfE, it is considered that the primary information source for assessing odour should be council experience with the site (compliance monitoring reports, etc) and community feedback, such as from complaints, community groups or consultation, and/or surveys. If significant adverse odour effects are found to be occurring, then changes will be required and the activity will fall into category 2 (modifications to an existing activity).

The applicant chose to undertake odour dispersion modelling to assess the effects of odour from their site which is not generally recommended by MfE as a tool for assessing whether significant adverse effects are occurring from a Category 1 site. However, as the applicant has stated that the processes have changed (discussed further below) dispersion modelling can be considered an acceptable tool for assessing odour. They also use site management and contingency plans while applying the best practicable options for their site. The odour compliant history was also considered later in the process to assist in assessing the effects of odour from the site.


The applicant identified four main sources of odour in Section 6.2.3 of the application. These four are listed in order of the strength of the odour discharged with the average measured odour concentration provided in the application; spray drying tower, post dosing baghouse, slurry scrubber and decant baghouse. The applicant has stated that at times odour from each of these sources can be detected from outside the site boundary, however, that this odour is of a nature that is generally not regarded as being objectionable. The applicant has also commented that excessive odour in the plant emissions is unlikely to cause significant nuisance to neighbours.

The applicant states that the emission testing programme was designed to capture the worst case scenario from the processes and that at other times production cycles odour emissions are expected to be lower. In addition, a process change to recycle odorous gases through the burner, which will reduce odour emissions, has been implemented since the monitoring was undertaken.

Outlined in the applicant’s odour assessment is the fact that the modelled maximum (99.9%) ground level concentration for odour of 4.9 OU beyond the boundary of the site exceeds the MfE guidelines for highly sensitive


environments (residential areas) but not for moderately or low sensitive environments (1 OU – residential and 5 OU – light industrial). The applicant has stated that the odour produced from the site is typically not considered as objectionable from a 2010 hedonic tone assessment (process of scaling odours). A more detailed assessment can be found in section 7.2.5 “Modelling Results” of the application.


Initially Mr Chilton had concerns that the odour monitoring undertaken by SKM was not representative. Golder considered that the use of dispersion modelling rather than using community based assessment methods and incident data analysis would be less effective/representative. Golder considered that a community based assessment would have been more appropriate. The applicant acknowledged that they could have taken a more community based approach; however, the applicant cited a number of limitations.

Upon further assessment/clarification of the assessments Golder accepted that the replicated odour samples taken over the sampling period showed little variation in emission rates and that the sampling programme was designed to capture the worst case emissions from the process. It is also important to note that the application was fully notified and written notification was sent to all immediate neighbours of the site. No submissions were received from the local community regarding concerns with odour.

GW has an Environmental Protection team who manage a 24-hour, 7-day incident response service. Since 2003 GW has received 90 notifications from the application site (most of these were related to odour). This is approximately 10 notifications per year. Investigations undertaken by GW found that three out of the 90 notifications were considered to be offensive and objectionable. The most recent confirmed breach was 1 May 2011 where immediate action was undertaken by the applicant to remedy the discharge (plant shutdown while investigations were undertaken).

As odour discharges are inherently complex and highly variable, the applicant has focussed the mitigation on treating the air prior to discharge. The proposed air treatment systems proposed by the applicant have been assessed as being adequate by GW’s peer reviewer. I also consider that the applicant’s history and past actions demonstrate immediate action will be undertaken if the odour from the plant is considered to be offensive and objectionable by GW staff.

Furthermore, I consider that the assessment undertaken by the applicant is adequate as full notification of the application supersedes the need for a community based odour assessment. If in the future odour from the site is considered to be offensive and objectionable, the site will be investigated in accordance with GW procedures.

I have recommended a condition of consent which states there shall be no offensive or objectionable discharges to the atmosphere at or beyond the boundary of the consent holder’s premises. I consider this condition will ensure appropriate action by the consent will be undertaken should odour become an issue in the future.


10.10 Conditions Following the further assessments/information that was submitted by the applicant and discussions clarifying processes between the applicant and Golder a recommended set of conditions were proposed by GW. The conditions were put forward to the applicant for review and discussions were entered into relating to the relevance and intent of the conditions. Overall, the conditions were agreed upon with minor changes being suggested by the applicant to ensure the intent was clear and the conditions were able to be met.

The most significant conditions discussed relate to recommended limits for TSP from the spray dryers and PM10 from the Powder Air Lift Baghouse. This links back to the modelling undertaken by the applicant which suggests that a maximum discharge limit for TSP at 50mg/Nm3 to air will not contribute to a breach of the NESAQ. It was agreed by both the applicant and Golder that 50 mg/Nm3 was an appropriate limit from the spray dryers with a total mass discharge of TSP not exceeding 2.4kg/hr as a total load. This condition originally stated that the total mass discharge of TSP from both of the spray dryer stacks shall not exceed 1.5kg/hr per stack or 3kg/hr as a total load. However, upon review of the conditions by RPH they felt that it was important the modelled discharge be used in this instance, therefore the total mass discharge of TSP was reduced back to 2.4kg/hr as a total load.

It was agreed that an appropriate limit for PM10 from the Powder Air Lift baghouse following the assessments discussed previously in Section 10.5 of this report would be 15mg/m3. After a full discussion with RPH it was agreed that this was an appropriate limit. I have recommended a condition which states the concentration of PM10 from the Powder Air Lift Baghouse shall not exceed 15mg/m3.

I have also recommended a condition which states there shall be no discharges to atmosphere resulting from the exercise of this consent, that in the opinion of a Wellington Regional Council enforcement officer, are noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable at or beyond the boundary of the consent holder's premises.

The final condition that was discussed in detail was the measured velocity of exhaust gases from the two spray dryer stacks. It was originally recommended that the velocity shall not be less than 14 metres per second. It was agreed that due to the cyclonic nature of the discharge the efflux is difficult to measure; it was therefore decided that the best way to move forward would be to recommend a reporting condition to ensure the reporting of the measured velocity during sampling events was undertaken.

10.11 Summary I concur with the assessment and recommendations made by Golder. I consider that the assessments undertaken by both the applicant and Golder to be robust and satisfy the requirements of a comprehensive evaluation of the likely environmental effects. However, where uncertainty remains conditions can be applied to ensure the discharge from the site when combined with background


air quality are not likely to result in any breaches of the NESAQ outside of the applicant’s boundary.

Overall, the discharge of contaminants to air from the site are adequately mitigated or managed by the recommended set of conditions in a way that effects beyond the site boundary will be to an acceptable level.

11. Objective and policies of the relevant planning instruments 104(1)(b)

11.1 National planning instruments The NESAQ are regulations made under the Act which set a guaranteed minimum level of health protection for all New Zealanders. It came into effect on 8 October 2004. These were revised and the amended regulations came into force on 1 June 2011.

The NES is made up of 14 separate but interlinked standards. The 14 standards in the NES include:

Seven standards banning activities that discharge significant quantities of dioxins and other toxics into the air

Five standards for ambient (outdoor) air quality

A design standard for new wood burners installed in urban areas

A requirement for landfills over 1 million tonnes of refuse to collect greenhouse gas emissions

Regional councils and unitary authorities are responsible for managing air quality under the Act.

The NESAQ place constraints on the granting of resource consents to discharge PM10, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds. The restrictions on PM10 depend on whether the application was received before 2013 and whether the airshed is already breaching the NES. As of 1 September 2013, unless the NES limit for PM10 is met, no new resource consents can be granted.

Constraints are also placed on the granting of resource consents for CO, NOx, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) where the discharge, if permitted, is likely to be a principal source of any of these contaminants and is at any time likely to cause the airshed to breach the ambient air standard for one of these contaminants.

The ambient concentrations that are likely to be experienced during the production of soap and detergent are discussed in Section 10 of this report. As discussed, the applicant’s contribution to the airshed together with the ambient concentrations of PM10, CO, and NOx are unlikely to cause the concentrations to approach the threshold values.


As the application is for a new consent for an existing discharge that has previously been consented and that the site is located in an area that does not breach the NES, I consider that there is no impediment under the NES to the granting of this discharge permit.

11.2 Regional planning instruments The relevant regional planning instruments are the RPS, PRPS and the RAQMP. The applicant’s proposal has been assessed against the relevant objectives and policies contained within the RPS, PRPS and RAQMP.

11.2.1 Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and Proposed Regional Policy Statement The RPS outlines the resource management issues of significance to the region and provides a framework for managing the natural and physical resources of the region in a sustainable manner. Further to this, the RPS identifies objectives, policies and methods which are designed to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the whole region.

The relevant chapter of the RPS to this application is Chapter 8, Air. I consider that the proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of this chapter. In particular:

Policies for Air

Policy 5: To establish and promote air quality guidelines for setting desirable ambient air quality and control of activities which cause discharges to air.

I consider that the proposal meets Policy 5 as the discharge from site will be well under the air quality guidelines set for desirable ambient air quality.

Policy 6: To avoid or minimise, where appropriate and practicable, the discharge of contaminants to air at their source by the development and implementation of improved control technology and by good pollution control practice.

I consider the application is consistent with Policy 6 as recommended conditions of consent will ensure that discharges from the site are minimised and maintained to an acceptable level.

Policy 8: To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of local and global air pollution on human health.

Provided recommended conditions are adhered to any adverse effects of local and global air pollution on human health will be mitigated to an acceptable level.

The proposed RPS was notified on 21 March 2009. At the time of writing this report all appeals have been resolved and consent orders are before the Court. Given this, the pRPS can be given significant weight. The provisions in the


proposed RPS must be considered pursuant to section 104(1)(b)(v) of the Act. Section 4.2 of the proposed RPS contains the relevant regulatory policies to be given particular regard when assessing and deciding on resource consent applications.

Section 3.1 of the PRPS stipulates resource management issues, objectives and summary of policies and methods to achieve the objectives in the Proposed Regional Policy Statement for air quality.

There are two air objectives in the PRPS which relate to air. Objectives 1 states “Discharges of odour, smoke and dust to air do not adversely affect amenity values and peoples wellbeing”. Objective 2 states “Human health is protected from unacceptable levels of fine particulate matter”. I consider that the application is consistent with the objectives as discharges of odour and particulate matter from the site will be managed, though the use air treatment systems, so that the discharge will be acceptable level, provided conditions of consent are adhered to. The discharge is also well within the NES PM10 guidelines.

I consider that, overall, the application is consistent with these policies in section 4.2 and therefore the proposed RPS.

11.2.2 Regional Air Quality Management Plan for the Wellington Region The RAQMP contains several objectives, policies and rules which are relevant to this application. This plan provides for the discharge of contaminants to air from the operation of the cremator as a discretionary activity. I have expanded only on the main objectives policies of interest in this plan.

Objectives 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 seek to ensure that there is no significant deterioration in ambient air quality in any part of the greater Wellington region. Additionally, they state that discharges should be managed to provide for the social, economic and cultural well-being and health and safety of local communities while ensuring that any adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated. I consider that the proposed discharge is consistent with these objectives of the RAQMP, given that it is an existing activity and provided conditions are adhered to with adverse effects on the environment that are on balance acceptable.

Policies 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 require regard to be given to the Regional Ambient Air Quality Guidelines (RAAQG) when managing the region’s air resource. These guidelines set out the desired levels of specified contaminants in the air, and reflect the cumulative effects of all activities. The guidelines have two categories of assessment – ‘maximum acceptable levels’, and ‘maximum desirable levels’. Desirable levels are appropriate guidelines for rural areas and other areas with good air quality, while maximum levels are appropriate in areas where existing activities have a significant effect on air quality. In this case, the applicant’s site is relevant to the maximum desirable levels as it is in an area of good air quality. I consider the application meets these policies as air quality will not be adversely affected by contaminants as predicted ground level concentrations are well within guideline levels.


As discussed in Section 11.1 of this report, the NESAQ have been in force since September 2005. Given that the NESAQ have been derived and implemented as national limits for certain contaminants, I consider that both the RAAQG and the NESAQG should be considered when considering the application.

I note that the RAAQG defines ‘maximum acceptable limits’ as either the same or greater than the NESAQ for the same contaminants (with the NESAQ permitting certain exceedences for short periods of time across a 12-month period). The applicant’s proposed discharge is well within both the RAAQG and the NESAQ, and is thus consistent with Policies 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

Policy 4.2.4 seeks to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect of the discharge of contaminants to air that is noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable. The operation on site does have the potential to generate offensive and objectionable discharges given the nature of the activity and should good practice not be followed and poor operating conditions prevail. I consider that if the recommended conditions are adhered to, and if good management practices are put in place, the proposed discharge will be remedied and mitigated to a level that ensures the effects will not cause odours that are offensive and objectionable beyond the boundary.

Policy 4.2.9 To give particular consideration, where relevant, to the volume, composition and characteristics of the discharge, including the maximum ground level concentration of significant contaminants in the discharge, especially hazardous contaminants identified in Appendix 1 and any contaminants listed in Appendix 2. It should be noted that there are no discharges from site which are listed as a hazardous air contaminant in Appendix 1. However, particulates, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide are listed in Appendix 2 as there are Regional Ambient Air Quality Guidelines which relate to these contaminants. The discharge has been assessed and modelled and the results indicate that it will be well within the NES guidelines; these being more relevant and more conservative than those in the RAQMP.

Other relevant policies are:

Policy 4.2.6 Policy 4.2.7 Policy 4.2.8 Policy 4.2.10 Policy 4.2.12 Policy 4.2.13 Policy 4.2.14 Policy 4.2.15 Policy 4.2.16

Overall, I consider that the proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of the RAQMP, provided the recommended conditions are complied with.


Matters relating to the grant of discharge permits

Section 105 of the Act Section 105 of the Act must be considered when an application is made for a discharge permit to do something that would contravene section 15 of the Act.

Section 105 requires regard to be given to:

(a) the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects;

(b) the applicant’s reason(s) for the proposed choice; and

(c) any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any other receiving environment.

The nature of the discharge is discussed in Section 10 of this report, respectively.

The receiving environment is the local atmospheric environment surrounding Petone, Lower Hutt. Further details of the receiving environment are described in Section 10.1 of this report.

Given the nature of the operation involved in the production of soap and detergents, there are no viable alternatives to the discharge or the receiving environment and this provides the reason for the choice of the receiving environment.

Changing the location of the plant is the only possible alternative for the discharge. However, given that the plant has been operating at this location for more than 15 years with no substantive issues, and that the effects of the discharge on the environment have been assessed as being acceptable, I consider that the location is appropriate in order to make use of an existing facility.

As a result, I consider that the site, location and operation of the facility in relation to the proposed discharge is appropriate.

12. Part 2 of the Act Consideration of an application under section 104 of the Act is subject to Part 2. “Subject to” gives primacy to Part 2 and is an overriding guide when applying the provisions of the Act.

Part 2 of the Act sets out the purpose of the Act, which is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, and in sections 6, 7 and 8 sets out matters that consent authorities should consider when exercising their functions under the Act.


12.1 Section 6 – Matters of National Importance In exercising its powers and functions under the Act, GW is required to recognise and provide for the matters of national importance listed in section 6 of the Act. The application did not trigger any matters of national significance listed in section 6 of the Act and therefore have not been assessed in this report.

Section 6(e) of the Act relates to the relationship of Maori and their cultural traditions. Iwi were notified of the application and chose not to submit.

12.2 Section 7 – Other Matters The other matters to which GW must have particular regard in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources are listed in section 7 of the Act.

Section 10 of this report (assessment of actual and potential effects) specifically addresses the relationship of the discharge to air to a number of these matters, namely:

Section 7(f) of the Act; maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment.

I consider the proposal is consistent with these matters as the quality of the environment (air) will be maintained.

12.3 Section 8 – Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Section 8 of the Act requires GW to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) when considering applications for resource consent. The Waitangi Tribunal and Courts continue to establish the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and it is recognised that the principles are continuing to evolve. The two key principles that are of relevance to this application are active protection of Mäori interests and consultation.

The principle of active protection has been described as a “guarantee to Maori to continue a relationship with resources that was as much about their use as about their conservation” NZ Cooperative Dairy Company Limited v Commerce Commission (1991). In the context of this application, active protection must be taken into account when considering the tangata whenua relationship with their ancestral land, water, waahi tapu and other taonga.

The general requirements of ‘consultation’ have been well established by the judiciary and Courts both within and outside the Act. Consultation should facilitate tangata whenua understanding of the effects of a proposal on their relationship with the area in question to a point where the applicant can consider how those effects might be avoided, remedied or mitigated. GW requires this kind of information to be able to assess how the Council can meet its statutory responsibilities.

No effects of interest to Maori have been identified by the applicant. The application was publically notified and Wellington Tenths Trust and Te


Runanganui O Taranaki Whanui Ki Te Upoko O Te Ika Maui Inc were directly notified of the application. None of the iwi authorities chose to make a submission on the application. Therefore, I consider that the principles of consultation have been satisfied.

12.4 Section 5 – Purpose and Principles Section 5 defines “sustainable management” as:

“managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while-

(a) sustaining the potential of 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 5 provides for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in a way that allows people and communities to provide for their wellbeing.

There are no other known laundry powder and liquid detergent manufacturers in the Wellington region who produce similar products. The applicant is a major employer in the Hutt Valley and the plant currently employs around 100 people. The company has manufactured a variety of consumer goods over the years with global brands that have become household names throughout the country including Persil, Surf, Dove and Sunsilk. Today the Petone plant continues to produce all of Unilever’s laundry powder for both Australia and New Zealand; it is one of the largest exporters through the port of Wellington.

Section 5(a) and 5(b) provide for the sustaining and safeguarding of the environment for future generations. The highest predicted GLCs of contaminants are well below guideline levels. Additionally, the recommended conditions of consent, including the operations and maintenance manual and operating parameters will ensure the contaminant concentrations off-site will be at an acceptable level. This will ensure that the potential effects of the activities are minimised to safeguard the environment for future generations.

Section 5(c) states that the adverse effects of an activity on the environment should be avoided, remedied or mitigated. Should consent be granted, the applicant will discharge contaminants to air. I consider that provided the applicant operates the plant in accordance with the consent application and recommended conditions of consent, any potential adverse effects of the discharge on the environment will be adequately avoided or mitigated to an acceptable level.


Overall, I am satisfied that the principle of sustainable management as defined in section 5 of the Act is provided for with the grant of this consent. If the consent is granted, the overall well-being of the wider community will be provided for, and the various conditions of consent I have recommended will ensure that any adverse effects will be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

13. Conclusions Overall, the discharge of contaminants to air from the site can be managed and remedied in a way that effects beyond the site boundary will be adequately managed as:

The proposed activity is consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the Act as outlined in section 5 of the Act

The proposed activity is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the RPS, Proposed RPS and the RAQMP

The proposed discharge is well within the specified limits of the NESAQ

The actual or potential adverse effects of the proposed activity on the environment are assessed as acceptable

Conditions of the consent will ensure that the adverse effects of the discharge on the environment will be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated to a level where they are acceptable

The proposal incorporates appropriate mitigation measures, to ensure the adverse effects are acceptable

14. Recommendation and duration of consent Given the above discussion, my recommendation is to grant the applied for resource consent.

The applicant has requested a consent duration of 25 years for consent WGN110180 [30828]. As the applicant has a good compliance history and the discharge will be well below the NESAQ, I consider that a consent duration of 25 years is appropriate for the consent. Given this is at the ‘higher end’ of the scale for consent durations for air discharge consents, I assessed the durations given to discharge permits granted in the last 20 years. Many consent permits for wastewater discharges were granted for periods of 15 years or more (up to 25 years). Longer durations were more typical where the applications were renewal applications and the sites had a good compliance history.

This will allow that applicant security for the business and incentive for continued compliance, and further investment in plant and equipment. If in the future any adverse effects may occur that were unforeseen during this process or operations are inconsistent with relevant Regional Plans or National


Environmental Standards or Regulations there is a review condition which will allow GW the opportunity to deal with these effects.

Therefore, I consider that an appropriate duration of consent to be 25 years, pursuant to section 123(d) of the Act.


Appendix 1: Suggested consent conditions WGN110180 [30828]

General

1. The location, design, implementation and operation of the discharge shall be in general accordance with the consent application and its associated plans and documents lodged with the Wellington Regional Council on 17 December 2010 and further information received on:

30 May 2011 (further information request) 8 November 2011 (via email; baghouse testing report) and 9 November 2011 (via email regarding site visit and baghouse testing)

Where there are contradictions or inconsistencies between the application and

further information provided by the consent holder, the most recent information applies. In addition, where there may be inconsistencies between information provided by the consent holder and conditions of this consent, the conditions apply.

Note: Any change from the location, design concepts and parameters,

implementation and/or operation may require a new resource consent or a change of consent conditions pursuant to section 127 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Discharge to air limits and operating parameters 2. The discharge to air of Total Suspended Particulate from both of the spray

dryer stacks shall not exceed 50 milligrams per cubic metre of air (mg/Nm3) corrected to zero degrees Celsius and 101.3 kilopascals pressure on a dry gas basis.

3. The total mass discharge of Total Suspended Particulate from both of the spray

dryer stacks shall not exceed 2.4 kg/hr as total load. 4. The concentration of Total Particulate Matter <10 microns (PM10) from the

Powder Air Lift Baghouse shall not exceed 15 milligrams per cubic metre of air (mg/m3) corrected to zero degrees Celsius and 101.3 kilopascals pressure on a dry gas basis.

Odour 5. There shall be no discharges of contaminants to atmosphere resulting from the

exercise of this consent, that in the opinion of a Wellington Regional Council enforcement officer, are noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable at or beyond the boundary of the consent holder's premises.

Note: For the purposes of this condition the consent holder’s premises is

defined as land parcel Lot 3 DP 341820


Process Conditions 6. All processes on site shall be operated, maintained, supervised, monitored and

controlled to ensure that emissions authorised by this consent are maintained to meet the conditions of this consent at all times.

7. All ducting and emission control equipment associated with the process, shall

be maintained in good condition in accordance with manufactures specifications and be free from leaks in order to prevent any fugitive emissions.

8. The consent holder shall ensure that no part of the process shall be operated

without the associated extraction equipment and air treatment equipment being fully operational and functioning correctly.

Emission Testing 9. The consent holder shall install and maintain sampling ports in the following

stacks in accordance with the Australian Standard AS4323.1-1995, or equivalent method, for provision and location of sampling ports, services, platforms.

The two spray drier stacks, and Powders Airlift baghouse

Spray drier testing 10. The concentration of Total Suspended Particulates in the Powders spray dryer

stacks, or ducts to the stacks, shall be measured at least once prior to September every year to determine compliance with condition 2 and 3. These tests shall:

a) Be undertaken using the USEPA Method 5 (determination of

particulate matter emissions from stationary sources), or equivalent method, provided that such a method shall be provided to the Wellington Regional Council on request

b) Be carried out by an organisation and laboratory accredited by

International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) for the tests and analyses involved

c) Be conducted during normal process conditions that give rise to the

maximum emissions, and d) The consent holder shall report the measured stack velocity at the

optimised flow angle during the spray drier testing e) Comprise not less than three separate samples with the concentration

results corrected to zero degrees Celsius, one atmosphere and a dry gas basis


Powders Airlift baghouse testing 11. The concentration of PM10 in the Powders Airlift baghouse stacks, or duct to

the stacks shall be measured at least once prior to September every year for a period of not less than 5 years following the grant of the consent. These tests shall:

a) Be undertaken using the USEPA Method 201A (determination of

PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from stationary sources), or equivalent method, provided that such a method shall be provided to the Wellington Regional Council on request

b) Be carried out by an organisation and laboratory accredited by

International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) for the tests and analyses involved

c) Be conducted during process conditions that give rise to the maximum

normal emissions, and d) Comprise not less than three separate samples with the concentration

results corrected to zero degrees Celsius, one atmosphere and a dry gas basis.

If after receipt of three consecutive annual tests (i.e., by 2017/18), all test

results confirm that the PM10 concentration is below 5 milligrams per cubic metre corrected to zero degrees, one atmosphere and on a dry basis, then no further emission testing of the Powders Airlift baghouse shall be required.

If after receipt of three consecutive annual tests (i.e., by 2017/18), all test

results confirm that the PM10 concentration is above 5 milligrams per cubic metre corrected to zero degrees, one atmosphere and on a dry basis, then further emission testing of the Powders Airlift baghouse shall be required.

Reporting 12. The results and analysis of the emission tests undertaken in accordance with

Conditions 10 and 11 and a description of the testing shall be provided to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council by 30 June each year of the testing being carried out. The testing report shall include as a minimum:

a) An account of the plant operating conditions at the time of testing and

the product being processed b) The results of the emissions tests c) A description of the testing methods d) Relevant operating parameters, raw data


e) All calculations, assumptions f) A detailed interpretation and analysis of the test results and

description of how the testing results meet the relevant conditions of consent (including conditions 2, 3 and 4), and

g) A detailed description on how conditions 13-15 were complied with

Maintenance 13. All bag filters, panel/cartridge filters and scrubbers shall be serviced at least

once every year or in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Servicing shall include, but not be limited to:

a) Inspection of all bags, cartridges, and filter panels for general

condition, and b) Replacement or repair of any defective bags, cartridges, or filter

panels 14. For the main boiler, a combustion tuning audit shall be carried out every three

months and boiler efficiency checked every twelve months. 15. The spray drying tower gas fired burner and the main boiler shall be serviced at

least once every year by a person competent in the servicing of such appliances. The servicing shall include:

a) Internal cleaning and replacement or repair of any damaged equipment

and services as necessary b) Adjustment of the air to fuel ratio to optimise energy efficiency and to

minimise the emissions of products of incomplete combustion, and c) Calibration

Operations and Maintenance Plan 16. The consent holder shall prepare an Operations and Maintenance Plan

(OMP), which accurately records all management, operational, maintenance and monitoring procedures and methodologies, process controls and safeguards, and contingency plans necessary to comply with the conditions of this consent.

The consent holder shall submit the OMP to the Manager, Environmental

Regulation, and Wellington Regional Council for approval by 30 September 2013.

Any changes to the OMP shall be submitted to the Wellington Regional

Council for approval. The Wellington Regional Council will advise the


Consent Holder in writing if any aspects of the OMP are considered inconsistent with the provisions of this consent.

Notification of new product testing 17. The consent holder shall notify the Manager, Environmental Regulation,

Wellington Regional Council a minimum of 48 hours prior to any new operations or product testing. Notifications can be sent to [email protected]. Please include consent reference WGN110180 and name and phone number of a contact person responsible for the site.

Note: New operations or product testing shall be defined as any significant

changes to operations as follows:

New raw materials Change to base (LAS) Change in manufacturing conditions

Complaints record 18. The consent holder shall maintain a record of any notifications received

alleging adverse effects from or related to the works the subject of this consent. This record shall include:

a) The name and address of the notifier (if provided) b) The date and time that the notification was received c) Details of the alleged incident d) Weather conditions at the time of the incident e) The most likely cause of the incident, and f) Any measures taken to mitigate/remedy the cause of the incident and

address the complaint This record shall be maintained for the duration of this consent and made

available to the any officer of the Wellington Regional Council, on request. Note: Notifications can be sent to [email protected] Incidents Reporting 19. Any incident that may result in adverse effects on the environment beyond the

boundary of the consent holder's site shall be notified to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council within 24 hours, and a written report submitted to the Wellington Regional Council within five


working days with reasons for the incident, and measures taken to mitigate the effects of the incident and prevent a recurrence.

Note: The Wellington Regional Council may also investigate any incidents to

determine if a breach of this consent or the Resource Management Act 1991 has occurred and may also undertake enforcement action depending on the circumstances

Review Condition 20. The Wellington Regional Council may review any or all conditions of this

consent by giving notice of its intention to do so pursuant to section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, at any time within three months of the 30 June each year for the duration of this consent for the purpose of:

a) To review the adequacy of any report and/or monitoring requirements,

and if necessary, amend these requirements outlined in this consent b) To deal with any adverse effects on the environment that may arise

from the exercise of this consent; and which are appropriate to deal with at a later stage, or

c) To enable consistency with any relevant Regional Plans or any

National Environmental Standards or Regulations The review of conditions shall allow for the deletion or amendment of

conditions of this consent; and the addition of such new conditions as are shown to be necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate any significant adverse effects on the environment.

Notes a) A resource management charge, set in accordance with section 36(2) of the

Resource Management Act 1991 shall be paid to the Wellington Regional Council for the carrying out of its functions in relation to the administration, monitoring, and supervision of resource consents and for the carrying out of its functions under section 35 (duty to gather information, monitor, and keep records) of the Act.

b) The Wellington Regional Council shall be entitled to recover from the consent

holder the costs of any review, calculated in accordance with and limited to the Wellington Regional Council’s scale of charges in force and applicable at that time pursuant to section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991.


Appendix 2: Summary of submissions


Summary of submissions received by Greater Wellington (GW) on notified application WGN110180 [30828] by Unilever New Zealand Trading Limited, to discharge contaminants to air from the production of soap and detergent products.

Name of submitter/organisation

Support/neutral/oppose

application

To be heard in support/neutral/

opposition of application

Summary of submission

1 Regional Public Health (Contact - Chris Edmonds)

Neutral Yes Their submission is limited to the potential effects on public Health. Their reasons for submitting are to ensure public health risk associated with:

Particulate matter Nitrogen dioxide Odour – are considered

To ensure appropriate conditions are imposed on the consent. They consider a shorter consent duration is more appropriate as a term of 25 years may not be appropriate due to technological advances in emission treatment and the potential for air quality standards to be revised in the future.

2 Exide Technologies (Contact - Ian Leary)

Support Yes They support the application and note the positive effects of the application include: Providing employment 75 permanent and 25 temporary staff Economic benefits in terms of monetary contributions to tax, rates, investment in plant and equipment. Production of products for local and export markets. They sate that they consider the actual and potential effects of the proposal are appropriate and adequately mitigated by conditions of consent and the ongoing monitoring of discharges. They consider the effects on the local environment will be minor.

notified resource consent decision (without hearing) · purpose to report to the manager,...

Documents