wallace corporation ltd - waikato regional council . resource management act 1991 . schedule of...

Wallace Corporation Ltd (For the renewal of consents for bio solids

disposal and water take to/from the Waitoa River)

Hearing: Wednesday 11 November 2015 commencing at 10.00am and will continue to

Friday 13 November 2015 only as and if required to complete the hearing, at the Alcamo Hotel and Conference Centre, 290 Ulster St, Hamilton.

Waikato Regional Council Private Bag 3038 Waikato Mail Centre Hamilton 3240

November 2015

WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL

Resource Management Act 1991

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

File: 60 93 77A

Applicant: Wallace Corporation Ltd Att: Aaron Findson PO Box 11 Waitoa 3341

Submission in Support Brian Steele 174 Wood Road RD Waitoa

Gary McIntyre 175B Farmer Rd Waitoa 3380

Neutral Submission PowerCo Ltd c/- David Le Marquand Burton Planning Consultants Lts PO Box 33-817 Takapuna Auckland 0740

Waikato District Health Board Att: Kali Goundar PO Box 505 Hamilton 3240

Submissions in Opposition Andrew Styche Department of Conservation Private Bag 3072 Hamilton 3240

Auckland/Waikato Fish and Game Council Att: David Klee 156 Brymer Road RD9 Hamilton

Shane Carter 185 Manhire Rd Rd4 Morrinsville

INDEX Page

Report on Applications 1

Hearing Format and Procedure 3-4

Waikato Regional Council Technical Report and Appendices 5-81

Appendices

1. Ground Water Take Conditions granted April 2015 82-85

2. Surface Water Take Recommended Conditions 86-89

3. Stormwater Discharge, Recommended Conditions 90-95

4. Treated Wastewater & Biosolids Discharge to Land Recommended Conditions 96-110

5. Treated Wastewater Discharge to Waitoa River, Recommended Conditions 111-125

6. Cooling Water Discharge to Waitoa River, Recommended Conditions 126-131

7. Discharge to Air, Recommended Conditions 132-141

8. Technical advice from WRC water scientist Bill Vant 142-153

9. Technical Advice from WRC ecologists Dr Bruno David & Dr Hannah Jones 154-159

10. Technical advice of Dr Richard Storey, NIWA freshwater ecologist 160-165

11. Technical Advice of Matthew Taylor, WRC soil specialist 166-173

12. Technical Report from WRC Consents Officer Rachael O’Donnell 174-188

13. Groundwater take, technical report by Cameron King 189-193

14. Surface Water take, report to hearing panel from Cameron King 194-215

Submissions received by Waikato Regional Council

1. Brian Stuart Steele 216-219

2. Shane Carter 220-227

3. Garry McIntyre 228-229

4. Fish and Game New Zealand, Auckland/Waikato Region 230-231

5. Department of Conservation 232-237

6. Waikato District Health Board 238-245

7. PowerCo Ltd 246-255

WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL To: Waikato Regional Council Hearing Committee 1 CONSTITUTION

The hearing has been established in accordance with the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2 APPLICATIONS Lodged with Waikato Regional Council to:

Reference Id Activity Description

AUTH130915.02.01 To discharge stormwater into water from various sub-catchments at Wallace Corporation Limited complex via two discharge locations

AUTH130915.01.01 To take up to 9,920 cubic metres of water per day from Waitoa River

AUTH130915.05.01 To discharge cooling water, including heat, at a rate not exceeding 75 L/s with a total volume of no more than 6,480 cubic metres per day to the Waitoa River

AUTH130915.04.01 To discharge treated wastewater at a rate of up to 3,440 cubic metres per day from the Wallace Corporation Limited wastewater treatment plant to the Waitoa River.

AUTH130915.06.01 To discharge contaminants into air arising from Wallace Corporation Limited, Waitoa rendering and tannery processes; ancillary facilities including combustion with gas fired boilers, collection and management of biogas from anaerobic facility, emissions from a wastewater treatment system, discharges from biofilters, discharges from biogas flare, emissions from land treatment operations and associated odours.

AUTH130915.03.01 To discharge treated wastewater and biosolids to land, including circumstances which may result in contaminants entering air.

3 NOTIFICATION

The applications lodged with Waikato Regional Council were publicly notified in the Piako Post and the Waikato Times on 15 January 2014 with the closing date for receipt of submissions being 12 March 2014.

4 SUBMISSIONS Within the prescribed submission period: Seven (7) submissions were received by Brian Steele, Gary McIntyre, David Le Marquand on behalf of PowerCo Ltd, Kali Goundar on bahlf of Waikato District Health Board, Andrew Styche on behalf of Department of Conservation, David Klee on behalf of Auckland/Waikato Fish and Game Council, Shane Carter.

1

HEARING WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

1 Hearing Format 1 The Chairperson will declare the hearing open. 2 The Chairperson will request the Hearing Administrator to call the application/s. 3 All parties present will be requested to identify themselves, stating their interest in the

case. Appearances - names of applicant, submitter(s) (for and/or against) and respective Counsel will be recorded.

4 The Chairperson will address any particular procedural and other matters that require

clarification. 5 Applicant(s) (or their representative/s) to present the application/s and call witnesses. 6 Submitter(s) (or their representative/s) in support of the application/s to present their

submission and call witnesses. 7 Submitter(s) (or their representative/s) in opposition to the application/s to present their

submission and call witnesses. 8 Waikato Regional Council Staff Technical Report 9 Applicant's right of reply 10 Closure (or in some circumstances adjournment) of the hearing.

2 Rules of Procedure 1 The Chairperson may require a witness to give his/her evidence (or a particular part of

his/her evidence) on oath. 2 The applicant and parties making submissions may be represented by legal counsel or

other authorised representative/s. 3 If any person intends to give written or spoken evidence in Maori during the hearing, the

Hearing Administrator must be informed of this at least five (5) working days before the hearing so that a qualified interpreter can be provided. Alternatively, an interpretation may be provided with the evidence by the person giving the evidence.

4 The Chairperson or any member of the hearing body may address questions to any of

the parties (staff, applicant, submitter(s), or their respective witnesses or representative/s) at any stage of the hearing.

3

5 Cross-examination of witnesses is not permitted. At the conclusion of the evidence of a

witness, other parties may seek clarification of particular points in that evidence. But it is at the Chairperson's discretion as to whether or not a question is put to the witness. The Chairperson may require a person seeking clarification to submit a proposed question in writing.

6 Any person giving evidence may be recalled as and when considered necessary and/or

appropriate by the Chairperson. 7 The Chairperson may, if it is considered that there is likely to be excessive repetition,

limit the circumstances in which parties who have the same interest or stance on an issue may speak or call evidence in support.

8 The applicant's right of reply must be confined to matters arising out of the evidence or

any legal points which require clarification. No new evidence may be introduced at this stage.

9 If new or further information or technical evidence is introduced for the first time at the

hearing, then the Chairperson may adjourn the hearing to allow circulation of the new material to all parties. Time will be allowed for the parties to access the new or further information or technical evidence prior to the hearing being reconvened.

10 If the hearing members decide that there is insufficient information available for them to

reach a decision on the application, then the Chairperson may adjourn the hearing pending receipt of the further information required. Once received, this additional information will be precirculated to all of the parties involved in the hearing prior to the hearing being reconvened.

11 The Chairperson declares the hearing closed once all parties have presented their

evidence and the hearing panel has no further questions, and taking into account numbers 9 and 10 above if applicable. The panel then decides whether to deliberate in public or private.

12 Copies of all technical evidence and written statements to be presented at the hearing

by the parties are to be precirculated to: - the consent authority, Waikato Regional Council, and - the other parties in accordance with the instructions set out in the Notice of Hearing letter. This is essential to ensure that the parties involved in the hearing have all the evidence

necessary to be fully informed about the proposal and the relevant issues/concerns. This will greatly assist the Hearing Committee in its task and prevent unnecessary delays in the process.

13 All hearings will be held in public except where the hearing body determines that the

public should be excluded pursuant to Section 42 of the Resource Management Act which relates to the protection of sensitive information.

14 Should any party wish to use equipment such as overhead projectors, slide projectors or

video replay facilities to present evidence, please contact the Hearing Administrator (at least five (5) working days before the hearing) who may be able to assist in co-ordinating the availability of and/or access to such equipment.

4

WRC Hearing Report DM#3077559 Version 6 22/10/15

Hearing Report Applicant: Wallace Corporation

Limited File No.: 60 93 77A

Address of Site: Wood Rd - Waitoa Project Code: RC20434

Application Numbers:

APP130915 & APP127279

________________________________________________________________________

Table of contents

Subject Page

1 Introduction 5

2 Background and description of activity 6

3 Status of activities 13

4 Consultation 15

4.1 Iwi 15

4.2 Other parties 15

4.3 Submissions Received 16

5 Process matters 17

6 Statutory assessment 18

7 Assessment of Environmental effects – existing environment 18

8 Groundwater take 20

9 Surface water take 22

10 Discharge stormwater to Waitoa River 21

11 Discharge wastewater to land by irrigation 21

11.1 Background 21

11.2 Existing irrigation effects 21

11.3 Hydraulic application rate 24

11.4 Nitrogen load 26

11.5 Phosphorus load 29

11.6 Sodium, SAR and ESP 30

11.7 Seepage to surface water incl farm drains 30

11.8 Other parameters – Chromium, Zinc, Sulphur, Boron 31

11.9 Effects on human health 32

11.10 Proposed conditions land disposal 32

11.11 Response to submitters concerns 33

12 Discharge wastewater to Waitoa River 34

12.1 Mixing zone 34

12.2 Recommended Level of Protection – ANZECC & NPS 35

12.3 Review of previous river effect assessments 36

12.4 Cumulative effects Waitoa River, Piako River and Firth of Thames 37

12.5 Discharge volume 39

12.6 Suspended Solids and proposed new filter/clarifier 39

12.7 BOD and Dissolved Oxygen 41

12.8 Total Nitrogen load 43

12.9 Ammonia 46

12.10 Phosphorus 47

12.11 Chromium 48

12.12 Sulphite, nitrite 49

12.13 Other contaminants 50

12.14 E coli, pathogens 51

12.15 Turbidity, colour, oils, foams 52

5


12.16 Proposed river monitoring 52

12.17 Proposed mitigation – wetland & riparian planting 54

12.18 Location of flow gauge 55

12.19 Response to submitters’ concerns 55

12.20 Discharge to river by seepage from the wastewater treatment system

57

13 Discharge cooling water to Waitoa River 58

14 Discharge contaminants to air 59

15 Policy Statements, Plans and Regulations 59

15.1 National Environmental Standards (NES) 59

15.2 Other Regulations: Bovine protein regs 60

15.3 National Policy Statements (NPS) – freshwater, coastal 61

15.4 Operational Regional Policy Statement (RPS) 62

15.5 Proposed Regional Policy Statement 63

15.6 Waikato Regional Plan (WRP) 64

15.7 Waikato Coastal Regional Plan 68

15.8 S104(2A) value of investment 68

15.9 S105(1) – alternatives 68

15.10 Hauraki Iwi Management Plan 69

15.11 S107 69

15.12 Level of compliance 69

15.13 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 70

15.14 Part 2 RMA Matters 71

16 Discussion, including Term 72

17 Recommended Monitoring 75

18 Recommended Decision 77

Appendices

1 AUTH127279.01.01 - Groundwater take, conditions granted April 2015 78

2 APP130915.01.01 - Surface water take, recommended conditions 82

3 APP130915.02.01 - Stormwater discharge, recommended conditions 86

4 APP 130915.03.01 - Discharge biosolids and treated wastewater to land, recommended conditions

92

5 APP130915.04.01 - Discharge treated wastewater to the Waitoa River, recommended conditions

107

6 APP130915.05.01 - Discharge cooling water to Waitoa River, recommended conditions

122

7 APP130915.06.01 - Discharge to air, recommended conditions. 128

8 Technical Report by B Vant- effects on surface water 138

8A Additional Report by B Vant – further comments on N & P load limits 147

8B Additional Report by B Vant – NPSFW2014 standards for ammonia 148

9 Technical Report by B David & H Jones – effects on surface water 150

10 Technical Report by R Storey (NIWA) – effects on surface water 156

11 Technical Report by M Taylor – effects of irrigation on soils and groundwater

162

12 Technical Report by R O’Donnell – s42A report on air discharges 170

13 Technical Report by C King – s42A report on groundwater take 185

14 Technical report by C King – s42A report on surface water take 190

6


Report author

Barry Campbell: I am a senior resource officer at Waikato Regional Council, where I have been employed for the last 19 years. I have a Bachelor of Science in chemistry from Auckland University, Bachelor of Science (Honours) in biochemistry from Victoria University, Wellington, and Diploma in Wildlife Management from Otago University. I have 19 years experience in consent processing under the Resource Management Act 1991. Relevant Hearing reports which I have prepared in recent years include Puke Coal Ltd’s MSW Landfill (2013), Tirohia Compost (2012), Arapuni Milk Processing Plant (2010), Waikato By Products (2009, discharge to air), McIntyre Piggery (2009, discharge to land and air), Inghams Enterprises (2009, discharge to water), McIntyre Piggery (2008, discharge to land, water and air), Taupo sewage (2008, discharge to land), Te Kuiti Meats (2008, discharge to land and water), Open Country Cheese (2007, discharges to land and air), and Richmond Paeroa (2005, discharge to water). I gained Good Decisions Making certification as a commissioner in 2013.

Documentation

Key documents provided by the applicant, including the AEE and s92 responses, are set

out below for reference. Also included are technical reports provided by the applicant or

WRC scientists. Where documents are referred to in an abbreviated manner, this is also set

out.

Document Abbreviated reference

WRC doc#

Assessment of Environmental Effects, site renewals – prepared by Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd, dated November 2013, received 29/11/13

AEE renewals 2916722

Review of ground water take application, prepared by Golder Associates, dated 3/9/13.

Golder 2013 2829615

Assessment of Environmental Effects, groundwater take – including attached report by Terra Aqua Consultants dated 7 June 2013.

AEE groundwater

2731522

Summary Report on Groundwater Monitoring and Aquifer Data from Wallace Corporation land based waste treatment farms – prepared by Aqualinc Research Ltd, December 2010

Aqualinc 2010 3110639

Waitoa River discharge effects report – prepared by Dr Richard Storey, NIWA, received by WRC 10/7/14

NIWA 2014 3105664

Water quality effects of proposed discharges – prepared by Bill Vant, dated 13/8/14, plus further comments 1/9/14 & 4/9/14

3121699

Aquatic ecology effects of proposed discharges – prepared by Dr Bruno David & Dr Hannah Jones, dated 26/6/14 and updated 21/8/14

3094416

Land irrigation effects – prepared by Matthew Taylor, dated 22/8/14. Further comments provided 28/8/14

3143779

WCL/PDP Response to WRC Expert Panel Questions, dated 22/8/14 3145481

WCL Riparian Plan 2013, update received 25/8/14 3145473 3145580

WCL comment on proposed conditions, received 22/10/14 3197406

PDP Technical memorandum – domestic sewage discharge, dated 31/10/14

3206073

PDP Technical Memorandum – comment on proposed consent conditions. Dated 28/11/14

3231205 3231207

PDP Technical Memorandum – Consent condition assessment. Dated 16/2/15

3290371

PDP Technical Memorandum – consent condition assessment, particularly N & P load limit, to river. Dated 24/2/15

3299366

PDP Technical Memorandum – proposed annual nitrogen loading to river limits. Dated 28/3/15

3325264

PDP Technical Memorandum – Proposed annual nitrogen loading to River limits. Dated 18/5/15

3404170

7


Explanation of Hearing Report structure: The consent applications have been assessed by three staff: Cameron King processed the surface water and ground water applications, Rachael O’Donnell processed the air discharge application, and Barry Campbell processed the remainder – cooling water, stormwater, wastewater irrigation onto land and wastewater discharge to the Waitoa River. The air discharge assessment is attached to this report as Appendix 12. The surface water assessment is attached to this report as Appendix 14 The groundwater assessment is attached as Appendix 13 for information. There were no submissions opposed to the groundwater take, and in accordance with delegated authority, this application was granted in April 2015. The granting of this consent at an early stage provided certainty to WCL as to the availability of water (long term, potentially for site expansion, and for summer low flow contingency). This has then provided certainty to potential discharge volumes for river discharge, cooling water, and land irrigation; this in turn has enabled a more focused assessment of potential effects. It should be noted that WCL applied for the groundwater take in June 2103, some 6 months prior to lodging the site renewal applications, for the purposes described above.

8


1 Introduction

Wallace Corporation Ltd has lodged an application has applied for replacement and new resource consents for the operation of its rendering, tannery, wastewater plant, farms and associated activities located on Wood Road, Waitoa. Table 1 below identifies the resource consent applications that have been made by the applicant: Table 1

Reference Id Activity Description Replaces which consents?

APP127279.01.01 To take up to 4000 cubic metres water per day from groundwater

New

APP130915.01.01 To take up to 9,920 cubic metres of water per day from Waitoa River

930812

APP130915.02.01 To discharge stormwater into water from various sub-catchments at Wallace Corporation Limited complex via two discharge locations

930816

APP130915.03.01 To discharge treated wastewater and biosolids to land, including circumstances which may result in contaminants entering air.

930815 102281 104040 101965 106962

APP130915.04.01 To discharge treated wastewater at a rate of up to 3,440 cubic metres per day from the Wallace Corporation Limited wastewater treatment plant to the Waitoa River.

102751

APP130915.05.01 To discharge cooling water, including heat, at a rate not exceeding 75 L/s with a total volume of no more than 6,480 cubic metres per day to the Waitoa River

930813

APP130915.06.01 To discharge contaminants into air arising from Wallace Corporation Limited, Watoa rendering and tannery processes; ancillary facilities including combustion with gas fired boilers, collection and management of biogas from anaerobic facility, emissions from a wastewater treatment system, discharges from biofilters, discharges from biogas flare, emissions from land treatment operations and associated odours.

930817

Wallace Corporation Ltd has requested a term of 20 years for the groundwater take consent, and 25 years for the remaining consents.

2 Background and Description of Proposal

Wallace Corporation provided a detailed description of the various activities in its AEE, and only key aspects of the background and description are set out below.

9


As a generality, WCL proposes to renew existing consents for stormwater discharge, cooling water discharge, discharge wastewater to the Waitoa River, discharge wastewater to land and discharge to air, with similar consent conditions and management systems to present. As examples, the wastewater application rate to land would continue to be a maximum of 300 kg N/ha/yr, and discharge loads to the river would continue to be similar to existing loads. The groundwater take is a new activity, and WCL also proposes to take additional water from the Waitoa River, although there will be no net increase in water take during the lower river flows. The location of the site is shown below. Figure 1: Site locality

The WCL rendering plant has high importance in the Waikato region as a supportive service industry. The plant processes about 30,000 cows and 200,000 calves annually, and is the only rendering plant in the Waikato that receives dead stock. The raw material catchment also includes South Auckland, King Country, Bay of Plenty and Northland. The company employs about 22 people. In general, WCL discharges about 60% of the treated wastewater to land, mostly in summer, and 40% of the wastewater to the Waitoa River when the river flow exceeds 2000 L/s.

Groundwater take The stated purpose for the groundwater take is “for industrial use and during summer extract water for pastoral irrigation to supplement wastewater irrigation”. The June 2013 application requested a maximum of 2500 m3/d for industrial use, and up to 2300 m3/d for irrigation, with the irrigation water used only in the months of October to March inclusive. The maximum flow rate is proposed to be 55 L/s.

Waitoa River

Rendering plant

Irrigation farms outline

Hides & Skins

10


In June 2014 WCL amended the application, to request a maximum daily take of 4000 m3/d, and on 8/8/14 WCL clarified that of this total volume, 2000 m3/d was for industrial purposes, and 2000 m3/d was for pastoral irrigation (predominantly in summer). The ‘industrial” portion of the water take includes the nearby Silver Fern Farms abattoir, which until April 2011 was owned by WCL, and is now supplied with water by WCL under a commercial contract. The groundwater bore was installed in April 2013, to a depth of 123m below ground, and screened over the lower 11m. The bore was tested in May 2013, with a maximum take of 20L/s for seven days. This resulted in a drawdown of 28 m in the well, and an extrapolated drawdown of about 42m if pumping were to continue for three years. There are two existing groundwater takes on site, consent 118815 (holder is Silver Fern Farms Ltd) for 500 m3/d which expired on 30/6/2014, and consent 100208 (holder is Silver Fern Farms Ltd) for 450 m3/d which expired on 30/6/2014. An application has been made by SFFL to renew the groundwater takes, for a total daily volume of 950 m3/d. The SFFL meat plant requires about 1150 m3/d at peak, and is supplied the balance of water by WCL.

Surface water take Water is abstracted from the Waitoa River under consent 930812 which authorises a water take of up to 5788 m3/d, including up to 3850 m3/d cooling water, and a maximum net take of 2300 m3/d. Application 130915.01.01 is to take up to 9920 m3/d including up to 6480 m3/d cooling water and a maximum net take of 3440 m3/d. A comparison of the existing and proposed surface water takes is set out below in Table 2. Table 2

Existing consent conditions Proposed consent conditions

Maximum daily volume, m3

5788 9920

Maximum net take, m3 1560 when river flow <587 L/s

2300 when river flow 587<700 L/s

0 when river flow <521 L/s but able to seek permission from WRC. 3340 when river flow >521 L/s

Maximum rate, L/sec 57 when river flow <1000 L/s 67 when river flow >1000 L/s

39.8 at all flows

Intake velocity, m/sec 0.3 0.3

Screen, mesh aperture, mm 1.5 x 1.5 1.5 x 1.5

To compare the existing take with the proposed take, WCL has requested that the gross take is increased by approximately 70%, and that the net take is increased by about 45% for most river flows. Estimated water use on site is about 2523 m3/d combined tannery, rendering and meat plant, and future water use is estimated to be about 3240 m3/d. The AEE states that this increase is to provide for improved security of supply for plant operations, as well as anticipated production increases at the site. WCL proposes to take cooling water only when the river flow is above 521 L/s, which is minimum allocable flow limit (derived from 90% of the Q5).

Stormwater discharge APP130915.02.01 is to discharge up to 785 L/s stormwater into the Waitoa River from two separate discharge locations. The flow rate is estimated from a 10-year annual recurrence interval (ARI) storm event.

11


The AEE describes five stormwater catchments at the site, based primarily on activities within that catchment rather than separate flow catchments. Details of these catchments are summarised below in Table 3. Table 3 Stormwater catchments

Catchment Area, ha

Maximum flow rate*

Drains to Description

Hides & Skins

3.07 642 L/s Waitoa River Drains part of the tannery complex, mostly impervious as asphalt or covered by buildings. Contains various swale drains and catchpits to partially treat the stormwater. Drains to an open drain which drains to the Waitoa River about 70m upstream of the water take.

Ponds

0.67 143 L/s Waitoa River Located in the northen part of the site, predominantly impervious as asphalt or buildings. Discharges to a piped network, then into an open drain which discharges into a constructed wetland, which discharges to the Waitoa River. This catchment has an emergency shut-off valve, in the event of a spill within the catchment.

Cooling water

0.28 Cooling ponds Predominantly collects roof water from buildings

Rendering wastewater

1.08 Wastewater treatment system

No discharge to surface water

Tannery wastewater

0.57 Wastewater treatment system

No discharge to surface water

Note *: The maximum stormwater flow rate was based on 1 in 10 year storm event, 10 minute duration.

Under consent 938016, WCL monitors the stormwater discharge at three locations, shown below, at monthly intervals, for pH, SS and BOD.

12


Figure 2: Stormwater monitoring locations

(excerpt from the WCL Annual Monitoring Report 2013-14, doc#3098022)

The AEE notes that the stormwater pipe network is unable to cope with peak flows. For instance the hydraulic capacity of the Hides & Skins catchment is 319 L/s, whereas the 1 in 10 year peak flow rate is estimated to be 642 L/s. Similarly, the Ponds catchment pipe network has a hydraulic capacity of 21 L/s, compared to the 1 in 10 year peak flow rate of 143 L/s. Apparently this results in surface flooding of the car parks in the {Ponds catchment on a regular basis, however in other catchments the surplus water is able to flow overland. The stormwater quality has been tested occasionally by WCL, and recent results are set out in Table 17 of the AEE (page 59). WRC staff have sampled the stormwater discharges on occasion. The results are consistent with stormwater from a complex industrial site, and show slightly elevated levels of zinc, copper, nitrogen, phosphorus and suspended solids. The stormwater treatment consists of removal of gross solids in catchpits, and discharge to open drains which flow to the Waitoa River. The “ponds” discharge is to a riparian wetland to the north of the site, which according to the AEE (p142) exceeds Auckland Regional Council Technical Publication 10 (2003) guidelines for wetland design. There is an emergency shut-off valve for the “Ponds” catchment, so that if a spill occurs, the stormwater discharge can be stoped from entering the wetland. The AEE states that WCL is proposing to put in additional controls to manage adverse effects arising from the stormwater discharge. However this appears to be limited to upgrading of the stormwater discharge pipes to minimise onsite flooding, and for erosion protection devices at the outlets. There is no proposal from WCL to improve the H&S catchment discharge. The AEE does not list any other discharge to the stormwater system, such as condensate or defrost water.

13


Wastewater treatment The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) treats the wastes from the rendering plant, tannery, and the nearby Silver Fern Farms abattoir. The AEE states that future peak wastewater generation could be about 3280 m3/d, consisting of 840 m3/d from the rendering plant, 1250 m3/d from the tannery, 1150 m3/d from the Silver Fern Farms abattoir, and approximately 40 m3/d from ancillary processes. The WWTP is described in the AEE, section 3.3, page 41. In summary, there are numerous waste streams from the rendering plant, tannery and abattoir, some of which are pre-treated by screening, DAF unit, or chemically before discharge into the biological treatment plant (BTP). The BTP consists of two covered anaerobic ponds, followed by three activated sludge ponds. Several waste streams are taken offsite for treatment or disposal. These include the rendering plant DAF sludge (taken to a MSW landfill), the tannery brine wastewater, tannery high ammonia wastewater (irrigated offsite), and the tannery chromium sludge (taken to MSW landfill). Wastewater which is discharged to the Waitoa River undergoes full treatment through the BTP, being discharged from Pond 6, whereas wastewater which is land irrigated may be sourced from either Pond 5 or Pond 6. Tables 18 (page 62 of AEE) and 23 (page 75 of AEE) show the typical characteristics of the land applied wastewater and river discharged wastewater respectively. As expected, Pond 6 allows for slightly better wastewater quality. WCL has upgraded the WWTP in recent years, as described in section 3.3.4 of the AEE (page 43). These improvements include fine-tuning of the BTP to increase nitrogen removal, additional mechanical aeration, a two-stage Oxi-tank to further treat Pond 3 wastewater, and new tannery activated sludge treatment plant. Future improvements under consideration by WCL include a stand-alone clarifier, or relocating the final settling pond 6 to a new location (lined, with better facility to remove settled sludge). The AEE does not provide comment on whether the BTP is optimised to remove phosphorus, or the percentage removal at present, and the proposed mitigations (section 19.4 of the AEE, p214) do not mention any phosphorus reduction. The treated wastewater from Pond 6 is discharged into a small constructed wetland/pond at present, approximately 50m north of Pond 6, with a piped outlet to the Waitoa River. It is not known whether there is any improvement in the wastewater quality as it passes through this wetland/pond. WCL proposes to enhance the wastewater quality by discharging the Pond 6 water into a larger wetland, with the outlet approximately 230m downstream of the existing pipe. Sewage is treated separately via several advanced treatment systems and ground soakage field. WCL provided information in October 2014 (wrc doc#3206073) about the on-site sewage treatment systems, and concluded that it was a Permitted Activity under the WRP. WRC staff agree with this assessment.

Land irrigation WCL has applied to renew the four irrigation consents which expired on 30/6/14, but also to renew consent 106962 which expires on 30/6/15, and to merge these activities into one new resource consent (APP130915.03.01). Details of the existing consents are set out below in Table 4:

14


Table 4

Consent No.

Expiry Farm name Key conditions (as maximum limits)

930815 30/6/14 Park & Auchenhaen

1560 m3//d, 300 kg N/ha/yr with dairying, 45mm/day

depth.

101965 30/6/14 Glenburn 2300 m3/d, 300 kg N/ha/yr with dairying, 25 mm/day.

102281 30/6/14 Tulleibelton 2300 m3/d, 300 kg N/ha/yr with dairying, 25 mm/day.

104040 30/6/14 Brimmer 2300 m3/d, 300 kg N/ha/yr with dairying, 600 kg N/ha/yr

with cut/carry (no stock). 15 mm/day. Some biosolids also applied to land.

106962 30/6/15 Floodplain pasture

1800 m3/d, 150 kg N/ha/yr with dairying, 15mm/day.

Irrigation only in summer months November to March. No irrigation at other months.

At present WCL are not authorised to discharge treated wastewater to the Waitoa River if the river flow is less than 2000 L/s. When the river flow is in the range 1000 – 2000 L/s a river discharge can occur as a temporary contingency measure, mostly during the winter months. The AEE states (page 63) that, as a generality, when the Waitoa River flow is above 3000 L/s, land treatment via irrigation is not practicable due to saturated soils. Table 20 of the AEE (page 65) also provides a guide for the annual percentage of treated wastewater which is discharged to the river (215,000 m3/yr, or about 33% of the volume) and irrigated onto land (436,000 m3 or 67%). WCL has applied for an increase in the total discharge volumes, but the ratio of land:river discharges will remain unchanged. The proposed new land irrigation volume would be 542,000 m2/yr with 267,000 m3 discharge to the Waitoa River. This would be about 3440 m3/d wastewater applied to land, as a peak discharge volume (page 63, AEE). Table 5: Land discharge, wastewater quality

Parameter Treated wastewater (all units g/m

3 unless stated)

Mean values

Biosolids (all units mg/kg dry weight unless stated)

pH 8.0 Not stated

Total nitrogen 189 63,000

Total phosphorus 22 14,400 – 26,000

Ammonium-N 150 1,625 – 17,700

Total chromium 0.7 720 – 2,300

Total boron 0.7 <20

Total Sodium 1265 Not stated

Total Magnesium 42 2,500 – 3,540

Total Potassium 99 5,700 – 11,250

Total Calcium 111 13,000 – 15,800

Total sulphur Not stated 12,900 - 13,400

Total arsenic Not stated 2 - 5

Total cadmium Not stated 0.4 – 0.5

Total copper Not stated 40 - 55

Total lead Not stated 5 - 7

Total nickel Not stated 11

Total zinc Not stated 240 - 420

E coli 30,775 Not stated

Viable pathogenic helminth ova Not stated <1.0 per 4 g

Enterovirus Not stated <1 pfu/4g

SAR range 2012-2014 22 - 44

Under the existing consents biosolids (derived from waste activated sludge from the WWTP) is applied only to the Brimmer Farm, however WCL propose to apply the biosolids onto all the irrigation farms in the future. The present biosolids load is about 150 tonne dry solids per year, and the estimated future load is 186 tonne dry solids per year. It should be noted that the biosolids do not include any human sewage. A comparison of the treated wastewater and the biosolids is set out above in Table 5.

15


WCL has also applied to irrigate other waste streams as a “contingency” for short periods of time. These waste streams include green waste from stockyards, cowsheds and truckwash. The AEE states that the combined available area for irrigation in the Park & Auchenhaen Farm, Glenburn Farm, Tulliebelton Farm and Brimmer Farm is 277 hectares. The soil type is variable within these farms, but is predominantly Waihou & te Puninga yellow-brown loams on the higher ground, and Waitoa & Ngarua gleys on the lower ground. Table 6 in the AEE (page 30) provides these soil properties. Of particular note is the poor permeability of some subsoils on site, in the range of 4 – 8 mm/hr. At present the wastewater is applied by “big gun” travelling irrigators, with a hydraulic application rate of between 15 - 25 mm/hr at normal speed settings. WCL estimates that the annual wastewater application depth will be about 196 mm, based on a farm area of 277 ha. This assumes a peak daily wastewater volume of 3440 m3. WCL has proposed the following consent conditions or management practices for the irrigation:

Single consent covering the four WCL farms and floodplain irrigation.

No daily maximum volume (on the assumption that hydraulic loading is already managed through the application depth and return period controls). The existing irrigation consents have daily volume limits.

Maximum 25mm/d application depth, return period no less than 7 days.

For the biosolids, return period of 14 days.

Maximum of 300 kg N/ha/yr for grazed pasture farms

Maximum of 400 kg N/ha/yr for crop (eg maize) for silage, then cows rest of year.

Maximum of 600 kg N/ha/yr for full cropping (no animals all year).

Biosolids may be applied to any of the irrigation farms.

Ponding and surface runoff “minimised”.

Buffer distances of 10m to waterways, 20m to a boundary, 150m from a dwelling.

Continuation of existing monitoring of the wastewater quality, groundwater, soils.

No detectable spray drift beyond the boundary

No objectionable odour beyond the boundary

Monthly reports to Council, with annual report.

Irrigation Management Plan

Discharge wastewater to Waitoa river WCL propose to continue the existing river discharge regime, whereby there is no discharge to the Waitoa River if the river flow is less than 2000 L/s in summer (1st November to 30th April), and less than 1000 L/s in winter (1st May to 31st October). The Waitoa River flow is >2000 L/s for about 36% of the time, and this corresponds well to WCL’s records that the river discharge occurs for about 33% of the time. It should be noted that at present the river flow (for compliance purposes) is calculated from the Mellon Rd flow gauge, approximately 10 km downstream of the WCL site, and adjusted to the theoretical flow at the WCL site. WCL proposes to discharge to the river under the following conditions:

Continuation of the Mellon Rd flow gauge, with adjustment, for assessment of river flows.

Discharge of treated wastewater to the Waitoa River when the river flow >2000 L/s in summer (November to April) and when the river flow >1000 L/s in winter (May to October).

Contingency discharge when the river flow >1000 L/s in summer, under defined circumstances.

Maximum discharge volume per day of 3440 m3 (previous limit 2300 m3/d).

Maximum discharge rate of 45 L/s (previous limit 30 L/s).

Load limits for most contaminants (eg BOD, SS, N, P), increasing as the river flow increases.

16


Concentration limits for sulphide and E coli.

Compared to the existing consent (102751) limits, WCL propose to reduce contaminant loads when the river flow is less than 3000 L/s, and to increase the load >3000 L/s.

A new limit for E coli of 500 cfu/100mls median, and 10,000 cfu/100mls as a 90%ile. There was no E coli discharge limit in consent 102751.

Removal of the boron limit of 20 kg/d, as boron is at low concentrations now in the effluent.

Continuation of existing monitoring of the wastewater discharge, with monthly report to Council, and Annual Report.

River effects monitoring every three years. The quality of the treated wastewater discharged to the Waitoa River is set out in Table 23 of the AEE (page 75), which summarises the data from November 2010 to March 2013, and in addition I have set out the discharge quality below, for the period April 2013 to March 2014. The two sets of data are broadly similar, with the 2013/14 data having higher SS, TN and ammonia, but lower BOD, sulphide and chromium. Compared to the wastewater discharged to land (Table 3), the river discharge wastewater is slightly better quality, as it has had additional treatment in Pond 6. Table 6: River discharge, wastewater quality

Parameter Mean 90 % ile Range

pH 8.0 7.7 – 8.3

Total suspended solids, g/m3 179 264 93 - 312

Total nitrogen, g/m3 161 211 100 - 236

Ammoniacal-N, g/m3 134 173 88 - 205

Nitrite-N, g/m3 0.08 0.15 0.01 – 0.15

Total phosphorus, g/m3 19 25 11 - 25

BOD5, g/m3 79 111 22 - 223

Chromium, g/m3 0.22 0.32 0.10 – 0.48

Sulphide, g/m3 0.55 1.01 0.10 – 1.26

Boron, g/m3 0.13 0.19 0.07 – 0.21

E coli, cfu/100mls (median value) 18,000 59,400 1,160 – 156,000

Cooling water discharge The existing consent allows WCL to discharge up to 3850 m3/d cooling water, at a maximum flow rate of 45 L/s. The cooling water passes through two ponds with a combined capacity of about 1800 m3, before discharge to the Waitoa River. All the cooling water is used in the rendering plant. There is no recirculation of cooling water by WCL, as the system is a single pass non-contact system. The AEE states that the pond volume allows for about 22 hours retention and cooling. There is also some stormwater inflow into the cooling ponds, which WCL estimates as 3.5 m3 per mm rainfall. However this would have minimal influence on the operation of the cooling ponds, as a heavy rainfall (25mm/d) would add only 88 m3 or about 2% of the daily volume. WCL recognises that in summer the cooling water discharge may be too warm for the Waitoa River, and proposes to install recirculation and cooling towers in the medium term. A specific timeframe has not been provided for this. WCL proposes to increase the maximum daily discharge volume to 6480 m3, with a maximum flow rate of 75 L/s. At present the cooling water discharges to the Waitoa River about 200m downstream of the water abstraction site. WCL proposes relocate the discharge point to about 20m downstream of the water abstraction site, as part mitigation for the adverse hydrodynamics in the river.

17


Air discharge See attached technical report prepared by Rachael O’Donnell, in Appendix 13

3 Status of Activities under the Plans

3.1 Groundwater take

See the attached s42A report by Cameron King for details.

3.2 Surface water take

The proposed increase in surface water take, both net take and gross take, is from an over-allocated catchment, and the activity is therefore non-complying. See the attached s42A report by Cameron King for details.

3.3 Discharge stormwater

The discharge of stormwater from the WCL site to surface water is a Controlled Activity under Rule 3.5.11.7 of the WRP. Permitted Activity Rule 3.5.11.4 does not apply, because the discharge originates from a catchment that includes high risk facilities (rendering plant, wastewater treatment plant and tannery). Rules 3.5.11.5 and 3.5.11.6 do not apply because the stormwater discharge is not onto or into land. Discretionary Activity Rule 3.5.11.8 does not apply, because the stormwater discharge does not contain hazardous substances at concentrations that are causing significant adverse effects on aquatic life or the suitability of the water for human consumption after treatment.

3.4 Discharge wastewater to land

The discharge of treated wastewater onto land is a Discretionary Activity under Rule 3.5.4.5 (Discharges – General Rule). Being a discharge onto land in circumstances which may result in contaminants entering water. The land discharge also includes biosolids, and because some of the contaminants do not meet the concentration limits set out in Table 3-5 of the WRP, this discharge is a Discretionary Activity under Rule 3.5.6.4. There is no human sewage discharged into the WCL wastewater treatment system, nor irrigated to land, and therefore Rules 3.5.7.4 to 3.5.7.7 do not apply.

3.5 Discharge wastewater to Waitoa River

The discharge of treated wastewater to the Waitoa River is a Discretionary Activity under Rule 3.5.4.5.

3.6 Discharge cooling water to Waitoa River

The discharge of cooling water to the Waitoa River is a Discretionary Activity under Rule 3.5.4.5.

3.7 Discharge to air

The discharge of contaminants to air from the factory site is a Discretionary Activity under Rule 6.1.9.2 (General Rule – discharges from an industrial or trade premise). For the land irrigation, the activity is a discharge to land, but there are potential effects from aerosols and odour which are discharges to air. These latter activities are also

18


Discretionary under Rule 6.1.9.2, but separate consents are not required by WRC, given that there will be standards conditions in the wastewater irrigation consent which control odour and aerosols. “Bundling” of applications It is not possible for WCL to operate the site without the majority of the above consents, and the applications have been bundled as a whole, in the sense that it is not possible to grant some consents, and not others. Some of the applications have common submissions against them, and need to be considered as a whole. The groundwater take is a new activity, which would add flexibility to the WCL operations, but is not considered to be a key activity. As there were no submissions opposed to this activity, it was granted in April 2015. The stormwater discharge is a Controlled Activity and must be granted under s104A.

4 Consultation/Affected Party Approvals

4.1 Iwi

Consultation information was sent to Ngati Haua, Ngati Paoa and Ngati Tumutumu in 2011, prior to lodging of the AEE/applications. This was followed up by meetings with Ngati Haua and Ngati Paoa in 2012 and 2013, and further correspondence with Ngati Tumutumu. Details of this consultation are set out in Appendix A4 of the AEE. The above iwi organisations were sent notification letters by Council, and did not make a submission. I consider that there has been good consultation with iwi.

4.2 Other Parties

Consultation information was sent to immediate neighbours, Silver Fern Farms, Fonterra Waitoa, Matamata Piako District Council, Fish & Game (Auckland/Waikato), Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society, and the Public Health Unit of Waikato District Health Board. In response, written approvals for the applications were received from the following persons: Table 7: Written approvals

Name Address Comments

N & V Andrews 39 Wood Rd None

N Lithgow, C McKenzie 237 Ngarua Rd None

P Hensman 120B Wood Rd Conditional on no objectionable odour

D&A Parker 323 Wood Rd Conditional on no objectionable odour

S Dickey 392 Ngarua Rd Conditional on no objectionable odour

J&S Dobson 406 Ngarua Rd Conditional on no objectionable odour

R Harding 4963B Whakahongi Rd None

Fonterra Ltd Waitoa site Conditional that their river water take is not affected, and immediate spill notification.

The above list was provided by WCL (see doc#32880438). It is clear from the above list that the WCL operations are supported by some neighbours, however the views of the majority of neighbours are not known. A common insertion to the approvals was that they were conditional on WCL managing odour effectively. Under section 104(3)(a)(ii) RMA, when considering the WCL applications, Council must disregard any effect on a person who has given written approval to the applications.

19


4.3 Submissions

A decision was made in January 2014 to publicly notify the applications, and iwi, neighbours and relevant organisations were sent notification letters. In July 2014 a decision was made to notify the groundwater take application. The following submissions were received by Council: Table 8

Submitter Consent application

Opposed Support Neutral

Wish to be heard?

Concerns

Fish & Game NZ (Auckland -Waikato Region).

River discharge.

Oppose Yes Significant discharge to the Waitoa River, including cumulative effects. Sensitive wetlands downstream, including RAMSAR sites of international significance. Mitigation measures ad-hoc. Contrary to purpose of the RMA (s5).

Department of Conservation

River discharge. Surface water take. Cooling water discharge.

Oppose Yes Potential for significant adverse effects on the Waitoa River, Kopuatai peat dome, and Firth of Thames (both RAMSAR sites of international significance). Minimal mitigation proposed. Requested improved river monitoring. Concerns about ammonia concentrations in the river. Concerns about excessive N & P in the river.

Shane Carter All applications, except the groundwater take.

Oppose all increases in discharge limits, loads. Support air discharge, stormwater discharge.

Yes Needs to be better compliance with consents. Maximum term of 15 years. Oppose additional river water take, wants a gradual decrease in water take volumes. Oppose additional wastewater volumes being irrigated onto land. Oppose additional wastewater being discharged to the Waitoa River.

Brian Steele Groundwater take

Neutral No Concern that the Steele farm’s shallow groundwater take should not affected by the new WCL groundwater take. The Steel bore take is critical to the dairy farm.

Brian Steele All applications (except for groundwater take)

Support No Overall standards shown by WCL in management and performance have dramatically improved.

Gary McIntyre

All applications (except groundwater take)

Support No Environmental effects must be acceptable.

Waikato District Health Board

River discharge. Air discharge Wastewater irrigation

Neutral No River discharge: Need to disinfect the wastewater discharge – generally support the proposed treatment (to achieve a median of 500 E coli /100mls). WCl needs to develop a long-term review to progressive improvement of the nutrient loads discharged to the river. Air discharge: WDHB requests a consent condition where there is progressive improvement in the odour control systems, as technology modernises. Land irrigation: Default load of 200 kg N/ha/yr

20


be the consent limit. Need to ensure that potable groundwater nitrate levels in accordance with NZ Drinking Water stds.

Powerco Ltd Discharge to land

Neutral Yes Irrigation equipment must comply with the NZ COP for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP 34:2001). In particular all irrigation equipment/mobile plant maintains a distance not less than 4 metres from the electricity lines.

5 Process Matters

The information below summarises key process dates. Table 9: Groundwater Take, APP127279

Date Event

18/6/13 Application/AEE lodged

24/6/13 On hold pending decision on notification/non-notification

9/7/14 Publicly notified

6/8/14 Submissions closed

24/4/15 Granted

Table 10: Site renewals- surface water take, air, wastewater discharges, cooling water, stormwater, APP130915

Date Event

29/11/13 Applications/AEE lodged

8/1/14 On hold s37A.2.b due to complexity of application

13/1/14 Publicly notified

12/3/14 Submissions closed. Note extended submissions period to provide sufficient time for submissions over a summer holiday period.

17/3/14 On hold s37A.5 pending hearing and consultation between WCL, WRC and submitters

June 2015 Draft Hearing Report with proposed conditions sent to submitters for comment

Section 124 RMA: Many of the existing consents expire on 30 June 2014. WCL made applications to WRC at least 6 months before expiry, and has section 124 RMA rights to continue to operate under the existing consents until new consents are granted or declined, and all appeals are determined.

6 Statutory Considerations

The applications for resource consents AUTH130915.01.01 – AUTH130915.06.01 have been assessed in accordance with the following statutory and policy provisions: The proposed works are discretionary activities and RMA section 104B applies: RMA s104B states that 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. RMA section 104(1) refers to matters which the consent issuing authority must have regard to when considering an application for consent and the matters relevant to this application are: Subject to Part 2, to have regard to—

21

http://www.brookersonline.co.nz/databases/modus/lawpart/statutes/link?id=ACT-NZL-PUB-Y.1991-69%7eBDY%7ePT.6%7eSG.!1581%7eS.108&si=15&sid=1d2bix6lf7ceeakevb56qqei7noomw7s&hli=0&sp=statutes

http://www.brookersonline.co.nz/databases/modus/lawpart/statutes/link?id=ACT-NZL-PUB-Y.1991-69%7eBDY%7ePT.2&si=15&sid=1d2bix6lf7ceeakevb56qqei7noomw7s&hli=0&sp=statutes


(a) any actual or potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and (b) any relevant provisions of-

(i) a national environmental standard (iii) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement (iv) a plan or proposed plan; and

(c) any other matters considered relevant and necessary to consider. Application assessment follows.

7 Assessment of Environmental Effect

Existing environment Section 104(1)(a) provides that when considering a consent application, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to the actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity. Case law has determined that the "environment" must be read as the environment which exists at the time of the assessment and as the environment may be in the future as modified by the utilisation of permitted activities under the plan and by the exercise of resource consents which are being exercised, or which are likely to be exercised in the future. It does not include the effects of resource consents which might be sought in the future nor any past reversible effects arising from the consent being considered. The AEE provides a detailed assessment of the existing environment. The Waitoa River is the receiving water body for the treated wastewater, cooling water and stormwater, as well as the source of surface water take. The following information is from the WRC website, and sets out the Waitoa River water quality at Mellon Rd, about 10 km downstream of the WCL site. Sources of nutrients and contaminants between WCL and Mellon Rd, include the Fonterra Waitoa wastewater discharge, Waihekau Stream (including the Inghams Enterprises wastewater discharge), and rural land uses. The information below indicates that the Waitoa River at Mellon Rd has unsatisfactory levels of nutrients, turbidity and dissolved oxygen. It is not suitable for swimming, because of high levels of E coli. Compared to other Hauraki rivers, the Waitoa River at Mellon Rd has the worst water quality of all the WRC monitored rivers. At the Waitoa River Landsdowne site, which is 18 Km upstream of WCL, the water quality is better than at Mellon Rd, and is similar to other Hauraki lowland rivers. Figure 3: Water quality of the Waitoa River downstream of WCL, at Mellon Road bridge

Waitoa River at Mellon Rd: ecology

22


Waitoa River at Mellon Rd: swimming

Figure 4: Comparison of water quality at Mellon Rd and Lansdowne Rd, with other Hauraki rivers

Waitoa River at Mellon Rd & Landsdowne Rd, compared to other sites, Ecology

Waitoa River at Mellon Rd & Landsdowne Rd, compared to other sites, Swimming

23


In terms of the water quality trends, the Waitoa River is improving for nutrients and possibly E coli levels, but deteriorating for turbidity, black disc visibility, and conductivity. The graphs below show these trends for the Landsdowne Rd site, for E coli and nutrients N & P. Figure 5

Grams per cubic metres

Figure 6

Grams per cubic metres

Figure 7

Median concentrations, per 100mls

The reason for the upstream improvement in some parameters is not well understood, but it is possible that it is related to better land use management such as livestock fencing for waterways and farm nutrient budgets.

24


This improving trend for nutrients also applies to the Piako River, but not to the Hauraki catchment as a whole. The Waihou River shows a slight increasing trend for TN, and is the major river flowing into the Firth of Thames. The surrounding land use is predominantly rural, generally dairy farms, with low density rural residential dwellings. The closest sensitive site is Waitoa village, approximately 1.2km to the closest irrigation land, and approximately 1.8km from the factory site. The surrounding land is mostly flat to gently rolling. Local air quality is generally high, with a background of minor rural odours and dusts.

“Permitted baseline” Section 104(2) provides that when forming an opinion about the actual or potential effects of the activity, the consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if the regional plan permits an activity with that effect. This is often referred to as the "permitted baseline" and calls for a discretionary decision to be exercised by the consent authority as to whether or not to discount such permitted effects. This provision requires consideration of:

"the existing environment overlaid with such relevant activity (not being a fanciful activity) as is permitted by the plan. Thus, if the activity permitted by the plan will create some adverse effect on the environment, that adverse effect does not count in the s104 or s105 assessments…it is deemed to be already affecting the environment…The consequence is that only other or further adverse effects emanating from the proposal under consideration are brought to account." (Arrigato v ARC)

I consider that there are no permitted or baseline effects which should be taken into account with the WCL applications.

8 Effects of groundwater take

See attached s42A Hearing Report prepared by Cameron King, attached as Appendix 12

9 Effects of surface water take

See attached s42A Hearing Report prepared by Cameron King, attached as Appendix 13.

10 Effects of stormwater discharge

WCL provided an assessment of the stormwater discharge effects in the AEE, Section 14. Table 39 (p142) in particular provided an “after reasonable mixing” estimation of nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in the river. This estimate was based on limited monitoring carried out in August 2013 (see AEE Appendix C1), and concluded that, in terms of nutrients and heavy metals, the stormwater discharge had less than minor adverse effects on the Waitoa River. The existing consent 930816 requires monthly monitoring of the main stormwater discharges, which under agreement with WRC are the “SW Pond”, SW Cooling Ponds Out” and SW Waitoa River Discharge”. The location of these monitoring points is shown in Figure 2, page 7 of this report. A summary of that data 2011-14 is set out below. Table 11 Stormwater quality

"SW ponds"

"SW WR"

"SW CWO"

date pH SS BOD

pH SS BOD

pH SS BOD

25


5/04/2011 6.5 21 2

7.4 196 33 27/05/2011 6.2 23 2

7 21 0

15/07/2011 6.8 41 2

7 1 1 11/08/2011 6.8 72 7

6.8 1 1

13/09/2011 6.3 12 2

6.8 16 0 12/10/2011 6.7 8 2

7.3 84 13

16/12/2011 6.7 37 3

7.3 666 41 9/01/2012 7 25 2

7.4 59 8

13/03/2012 6.8 22 4

7.2 67 3

8.5 10 2

17/05/2012 6.6 83 5

7.3 9 1

7.3 8 7

27/06/2012 7 59 6 24/07/2012 7.1 99 2

6.9 82 1

6.7 28 1

2/10/2012 6.7 43 3

6.7 21 1

7.6 7 4

14/11/2012 6.7 42 2

6.6 32 2

7 16 2

19/12/2012 6.5 70 1

6.6 94 4

7 5 1

23/04/2013 7.1 15 1

7.2 31 3

7.6 7 2

24/05/2013 6.8 33 3

7.1 24 1

7.2 9 1

19/06/2013 6.7 9 1

7 15 1

7 17 1

14/08/2013 7.5 38 2

7.3 23 3

7.6 7 2

25/09/2013 7.9 60 2

7.2 13 2

7.6 14 2

11/10/2013 6.6 69 3

7.2 18 1

7.5 8 1

8/11/2013 6.8 38 1

7.2 21 3

7.5 11 2

6/12/2013 7 45 2

7.8 113 8

7.7 3 1

average 6.8 42 2.6

7.1 73.0 6.0

7.4 11 2.1

max

99 7

666 41

28 7

The data is typical of any complex site with multiple outdoor activities, and the “Ponds” and “Cooling Water Out” discharges show good compliance with the existing consent conditions (pH 6-9, SS<100, BOD <10ppm). The “Waitoa River” discharge originates in the Hides & Skins catchment, in which there are many outdoor activities, it has the largest flow rate of all the site catchments, and has occasional exceedances of the consent limits. As a worst case scenario, if the Hides & Skins catchment was discharging at peak flow rate, 642 L/s, for 1 hour, with a BOD of 40 ppm, this would add 92 kg BOD, in addition to the 110 kg/d requested by WCL (for the treated wastewater discharge) for higher river flows. This would be a significant increase in BOD load, but would also be a rare event. A more typical scenario during moderate rainfall, would be a Hides & Skins catchment discharge of 50 L/s, for 4 hours, with a BOD of 4 ppm. This would add about 3 kg BOD, at a time when the river flow would be possibly about 2000 L/s, and the BOD load requested by WCL (river discharge) would be 75 kg/d. The existing limits in consent 930816 are typical of stormwater discharge consent limits, and I recommend that the limits (pH 6-9, SS<100 ppm, BOD<10 ppm) are included in consent 130915.02.01. Without further improvement in the stormwater discharges, WCL will not be able to always comply with this limit for the Hides & Skins catchment discharge. Much better attention to cleaning out the cesspits, and better management of outdoor activities, will be required by WCL. My recommendation is that WCL provide a report to WRC within 1 year of grant of consent, providing options for improving the H&S stormwater discharge quality, and that these are implemented within 2 years of grant of consents.

26


WCL undertakes monthly monitoring of the three stormwater discharges, and I recommend that this frequency of monitoring continue. I recommend that at least twice per year, WCL also test for TN, TP, total chromium and total zinc. Based on the stormwater sampling results for August 2013 (Appendix C1) and known activities in the catchment, there are no other likely contaminants which would pose an acute risk to the Waitoa River, and which need to be monitored. Appendix C2 of the AEE sets out the “WCL Spill Contingency Plan”. The SCP describes procedures for various spills and scenarios, to either the stormwater or wastewater system. However it is underdeveloped with respect to stormwater spill prevention, and as an example, the key information for spills in the highest risk catchment (H&S) states: “Use of permanent bunded areas, temporary bunds, drain seals, isolation valves, absorption by spill kit materials. Refer to Tanning Division Operations Manual section 3.9 for details of procedures”. There is no map showing where all these preventive devices are located. My recommendation is that the SCP is updated within 3 months of grant of consent, with more detail about stormwater spill prevention.

11 Effects of wastewater irrigation to land

11.1 Background The AEE has a reasonably thorough assessment of the site soils, hydrogeology, and environmental effects (Section 15, pp 145-170), with further comments provided by WCL in August 2014 (“Responses to Expert Panel Questions”), and in October 2014 (PDP comments of draft conditions, doc#3197406). The Aqualinc Research Ltd report (December 2010, doc#3110639) provided a detailed study of groundwater effects associated with the wastewater irrigation. A review of the irrigation effects was undertaken by WRC technical staff (M Taylor), see docs #3143779 & 3229093. In summary, WCL has 277 ha of farm land available for wastewater irrigation. The soils are a mixture of Waihou & Te Puninga yellow-brown loams, and Waitoa & Ngarua gleys. The yellow-brown loams (approximately 40% of area) have high phosphorus retention and high permeability (typically 125-250 mm/hr) while the Waitoa gley soil (approximately 50% of the area) has low phosphorus retention and poor permeability (5-20 mm/hr). The Ngarua gley (10% of area) soil is found on the Waitoa River floodplain, has low phosphorus retention and moderate permeability. The site subsoils have poor permeability, and in general the site tends to have high water tables during winter months. Thus the irrigation requires careful management during wet periods to prevent surface ponding and runoff of wastewater. There is a shallow unconfined aquifer lying between 2-10m below ground surface, with an estimated groundwater velocity of 4-10m per year. Background groundwater quality is typical of much of the Waikato lowland, with nitrate-N concentration of about 8 g/m3. Deeper aquifers at approximately 60-70m bg and 90-140m bg appear to be confined, with no hydraulic connection with the shallow aquifer. The shallow aquifers both sides of the Waitoa River appear to move towards the River at about 45 degrees horizontally, and are assumed to emerge into the river. Figure 11 of the AEE (page 38) sets out the inferred direction of the shallow groundwater. 11.2 Existing irrigation effects on soil and groundwater quality WCL commissioned Dr Greg Barkle of Aqualinc Research Ltd to investigate the groundwater quality at the irrigation farms. The report “Summary Report on Groundwater Monitoring and Aquifer Data from Wallace Corporation LBWT Farms”, was completed in December 2010, doc#3110639. I consider the report to be a comprehensive account of the

27


effects of the irrigation on groundwater quality, particularly with respect to nitrate. The information is summarised below. The WCL monitoring programme includes quarterly testing of 26 on-site groundwater bores, and 14 offsite bores for a range of parameters. The results indicate that the irrigation has caused the shallow groundwater to become significantly contaminated, compared to background. Nitrate-N concentrations average 50 g/m3 across the irrigation farms, ranging from 0 – 70 g/m3. The highest nitrate-N concentration recorded was 113 g/m3 at the Brimmer Farm in 2010, however this appears to be an unusual result with the very large majority of results for that bore being <45 g/m3. Compared to background shallow groundwater quality, the electrical conductivity is about 20x higher, chloride is about 10x higher, sodium is about 8x higher, chromium is about 10x higher. The groundwater has displayed a variable reaction time to the wastewater irrigation. Many bores (eg P & A well 1) record maximum chloride and nitrate concentrations within a year of first irrigation, with some recording maximum effects within 2-3 years, and a few recording a slow build up of chloride and nitrate concentrations over about 10 years (eg P & A wells 4 & 5). Concentrations of nitrate and chloride (as key indicators) in the bores indicate that there is minimal vertical mixing of leachate within the groundwater, with the depth of the sampling (below the water table) being critical in determining contaminant concentrations. Horizontal movement is also slow, being generally less than 10 m/yr. There is substantial removal of nitrogen in some parts of the farms, presumably by reducing conditions in the groundwater, which allows denitrification. Overall, the Aqualinc report found that since about 2000 there has been a moderate increase in nitrate concentrations in the monitored groundwater, and a significant increase in chloride concentrations. WCL test the soil quality annually at all the irrigation farms, and the results record much higher levels of phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen, sodium, and chromium compared to normal dairy farms. In particular, Olsen P levels are typically up to 98 mg/L, compared to the recommended farm range of 20-30 mg/L. 11.3 Hydraulic application rate The wastewater is not applied evenly throughout the year, with more irrigation in the summer months, and less in winter, as shown in the Figure 9 below (from Appendix D1, AEE). This is an ideal situation, as most of the wastewater is irrigated during the plant growth season (October to March) or during times of maximum soil moisture deficiency (December to March). Some of the existing consents have a daily volume limit of 2300 m3/d, although this limit appears to be of minimal value as a limit, as none of these consents refers to any other WCL irrigation consent in terms of any overall daily limit. WCL has not applied for a specific maximum daily volume limit, although the AEE states that the wastewater volume may increase from 2300 m3 to 3440 m3/d if the site expands production. The existing consents have hydraulic depth limits, ranging from 15mm/d to 25mm/d, and reducing if there has been heavy rain in the previous 24 hours, or in winter. WCL has applied for an application rate for all the farms to be a maximum of 25 mm/hour, and 25 mm/day, with no hydraulic depth restrictions for rain or season.

28


Figure 8: Wastewater volume applied to WCL farms, per month, 2008-2013

It is clear from Table 43 of the AEE (reproduced below) that in optimal conditions most of the farm soils can cope with 25 mm/hr application rate, without ponding or runoff, as the soil infiltration rates are higher than this. However when the topsoil is near saturated, there is little capacity for wastewater irrigation; the subsoils under much of the farms have infiltration rates of just 5-6 mm/hr, and any irrigation rate in excess of this is likely to cause ponding or runoff.

Matthew Taylor recommended that the hydraulic application rate should be limited to no more than 4 mm/hr, to take into account the slow subsoil infiltration rate. However WCL considers this application rate to be too conservative, as the large majority of irrigation occurs in summer when there is storage capacity in the topsoil, and the subsoil infiltration rate is less relevant. WCL considers that, in combination with a maximum daily application rate of 25mm (condition 8) and a return period (no irrigation) of at least 7 days (condition 9), the risk of ponding or runoff is minimal. WCL has “big gun” travelling irrigators which cannot apply less than about 20 mm/hr, plus some static irrigators which cannot apply less than about 25 mm/hr. If hydraulic application rates of less than 25mm/hr were to be granted, there would be a financial cost to WCL.

29


The 2013/14 compliance audit recorded full compliance with the “no ponding and no overland flow” conditions in all the irrigation consents (Park & Auchenhaen, Glenview, Tulliebelton, Brimmer, Floodplain). However Mr Taylor reports ponding and runoff visible during a site visit (verbal advice 19/10/15) and in light of his written recommendations above, I consider that the present hydraulic depth limit of 25 mm/hr should be reduced to a limit of 10 mm/hr. My recommendation is that the reduction in hourly application rate should be effective from 1/4/2024, which will give WCL 10 years to replace irrigation equipment. I consider that the present limit of 25mm per day poses minimal risk to the environment, assuming the hourly application rate can be reduced. The matter of how WCL manages the hydraulic application rate, in response to rain, can be addressed in the updated Irrigation Management Plan (proposed condition 18), but I have included key conditions in the consent, such as not irrigating if there has been more than 25 mm rain in the previous 24 hours, or where there is a forecast of rain in excess of 25 mm in the next 24 hour period. There are about 4-8 days each year when the rainfall exceeds 25 mm in the Waitoa area. 11.4 Nitrogen load The existing consents authorise application of up to 300 kg N/ha/yr, and WCL has applied for renewal of this load limit. In terms of the total N applied to WCL land each year, the graph below (from Appendix D1, AEE) shows a N load range of about 50 - 100 tonne/yr totalled for all the irrigation farms. Assuming this is applied evenly over the available 277 ha, this is equivalent to 180 – 360 kg N/ha/yr.

Figure 9: Annual N load to WCL farms

The AEE states that the existing N leaching rate is about 87 kg N/ha/yr, and Table 5 (Responses, August 2014) indicates 81 kg N/ha/yr average, but up to 189 kg N/ha/yr for the Waihou soils. Soil lysimeters indicate a nitrogen leaching rate of up to 139 kg N/ha/yr however the lysimeter data is limited and less reliable than the long-term bore monitoring data. Compared to typical Waikato dairy farms this is a high nitrogen leaching rate; Dairy NZ data for Waikato dairy farms indicates that <10% of farms leach more than 55 kg N, and less than 5% farms leach more than 60 kg N.

30


Assuming 87 kg N/ha/yr leaching to groundwater, this is a potential leaching load of 24 tonne N/yr from the 277 ha irrigation area. However, it is reasonably evident from the river effects monitoring that there is only minor N leaching to the Waitoa River, possibly less than 10 tonne/yr, so there may be significant losses of N from the groundwater as it emerges into the river or floodplain. The B Coffey river effects reports do not show any significant change in the nitrate concentrations downstream of WCL, as the following graph from the 2003 report demonstrates (Figure 10 below). There is a significant increase in ammonia and TKN between Site 1 (upstream of WCL) and Site 2 (immediately downstream) from the wastewater discharge, as expected, but no overall change in nitrate concentrations. The 2007 river effects report recorded the same outcome. The April 2012 baseline study (no discharge of wastewater to the river for some months) recorded an increase in conductivity of 8-15% downstream, but it not clear why this occurred. One explanation is that it is the effect of the contaminated groundwater emerging into the river, given that the contaminated groundwater is about 3-10x more “salty” than the Waitoa River. On the other hand, the March 2009 river monitoring (which only extended downstream to the cooling water discharge, but would have been measuring the effect of some of the contaminated groundwater emergence) showed minimal change downstream for conductivity.

Figure 10: Waitoa River effects monitoring: nitrogen

The AEE, section 15.4, included an assessment of likely leaching effects on the river, from contaminated farm groundwater flux. The conclusion was that effects associated with leaching from the Park & Auchenhaen Farm and Tulleibelton Farm would be very minor, potentially adding 0.23 g/m3 nitrate-N under worst case scenario. It is not clear whether the high N leaching (about 87 kg N/ha/yr) is from the wastewater irrigation, the farm practices, or a combination of these. Best practice for other wastewater irrigation farms, which are also operated as dairy farms, is to install fed pads, or herd homes, to minimise the time the cows are on the pasture. These are not present at the WCL farms, but Overseer modelling of wastewater irrigation at 300 kg N/ha/yr at dairy farms consistently indicates that the majority of the N leaching is associated with the dairying operations, not the wastewater irrigation.

31


The present WWTP treatment capacity appears to be inadequate for the proposed N loads, in that the final effluent has a TN concentration too high to achieve an overall TN load of 300 kg N/ha/yr, as requested by WCL. The AEE (page 71) states that, if biosolids are also applied to land, the average wastewater nitrogen concentration would have to be generally below 132 g/m3. The AEE (Table 18, page 62) states that the average TN concentration at present is about 189 g/m3, so it is clear that if a nitrogen load limit of 300 kg N/ha/yr is granted, then WCL will have to treat the wastewater to a higher standard, and/or not apply the biosolids to land as well. The graph below shows the reported TN concentrations (as monthly averages) over the last few years. The graph (Figure 12) shows a possible improvement in the TN concentration in the last year, however the TN concentration is still too high to achieve compliance with a 300 kg N/ha/yr load limit, if biosolids are applied as well. The AEE states (page 71) that wastewater treatment system upgrades will need to be undertaken to ensure that the company can comply with a 300 kg N/ha/yr consent limit.

Figure 11

WRC soil scientist Mat Taylor recommended that the N load limit be no more than 150 kg N/ha/yr, for pasture with animals, for a truly sustainable system. Mr Taylor took into account the soil type, wastewater quality (especially high sodium), farm practices, and a desire to reduce environmental effects. Nevertheless Mr Taylor did not take into account the existing effects of the irrigation on the river, which appear to be low, nor the WRC and iwi preference for land based disposal, compared to river discharges, whenever possible. My recommendation is that the present 300 kg N/ha/yr consent limit be retained for grazed pasture, with higher limits of 500 kg N/ha/yr for non-grazed pasture, and 350 kg N/ha/yr for cropping for maize or silage, where there may be livestock for the remaining part of the year. Where there are complex farming operations also occurring with the wastewater irrigation, it has been difficult for WRC to obtain an accurate picture of the actual N loads applied, as the nitrogen comes from numerous sources – animal urine/dung, feed brought onto the site, dairy shed effluent, wastewater effluent and fertiliser. My recommendation is that the N load be a combination of fixed load limits (300/350/500) but a leaching load limit of 60 kg N/ha/yr to be achieved by 1/4//2019, and a further reduction to 40 kg N/ha/yr by 1/4/2024. The leaching load limit is to be estimated by Overseer modelling, using all farm inputs and outputs. A nitrogen leaching load limit of 60 kg/ha/yr would still be high compared to most wastewater irrigation schemes, and most dairy farms. As examples, the Taupo sewage irrigation scheme has a leaching rate of 35 kg N/ha/yr, and the Fonterra Pinedale block has

32


a leaching rate of 43 kg N/ha/yr. My view is that WCL only owns the four dairy farms (Park & Auchenhaen, Tulliebelton, Glenburn, Brimmer) for wastewater irrigation, and that the dairy farm operations should adopt “best farm practices” in order to accommodate the irrigation. This may include feed pads and herd homes, and I am confident that a nitrogen leaching rate of 60 kg/ha/yr, then 40 kg/ha/yr, can be attained by WCL. From the present leaching rate of 87 kg N/ha/yr, it represents a significant improvement. My recommendation is that a s128 review condition be included in the consent, to allow WRC to reduce the N leaching rate below 60 kg N/ha/yr, should there be nitrogen limits in the catchment in the future (as for example imposed by a NPS or Regional Plan). In October 2014 WCL requested a consent condition allowing higher leaching rates, as a trial to investigate “redistribution of nitrogen loading rates across the irrigation areas based on soil type to take advantage of variable nitrogen removal characteristics”. Under the WCL proposal, the trial would determine the nitrogen leaching rate after 2019, for the duration of the consent. WCL did not provide any details of how the trial would be undertaken, the scale of the trial, or how the nitrogen leaching rate might be set. My recommendation is that this option not be considered further. However a more limited “trial” proposed by WCL has been included in the proposed consent conditions. Condition 3 includes the following at present: “Exceedance of the above loading rates may be utilised for leaching rate trials on various soil types, with the prior written agreement from Waikato Regional Council. The trials shall be undertaken on no more than 20 hectares in any year. Any trial undertaken by the consent holder shall include monitoring systems to record or estimate the nitrogen leaching rate which occurs as a result of the trial”. Flexibility has been incorporated into the proposed Condition 3 pertaining to N loads, to allow other N loads other than the 300/350/500 kg N/ha/yr limits. 11.5 Phosphorus load WCL is not proposing to remove any more phosphorus from the treated wastewater than occurs at present. The present P load is 436,438 m3/yr x 22 g/m3 (see Table 18 & 20 of AEE) or about 35 kg P/ha/yr. WCL has requested a higher discharge volume (assuming site expansion) of 542,000 m3/yr, or 43 kg P/ha/yr. Including biosolids (which has a higher P percentage than the treated wastewater) the annual P load might be about 53 kg P/ha/yr (AEE page 157). The existing irrigation consents do not have phosphorus limits. In general the wastewater irrigation consents granted by WRC seldom include phosphorus limits, as the N load limit tends to restrict the overall scope of the irrigation. WCL does not test for phosphorus in the groundwater monitoring bores, and the soluble P concentrations are unknown. Lysimeter testing indicated relatively low DRP concentrations of 0.01 – 0.02 g/m3. The Olsen P concentrations in the WCL farm soil average 50 mg/L, and are about twice the normal range for farms. However there are many wastewater irrigation farms in the Waikato where the soil Olsen P is up to 10x that of the WCL farms without causing any more than minor environmental effects. The applicant carried out an assessment of the potential P retention in the farm soils, and concluded that the soils could assimilate P at the present load rates for several hundred years. My recommendation is that WCL test for DRP in the farm monitoring bores, once per year in late winter. I consider that a P load limit is not necessary to prevent adverse environmental effects. The key condition to preventing adverse effects from P is to prevent runoff of wastewater to surface waters.

33


11.6 Sodium, SAR and ESP The irrigated wastewater contains relatively high concentrations of sodium, and there is evidence that the farm soils, particularly at the Park & Auchenhaen Farms, are already adversely affected, with reduced infiltration rates. An investigation by Meneer1 in 1998 fund that the Te Puninga and Waitoa silt loams were the most prone to conductivity decreases caused by sodium. WRC soil scientist M Taylor has recommended that the SAR (sodium adsorption ratio) be kept below 8.5 to minimise soil degradation, however the present SAR is about 26 and possibly increasing. WCL opposes inclusion of a SAR limit in the consent, and considers that high sodium levels in the wastewater can be countered by monitoring ESP (exchangeable sodium percentage) in the soil, and if excessive (above about 10%), then application of lime or gypsum to the soil later. It is important to note that the WCL farms have been irrigated for many years, and reduction of the soil infiltration rates has already occurred. It is not a question of using a SAR or ESP consent limit to prevent long-term soil damage, it is a question of how best to prevent further deterioration, and there is ample evidence from other wastewater irrigation sites in the Waikato (particularly the Fonterra sites) that soil infiltration rates can be managed by monitoring ESP annually, and by applying lime or gypsum. Intercession at these farms tends to start when the ESP reaches 3 (when 0.5 tonne lime/ha may be required), up to 10 (when 2-3 T/ha lime may be required). The above lime tonnages are derived from a Fonterra site with Taupo ash soils, and are not necessarily correct for the WCL farm silt soils. Nevertheless I consider that WCL should be managing its farm soils to ensure that the ESP never exceeds 10, by adding lime/gypsum well before this level. As mentioned, one of the consequences of adding high loads of sodium over long periods, is that the soil infiltration rate decreases substantially. It is important that the wastewater application rate matches the infiltration rate, to avoid ponding and runoff. 11.7 Seepage of groundwater to surface water. Seepage of contaminants from the irrigated farm to groundwater, and then to surface water, has not been well described in the AEE, but it is known from the river effects sampling (when there has been no direct discharge of treated wastewater to the river) that the background seepage of groundwater has only minor effect on the river. River effects can be estimated from the B Coffey 2012 survey, when there was no wastewater discharge, that MCI, %EPT, periphyton, and macrophytes were all similar downstream to upstream WCL. There was no discernible difference upstream and downstream for DO%, pH, although the stream conductivity did show an increase d/s, from 175 to 190 uS/cm. Section 11.4 of this report describes the relatively high nitrogen losses to groundwater, yet low loss to surface water. Seepage from the irrigation farms to sub-surface drains, open farm drains, and nearby surface water occurs, but has not been described well in the AEE. Previous sampling by WRC in 2009, 2011, and 2014 indicated contamination of some drains at times, particularly drains from the Park & Auchenhaen Farm. As an example, the August 2014 sampling of a P&A farm drain recorded sodium concentration of 620 g/m3,and a chloride concentration of 750 g/m3. Nearby drains up-gradient of WCL had sodium levels about 1 /24th of these concentrations. The irrigated wastewater is about 1200 Na, so the result indicates that about 50% of the irrigated sodium

1 J C Menner, 1998, The effect of sodium-contaminated liquid waste on soil properties. NZ Soil News vol 46, 1998.

34


is lost to surface water. In contrast key parameters TN, TP and ammonia are less labile, and are present in the drain water at 15%, 1% and 4% of the irrigated wastewater concentrations respectively. My understanding is that losses of these contaminants to surface water was much larger prior to 2011 when WCL deep ripped subsurface drains at the P&A Farm. WCL has advised that there are no subsurface drains at the other irrigation farms, as far as it is aware. The monitoring records indicate that, on average each year, about 40% of the wastewater is discharged to the Waitoa River, and about 60% is irrigated. That is, in broad terms, about 60 tonne N/yr is irrigated, along with about 5.4 tonne P/yr. At the respective loss rates (to surface water) of 15% and 1% respectively, this would be about 9 tonne N/yr and 0.05 t P/yr. It seems likely that the bulk of this loss would occur during the wetter months each year. The nitrogen leaching estimates are that about 81-87 kg N/ha/yr is lost to the ground & groundwater. Over the 277 ha irrigated, this is 22-24 tonne N/yr. Some of this clearly enters surface water (for example the “Board Drain”) but of the rest, there would be losses of N in contact with iron pans, denitrification zones, as well as some loss of nitrogen as this shallow groundwater emerges into the floodplain. WCL provided an estimated nitrogen flux to the river in August 2014 (s92 Response, page 34), based on the average nitrogen concentration in the monitoring bores, and predicted groundwater flow rates. The nitrogen load was estimated to be about 8 tonne/yr, and that during a Q5 river flow (521 L/s) this nitrogen flux would increase the concentration from about 2 g/m3 to about by 2.43 g/m3. According to WCL, their assumptions are conservative, and a N loss of about 8 tonne/yr is not expected in practice. The Aqualinc Report 2010 (wrcdoc#3110639) described the groundwater quality under the WCL irrigation farms, and recommended further investigations to quantify the effects of the groundwater on surface water. I have considered whether a consent condition to this effect would be beneficial. However, WCL has expressed strong opposition to this, given that the overall measured effects in the river appear to be minor, and that the company has already provided an estimated nitrogen flux. There is merit in linking such investigations to the proposed 40 kg N/ha/yr leaching limit to be achieved by 1/4/2024. For instance, if the investigations showed that the nitrogen flux to the Waitoa River was relatively minor, then there would be no need to reduce the N leaching rate from 60 to 40 kg N/ha/yr. In this regard, I consider that an increase in river nitrogen (all species) of less than 10% from the irrigation to be acceptable; this would be an increase of 2.0 g/m3 upstream to 2.2 g/m3 downstream. 11.8 Other parameters Chromium: The AEE (p158) states that the annual Cr load from wastewater and biosolids is about 2.5 kg Cr/ha/yr, as trivalent chromium. There is no hexavalent chromium in the wastewater or biosolids. The “Guidelines for the Safe Application of Biosolids to Land in NZ”, 2003, recommends a maximum soil concentration of 600 mg/kg for chromium. At present the highest chromium soil level is 163 mg/kg for the Park & Auchenhaen Farm, which is well below the recommended limit. The NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil, 2011, sets a limit of “>10,000” mg/kg to protect human health. My recommendation is that a load limit of 10 kg Cr/ha/yr be included in the consent conditions. Zinc

35


The AEE states that about 0.3 kg Zn/ha/yr is applied from the wastewater and biosolids. The farm soil has not been tested for zinc, however the soil concentration is expected to be significantly lower than the recommended guideline of 300 mg/kg. Zinc is not used on site in any process (that I am aware of) and I consider that a consent limit is not required for zinc. Sulphur WCL applies about 567 kg S/ha/yr to the pasture from the wastewater and biosolids, which significantly exceeds normal pastoral requirements of about 50 kg/ha/yr. Mr Taylor considers that sulphur is mobile in soil, and that “most if not all S” will be washed out over winter. There are no known adverse effects of applying excessive S to land. Boron The AEE states that “boron is no longer utilised at the WCL tannery, and only small amounts are present in the wastewater discharged to land. WCL estimates that about 1.4 kg B/ha/yr is applied to land, which is similar to pastoral requirements. I consider that a consent limit is not required for boron. 11.9 Effects on human health The raw wastewater contains infectious microorganisms and pathogens, however after extensive anaerobic then aerobic treatment, pathogen concentrations are low, and according to the AEE (p169) are “not considered significant” by WCL. Many of the same pathogens are already present at the farm, from cow dung. Although there is a relatively high incidence of some pathogens such as salmonella and cryptosporidium in the Waikato, possibly related to agricultural activities, there is no known link to wastewater irrigation. No increased incidence of illness has been recorded at any irrigation site in the Waikato. The AEE states that the “use of appropriate buffer zones is a key factor in minimising public contact with the sprayed wastewater, but additional management techniques such as ensuring irrigation does not occur near a downwind boundary during windy conditions will further ensure that the public health risk is minimised”. The standard buffer zones are 10m to waterways, 20m to a property boundary or public road, and 150m to neighbouring house. For other consents where primary treated sewage is land applied, these distances are sometimes significantly increased, however I consider that the standard buffer zones are adequate for the WCL wastewater. 11.10 Proposed consent conditions for land disposal I consider the consent should include standard conditions for irrigation consents, such as:

No runoff to surface water or beyond the boundary

No ponding for more than 24 hours

No spraydrift or objectionable odour beyond the boundary

Buffers to boundaries, roads, neighbouring houses.

Preparation of an Irrigation Management Plan which addresses key matters: A comprehensive description of the disposal area, disposal methods

and equipment; On-site responsibilities, including operation and maintenance of the

transfer pipeline to the site, and record-keeping; Management responses to wind speed and direction, or rainfall on

the site; Contingency measures in place to deal with unusual events including

spills; Routine inspections and monitoring by the consent holder, including

farm drains;

36


Hydraulic application rates (particularly in relation to rain), rotation periods and nutrient loadings;

Procedures and precautions to prevent emission of offensive odours, or spraydrift beyond the boundary;

Circumstances in which irrigation will be initiated and in which irrigation will cease.

Description of progressive remediation measures to be taken by the consent holder when the soil ESP exceeds 5%, in terms of tonnes of lime or gypsum or equivalent material to be added per hectare, for each of the major soil types found on the farms.

Complaints procedures

Monitoring of soil, groundwater, effluent quality, provision of an annual report

Annual nutrient budget

Section 128 RMA Review Hydraulic limits, nitrogen loads, and ESP conditions have been discussed above. 11.11 Response to submitters concerns Powerco submitted that the NZ Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP 34:2001) must be complied with, as a mandatory standard. The Code sets out safe minimum distances from pylons, poles and conductors. The key requirement for the irrigation activity is that all irrigation equipment and mobile plant maintains a distance not less than 4 metres from the electricity line conductors. There are 11kv power lines in the Park/Auchenhaen Farm, and along the western boundary of the Glenburn farm. In addition a 33kv sub transmission line which traverses the top left corner of the Glenburn Farm. Powerco recommended the following condition and advice note be included in the irrigation consent:

The consent holder shall take all practicable measures to avoid or minimise spray or spray drift onto (electricity) support structures so that any discharges of wastewater or biosolids from irrigation and spreading activities do not create a hazard or nuisance to the electricity distribution lines

Advice Note: All machinery, mobile plant and irrigation systems will need to maintaina minimum clearance distance of 4 metres from the electricity line conductors at all times. Please refer to NZECP 34:2001 for further details about safe distances of mobile plant from conductors.

The draft consent conditions were provided to Powerco on 23/3/15, including a condition in the land irrigation consent as proposed by Powerco, and on 24/3/15 Powerco responded that the company “are happy with the proposed condition – it deals with Powerco’s submission” (wrcdoc#3321536). Waikato District Health Board The WDHB submission raised concerns about groundwater nitrate levels, for human drinking. The existing groundwater nitrate concentrations are very high already, and my recommendation to retain the present limit of 300 kg N/ha/yr may not reduce the groundwater nitrate concentrations in the near future. Nevertheless there are mitigating circumstances to support this recommendation:

Only the shallow groundwater is affected by high nitrate concentrations, and there is no evidence that any other person is affected by the irrigation. There are a few on-site farm houses, with elevated nitrate, however these can be managed by water filters to remove nitrate.

Seepage to surface water causes only minor increase in nitrate concentration in the Waitoa River, and is well below the NZ drinking water standard.

37


Improved management of the dairy farm and wastewater irrigation has potential to reduce leaching effects.

WDHB were provided with a set of draft conditions on 23/3/15, and on 30/3/15 responded that the proposed consent conditions were acceptable to WDHB, and that they did not wish to be heard with respect to our submission” (wrcdoc#3408929).

12 Effects of the wastewater discharge to Waitoa River

The AEE (Section 16, pp 171-184) has a reasonably thorough assessment of environmental effects, with further comments provided by WCL in August 2014 (“Responses to Expert Panel Questions”), in October 2014 (“Comments of draft conditions”), plus Technical Memos in November 2014, February 2015, March 2015, and May 2015. A review of the AEE river effects assessment was undertaken by WRC technical staff (B Vant, B David) and NIWA (R Storey). Those reviews are attached to this report as appendices 8, 9 and 10.

12.1 Mixing zone

Section 107 RMA provides for the following:

107(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a consent authority shall not grant a discharge permit or a coastal permit to do something that would otherwise contravene section 15 or section 15A allowing – (a) the discharge of a contaminant or water into water; or (b) a discharge of a contaminant onto or into land in circumstances which may

result in that contaminant (or any other contaminant emanating as a result of natural processes from that contaminant) entering water; or

if, after reasonable mixing, the contaminant or water discharged (either by itself or

in combination with the same, similar or other contaminants or water), is likely to give rise to all or any of the following effects in the receiving waters: (c) the production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams, or

floatable or suspended materials: (d) any conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity: (e) any emission of objectionable odour: (f) the rendering of fresh water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals: (g) any significant adverse effects on aquatic life.

A key aspect in determining compliance with s107 is to define reasonable mixing, or the area which is defined as the mixing zone. The implications are that the effects noted in (c) to (g) above may occur within the mixing zone, but not outside of the mixing zone. This is an important matter, as the WCL wastewater discharge contains ammoniacal-N in the range of 100-200 g/m3, which is immediately toxic to fish. Thus, in the discharge plume, for a distance downstream, fish and most aquatic life cannot survive in the initial stages of mixing. Some guidance is given in the RMA as to what constitutes reasonable mixing. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) Resource Management Ideas, No 10, Reasonable Mixing, 1992 provides some guidance, as does the MfE’s “Water Quality Guidelines No. 1” 1992, and “Water Quality Guidelines No. 2 1994. Policy 8 of chapter 3.2.3 of the WRP also provides guidance:

Policy 8: Reasonable Mixing

The zone of reasonable mixing is the area within which a discharge into water (including any discharge that occurs subsequent to a discharge onto or into land) does not need to achieve the standards specified in the water management class for the receiving water body. The size of the

38


mixing zone must be minimised as far as is practicable and will be determined on a case-by-case basis, including consideration of the following matters: a) The nature of the effluent, including its flow rate, composition and contaminant

concentrations. b) River flow rate and flow characteristics. c) The design of the outfall d) The depth, velocity and rate of mixing in the receiving body. e) Existing contaminant concentrations in the receiving water body both upstream and

downstream of the discharge point and the assimilative capacity of the water body. f) The frequency of the discharge. g) The speed with which any contaminant will be diluted. h) The ability of the discharger to alter the location of the discharge and the mixing

characteristics of the outfall so as to ensure that adverse effects of the discharge beyond the zone of non-compliance is not inconsistent with the purpose for which the water body is being managed.

i) Whether the discharger has taken all practicable steps to minimise the concentration and volume of contaminants at source.

j) Any effects of the mixing zone on other users of the water body. k) The extent of adverse effects within the mixing zone.

WCL carried out an assessment of the fully mixed zone under a range of river flows and discharge flow rates, see AEE Appendix E2 and the “Responses to Expert Panel Questions”. This indicated that the discharger was fully mixed in the river at about 55m downstream, and that for the most potentially toxic contaminant, ammonia, was reduced to a concentration of 8.5 g/m3 (acute toxicity) within 7m under low river flow conditions. The fully mixed zone is not the same as the “reasonable mixing zone”. B Vant has suggested that the latter might be 30m downstream. Fish survey data (while not recent) indicates no discernible difference in species diversity or density upstream or downstream, which implies there is no obvious barrier to fish passage or survival overall. My recommendation is that the “reasonable mixing zone” be 30m downstream of the discharge. 12.2 Recommended level of protection My recommendation is that the Waitoa River water quality be protected to 95% diversity levels (ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines 2000). The ANZECC WQG sets out specific contaminant levels which should not be exceeded. The 95% protection is the level of protection recommended by B Vant and B David, and WCL agrees that this is the appropriate level of protection for the Waitoa River. ANZECC Guideline trigger levels for 95% protection, compared to present levels in the WCL discharge are set out below. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater (NPS-FW) 2014, also provides guidance on acceptable river quality standards, and I have set out the limits for “Attribute State B” below as a comparison. Note that “Attribute State B’ is broadly equivalent to “95% protection” in the ANZECC Guidelines, but the values are not directly comparable as the ANZECC Guideline values are a maximum, whereas the NPS-FW 2014 values are an annual median. Table 12 Water Quality guidelines

Parameter g/m

3

ANZECC Guideline 95% species protection

NPS-FW 2014 Attribute State B Annual median

WCL discharge

Boron 0.37 0.13

Ammonia 0.90 0.03 – 0.24 134

Nitrate-N 7.2 1.0 – 2.4 0.3

Hydrogen sulphide 0.001 0.55

Copper 0.0014 -

Zinc 0.008 -

Chromium - 0.34

Dissolved oxygen - 7 – 8 (7-day mean minimum) 0

E coli cfu/100mls - 260 - 540

39


The key difference between the ANZECC Guidelines and the NPS-FW 2014 is the much lower “limits” for ammonia in the latter. The maximum discharge rate proposed by WCL is 45 L/s, which would only occur when the river flow exceeds 2000 L/s in summer, and 1000 L/s in winter. As a worst case scenario, the available dilution is 22x, but more typically would be about . 12.3 Review of river effects

There is not close agreement amongst the technical experts about the effects of the WCL discharge on the Waitoa River. PDP Ltd concluded that, overall, there are no more than minor adverse effects and this is generally supported by NIWA (Dr R Storey) who states in his report that “The effects on aquatic biota are minimal”, and that “At present, no adverse environmental effects have been demonstrated”. I have interpreted NIWA’s comments as meaning “no more than minor adverse environmental effects have been demonstrated”, as the NIWA report does identify several minor matters. NIWA also identified that “with the predicted increases in waste water discharge, sulphide, total suspended solids, ammonium and nitrite are predicted to reach, or come close to, the maximum limit allowed by WRC guidelines”. In this context, the “WRC guidelines” referred to by Dr Storey appears to be largely based on the WRC Water Quality Standards as set out in the Water Management Classes, and set out in Table 52 of the AEE (page 174).

In contrast, WRC ecologists David & Jones disagree with the general conclusion in the AEE that “The discharge limits proposed in this report will ensure the maintenance of water quality in the Waitoa River”. David & Jones consider that the discharge will neither maintain or enhance the river, and is therefore in conflict with the Waikato Regional Policy Statement, and the NPS-FW 2014. David & Jones consider the Waitoa River to be under stress at present, particularly with respect to low dissolved oxygen levels and high temperatures in summer, and relatively high levels of nutrients. WRC water scientist B Vant also raises concerns about the increase in nutrients, stating that “the proposed changes (downstream, after mixing) will be large and will exacerbate the already nutrient-enriched state of the river water. It seems likely that this will affect the ecology of the river, but the nature of any effect is unclear”. Vant noted that the effects from SS, E coli, BOD, chromium, ammoniacal-N are likely to be modest, or small. Coffey & Associates Ltd carried out biological surveys of the Waitoa River on seven occasions in 1993, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2009 and 2012. The surveys showed an impoverished river in 1993 &1999, both up and downstream. The results from 2001 – 2009 showed an overall improvement both upstream and downstream, but the overall state of the river at all sites was only fair-poor. The last effective river discharge effects survey was in 2007, since the 2009 survey only assessed the cooling water effects. The 2007 survey recorded a decrease in quality immediately downstream, but the river quality had largely recovered after 4 kilometres (by SH26 bridge). In terms of the %EPT Taxa Index (which measures the most pollution-sensitive aquatic insects, for instance mayflies), there was a very substantial drop in the index immediately downstream, and by SH26 the index had only recovered about 50% of the upstream value. While there have been inherent difficulties with the river effects surveys in recent years (due to there not being a river discharge for much of the year), as mentioned by NIWA and B David, these surveys have provided good baseline data, as well as a reasonable effects assessment. The baseline study in 2012 (there had been only a few days wastewater discharge during the preceding 4 months) recorded fair-poor river quality at all sites, and Coffey commented that this indicated a wider issue with the river’s water quality unrelated to WCL. The inference from this is that land uses in the Waitoa river catchment have a far stronger effect

40


on the river quality than any temporary effect from the existing WCL discharge. In other words, substantial improvements in the WCL discharge are unlikely to have any more than minor positive effects on the river quality, other than in a river stretch perhaps 2-3 kilometre downstream. In terms of assessing potential effects of the WCL discharge on the Waitoa and Piako Rivers, the river travel times are set out below in Table 13. Thus under flow conditions when WCL typically discharges to the river (medium to high river flow rates) the travel time to the Piako River confluence is about a day, and about 3 days flow time to the Firth of Thames. Table 13 River travel times (hours)

Time in hours to: Low flow Medium flow High flow

SH 26 bridge 5 4 3

Confluence with Piako River 36 27 19

Northern end of Kopuatai Wetland 66 52 48

Piako River mouth (Firth of Thames) 103 80 58

The applicant considers that the “accrual period” is an important consideration, in that during the winter period (when most of the WCL river discharge occurs), the accrual period (the average time between floods, in which periphyton biomass can accrue, using the available nutrients) is about 11 days, and that a relatively low biomass could be expected. (See PDP’s “Responses to WRC Expert Panel Questions”, dated August 2014, question 27). 12.4 Cumulative effects on Waitoa River, Piako River and Firth of Thames This Hearing Report focuses predominantly on the Waitoa River, and particularly the river between the WCL factory and SH 26 bridge, being that part of the river where adverse effects are mpost likely to occur. However the potential adverse effects extend much further downstream. The Waitoa River flows into the Piako River about 30 km north of WCL, and the Piako River flows into the southern Firth of Thames. NIWA noted that the WCL facility contributes 8% of the total nitrogen load to the Waitoa River at Mellon Rd, and 1.2% of the total nitrogen to the Firth of Thames, with the total phosphorus loads being 10.2% at Mellon Rd and 2.3% at the Firth of Thames. These percentages are based on a WRC 2011 report2 and are averages over the 10 year period 2000 – 2009. In the last two years, the actual loads contributed by WCL to the Firth of Thames were about 0.8% N (27 t/yr of 3300 t/yr total Firth) and 1.3% P (3.6 t/yr of 270 t/yr total Firth). WRC ecologist B David specifically mentions the need to protect the two RAMSAR sites north of WCL, the Kopuatai Peat Dome, and the wetlands and tidal flats in the Firth of Thames. However it is not clear how the water quality of the Waitoa River, which skirts the Kopuatai Peat dome on its western side, affects the peat dome. The Piako River flows through part of the peat dome, but again it is not clear how the Piako River water quality affects the peat dome. There is some evidence that the Kopuatai peat dome affects the Piako River water quality3, draining moderately elevated concentrations of ammonia from the wetland to the river. Vant considered that it was possible that “oxidation of the wetland-derived ammonia also contributed to the observed oxygen depletion in this part of the river”.

2 Waikato Regional Council Technical Report 2011/16: Water Quality of the Hauraki Rivers and Southern Firth of Thames,

2000- 2009. Prepared by Bill Vant. 3 Waikato Regional Council Internal Series 2013/15: Water quality of the Lower Piako River, 2011-13. Prepared by Bill Vant.

41


Table 14: Cumulative point source loads, Waitoa River

Parameter WCL Fonterra Inghams

Phosphorus, kg/d 55 10 23

Nitrogen, kg/d 108-432 depending on river flow

40, as an annual average of nitrate-N only

27

Ammoniacal-N kg/d 40-221 depending on river flow

No limit, but generally absent

2

Suspended solids, kg/d

57-230 depending on river flow

550

BOD kg/d 110 300 5

About 5 km downstream of WCL, the Fonterra Waitoa dairy factory discharges up to 12,000 m3/d treated wastewater to the river (consent 118414), and Inghams Enterprises discharges about 2300 m3/d. These contaminant loadings are set out above in Table 14. To summarise this information, Fonterra Waitoa discharges higher BOD and SS loads, but discharges less nitrogen and phosphorus than WCL. The Fonterra discharge generally occurs from September to March, peaking in November, whereas the WCL discharge generally occurs from May to September, as does the Inghams discharge. The Waitoa River has excessive concentration of N & P upstream of WCL. Nitrogen in particular is about 15x the recommended maximum level to prevent excessive periphyton growth, upstream of WCL. Phosphorus levels are 2-3 times recommended limits, upstream. The Piako River has excessive concentrations of nutrients N & P, and even with complete cessation of the WCL river discharge, this situation would not change. Vant2 recorded significant water quality problems in the lower Piako River, with dissolved oxygen as low as 41% saturation at times and high turbidity. Vant considered the poor water quality was caused by a combination of several factors including:

N, P, sediments and bacteria from the river catchments (of which WCL is a contributor)

Discharges of highly-coloured and partly degraded organic material from the Kopuatai wetland

Trapping of sediments in a naturally-occurring “estuarine circulation cell” near the limit of salt intrusion.

For the Firth of Thames, the contribution from WCL wastewater discharge is small. The Waikato Regional Council Technical Report 2011/16 “Water Quality of the Hauraki Rivers and Southern Firth of Thames 2000 -2009” commented that “The water quality of the Southern Firth was thus reasonably good, with no obvious grounds for concern being apparent.” More recently, reports by NIWA4,5 warn of an imminent “tipping point” in the Firth of Thames if the build-up of nutrients is not curtailed. The very large proportion of N & P discharged into the Firth is from Hauraki plain rivers (Waihou, Piako & Waitakaruru). It is important to note that the large majority of these nutrients are from non-point sources in the Hauraki catchments, including dairying and cropping. Vant1 has recorded that the overall water quality of the downstream sites on the Hauraki rivers (and hence nutrient loads to the Firth) has remained broadly stable over the last 20 or so years, as the effects of more intensive farming has been offset by improved treatment of sewage and industrial wastewaters. To conclude, the WCL river discharge adds cumulatively to the excessive nutrient loads found in the Piako-Firth ecosystems, but in these far-field water bodies the effects of the WCL river discharge is relatively minor. Even if the WCL discharge was to cease, there would be no material improvement in the situation in the lower Piako River or the southern Firth of Thames.

4 Waikato Regional Council Technical Report 2013/50:” Visualising nutrients and phytoplankton in the Hauraki Gulf Marine

Park using GIS”, prepared by NIWA (J Zeldis et al). 5 NZ Herald, 6/9/14, article quoting J Zeldis: “Water health may reach tipping point” referring to the Firth of Thames.

42


12.5 Discharge volume WCL has requested an increase in the discharge volume, from 2300 m3/d to 3440 m3/d, with an associated increase in the discharge rate from 30 L/s to 45 L/s. The actual discharge volume is about 1700 m3/d at present (see Figure 12 below from the WCL Annual Report 2013-14) so an increase to the requested maximum of 3440 m3/d, if fully utilised, represent a doubling of discharge volumes.

Figure 12: River discharge days in 2013/14 year

At the proposed discharge rate of 45 L/s, the worst case available dilution is 22x in winter (May to October), and 44X in summer (November to April). My recommendation that the increased discharge volume limit of 3440 m3/d be granted. I consider that the increase in volume will have minimal effect on the river, as long as the contaminant limits are set as loads (e.g kg/d) rather than concentrations. Although not discussed in the AEE, the wastewater pond surface is significant, and during wet weather the discharge volume increases. In the existing river discharge consent, the discharge limit is increased by 12 cubic metres wastewater per millimetre rain to account for this effect, and I recommend that this be included in the daily discharge volume limit. The overall effect is minor however; for instance if there had been 25 mm rain (reasonably heavy rainfall event) the increase in flow would be 300 cubic metres, or about 9% of the proposed limit. 12.6 Suspended Solids & proposed new filter/clarifier The wastewater discharge comes from Pond 6, and the suspended solids concentrations largely depend on the sludge level in Pond 6 at the time. Sometimes there are large sludge banks, and subsequently poor settling. WCL stated in the AEE that it was investigating installation of a clarifier, or perhaps amending Pond 6 to improve settling. I consider that the lack of a clarifier is unusual for a large industrial site which depends on a high level of wastewater treatment, and the consequence is that an unnecessarily large load of SS, TN and BOD is discharged to the river. I have set out below the final discharge data for WCL, for the 2011-15 period, which indicates a weak link between SS and BOD. In other words, the lower the SS concentration, the lower the BOD concentration. To a large extent, this effect is due to removal of biomass from the final discharge. The relationship between SS and TN is poor, since much of the TN is in the form of ammoniacal-N which is soluble, and unlikely to be removed by better solids removal from the wastewater.

43


Figure 13 Figure 14 The AEE states that WCL intends to disinfect the treated wastewater by UV light to achieve a discharge standard of 500 cfu per 100mls, for E coli, as a median value, and 10,000 cfu per 100mls as a 90th percentile. The AEE also states that this will be achieved by installation of a clarifier and/or filtration. WCL has not stated what the SS concentration might be after clarification/filtration, but UV disinfection is not particularly effective in a biological treatment system when the SS concentration exceeds 20-30 g/m3. Fonterra Waitoa has a clarifier, and the Fonterra consent (AUTH 118414) has a discharge limit for SS of 80 g/m3, with which the clarifier easily complies. Typically, the Fonterra clarifier produces a discharge with a SS concentration less than 10 g/m3, with occasional spikes to about 35 /m3. If clarification/filtration were to occur at WCL, the final discharge would be better quality, but it is difficult to quantify this from the available data. If the SS limit was 80 g/m3, with a mean SS of about 30 g/m3, then the BOD concentration of the discharge would be possibly less than 40 g/m3 (a reduction of 50% from present values). The TN would reduce to a lesser extent. However WCL oppose a concentration limit for SS, with a strong preference for load limits. WCL proposed various SS daily load limits in the AEE, and these are set out below. Based on these proposed daily load limits, Bill Vant calculated that the discharge would cause an increase in downstream SS concentrations of about 4-8%, which he considered to be a “small adverse ecological effect in the river”. Notwithstanding this, the actual SS discharge load is likely to be lower than the consent limits most days, if WCL installs a clarifier. It is not clear why WCL needs such high load limits once the clarifier/filter is operational. For instance, when the river flow exceeds 3 cumecs, the SS concentration would 87 g/m3 (discharge volume 2300 m3/d at present) or 58 g/m3 (discharge volume 3440 m3/d). My recommendation is that the daily loads have a maximum of 200 kg SS/d for the higher river flows. Table 15: Comparison of existing and proposed SS limits

River flow, L/s Existing consent limits, kg/d SS

WCL proposed limits, kg/d SS

Staff propsoed limits, kg/d SS

1000 – 1500 57 57 57

1500 - 2000 135 129 129

2000 – 2500 230 172 172

2500 – 3000 230 215 200

>3000 230 230 200

I have considered whether a concentration limit might be beneficial in minimising adverse effects, for instance an average SS concentration of 30 g/m3. However I consider this is unnecessary, as the proposed SS load limits are generally protective of the river. At

44


maximum discharge volume of 3440 m3/d, and maximum discharge laod of 200 kg, the SS concentration would be 58 g/m3. 12.7 BOD and Dissolved Oxygen There is evidence that the Waitoa River has slight-moderate dissolved oxygen deficiencies during low flows, in that at times the dissolved oxygen saturation falls below 80%. In the river stretch from WCL to SH26, the minimum dissolved oxygen appears to be about 70% saturation, but further downstream saturation levels below 70% have been recorded in recent years. The low DO effect is most pronounced during low river flows. In February 2014 during a very dry period the Waitoa River flow was below Q5. At the time, stream monitoring recorded dissolved oxygen as low as 3ppm downstream of SH 26 bridge. WCL was not discharging into the Waitoa River at the time. The evidence indicates that diurnal cycles from plant photosynthesis/respiration are the main reason for the relatively low oxygen saturation levels, with the lowest DO about 4-5am. Excessive nutrients in the river cause this effect, even upstream of WCL. There is insufficient information at present about the extent of DO depression downstream of WCL, as a result of the wastewater discharge. There has not been any DO modelling in the Waitoa River in recent years to assess the impact of the WCL discharge (by itself or in combination with the Fonterra discharge). Previous DO modelling carried out by Fonterra in 19966 indicated that there was a DO sag in the Waitoa River downstream of SH 26 bridge, and that this sag was predominantly from WCL rather than the Fonterra Waitoa wastewater discharge. It was not clear in 1996 whether this DO sag was a result of the BOD load or from conversion of ammonia and nitrite to nitrate (ammonia consumes 4.6 part oxygen for 1 part ammonia, in converting to nitrate), or from other reasons. I consider that the river DO levels should be improved, not just maintained. This can be achieved by reducing the BOD load from WCL, and/or by reducing nutrients which contribute to excessive plant growth in the river. WCL has requested BOD discharge loads which vary according to the river flow, as set out below in the Table. Bill Vant estimated that % change in BOD downstream, as a result of these BOD loads, and concluded that “The downstream concentrations will only be moderately elevated, and seem unlikely of themselves to cause a marked depletion in downstream concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Having said that, we know that dissolved oxygen levels in the river are already moderately depleted, and the discharge is likely to further exacerbate this”. I consider that the BOD load limits proposed by WCL in the AEE are not sufficiently protective of the Waitoa River, and my recommendation is that these BOD loads reduce further by 1/4/19. I have set out a comparison of present BOD discharge loads, with those requested by WCL, and my recommendations for a 50% reduction in BOD loads by 1/4/19. The 50% reduction at low river flows is based on present BOD load limits. Table 16 BOD loads

River flow, L/s Existing consent limits, kg/d

WCL proposed limits, kg/d

WRC staff recommendation, until 31/3/19, kg/d

WRC staff recommendation, from 1/4/19, kg/d

1000 – 1500 50 35 50 25

1500 - 2000 75 55 75 45

2000 - 2500 109 75 109 65

2500 – 3000 109 90 109 75

3000 > 109 110 109 90

6 Dissolved Oxygen Modelling for Waitoa River downstream of Waitoa Dairy Factory Discharges, dated March 1996, NIWA

45


At present, WCL appears to be restricted some days as to how much wastewater is discharged to the river, in order to comply with the existing SS and BOD loads. That is, the BOD and SS limits are the limiting factor, rather than the volume limit, or limits for TN, TP, ammonia, chromium or nitrite. The graphs below from the WCL Annual Report 2013/14 demonstrate this, with the BOD and SS loads being right at the limit some days. Figure 15: SS and BOD loads discharged to Waitoa River, 2013/14 year

If the BOD load limit was decreased to 25 kg/d when the river flow is 1000 L/s, this would cause an increase in the river BOD concentration by 0.3 g/m3. Similarly, at the maximum load of 69 kg/d, the increase in river BOD is about 0.3 g/m3. I have considered whether WCL should carry out DO modelling of the Waitoa River, as required by Fonterra Waitoa under consent 118414. The proposed wording for consent 118414 is set out below: Within 18 months of the granting of this consent, undertaking a one-off survey to assess and evaluate the effects of all discharges and water abstractions on dissolved oxygen levels within the Waitoa River. The influence of the Waihekau Stream shall be included within this survey. The study shall be undertaken at a time of year to coincide with low river flows and shall include at least 6 continuous measuring devices over a period of at least 2 weeks to record the diurnal dissolved oxygen levels in order to predict the effects of all discharges and water abstraction on dissolved oxygen and the point within the Waitoa River at which the dissolved oxygen sag as a result of these activities is expected to occur. I consider that this work is unnecessary, as the % contribution of BOD to the Waitoa River by WCL is minor, compared to Fonterra Waitoa. I have set these the comparative BOD loads below in Table 17.

46


Table 17: Comparative BOD loads

River flow , L/s WCL, BOD kg/d Fonterra, BOD, kg/d

600 – 1000 0 65

1000 – 1400 25 110

1400 - 1700 45 170

1700 - 2000 65 250

2000 - 3000 75-90 300

>3000 90 300

12.8 Total Nitrogen WCL has held resource consents for a wastewater discharge to the Waitoa River since 1994. The outcome of these consent processes is that the nitrogen load discharged to the Waitoa River has increasedlimit in these consents has allowed history of these is unusual, in that the consents do not follow the usual pattern, of improvement in N loads each renewal.

Consent 930814 granted May 1994, with N limit of 125 kg/d

Consent 102751 granted May 2000 with N limit of 402 kg/d, reducing to 273 kg/d by 1/1/03.

Consent 102751 amended in 2004 to allow greater N loads at higher river flows. For the large majority of river flows when WCL discharged, the N loads became 354 or 458 kg N/d (depending on the season).

The overall effect of these consent changes was that the annual tonnage of N discharged to surface water increased steadily, in an average year, from about 22 t N/yr in 1994, to 38t N/yr in 2000, to about 49 t N/yr now. WCL has now proposed TN load limits which are lower than present consent limits, especially for low river flows, and about 15% overall. This is set out in Table 18 below. Table 18

River flow, L/s Existing consent limits, kg/d WCL proposed limits, kg/d, from 1/4/19

1000 – 1500 273 108

1500 – 2000 273 217

2000 – 2500 354 - 458* 290

2500 – 3000 354 - 458* 362

>3000 354 - 458* 432

Estimated TN annual load. assuming

180 discharge days/yr, and typical river flows

78,600 kg/yr 70,400 kg/yr

*354 kg/d in the months September to April, 458 kg/d in the months May to August

While this proposed reduction from WCL appears positive, it may not be in practice. Although the existing consent 102751 authorises a maximum discharge of about 78 tonne N per year (assuming the maximum load is discharged each day, over approximately 180 days each year, mostly in winter), the actual TN load discharged is about half that. The reason for this is that at present the discharge is restricted most days by the BOD and SS load limits, and if this bottleneck were to be removed (for instance by installing a clarifier), then it is quite possible that WCL would discharge close to the maximum TN load limit.

47


Table 19

Year Actual TN load discharged (Tonne N/yr

TN load limit as proposed by WCL

(Tonne N/yr)

2009/10 22.3 58

2010/11 50.5 73

2011/12 38.1 77

2012/13 34.3 65

2013/14 26.5 64

2014/15 20.9 51

Were WCL to fully utilise their proposed TN loads, as would be their right if granted, the actual TN loads discharged to the river and the Firth of Thames would increase from the present loads, doubling in most years. This would be a disappointing outcome, which would not be consistent with protecting the Waitoa River or the Firth of Thames water quality. Actual loads discharged in the period 2009-2015, and loads proposed by WCL, as shown in Table 19. All the water scientist technical reports (Storey, Vant, David/Jones) expressed concerns about the high nitrogen load in the Waitoa River, potential effects on the Firth of Thames, and the desirability of reducing the TN loads overall. My recommendation is that the nitrogen load limit be based on the actual loads that WCL has managed to achieve since 2009/10. Development of a consent condition which restricts the N load to that discharged in recent years has been difficult, as the actual N loads discharged have occurred for numerous reasons:

the number of days when the river flow exceeded 3000 L/s,

the efficiency of the WWTP that year

tonnage of stock/hides/renderables processed,

the absence of wet days in winter (so that the irrigation can occur as the preferred disposal option).

The presence of wet days during the summer period, preventing irrigation.

Models based on the annual rainfall and/or the river flows have been developed by WRC and PDP, but no agreement on a potential consent condition. The consent limit needs to provide flexibility for extreme wet or dry weather, and the natural variability of a wastewater treatment plant which is based on biological processes. However agreement has not been reached with WCL on the basic formula, and the actual N loads have not been agreed. The model preferred by WCL is set out below. It provides a base load of 28 tonne N/yr, plus an allowance of 0.307 t/d for each day that the Waitoa River flow exceeds 3000 L/s at the SH26 bridge flow gauge. WCL has advised that the wastewater treatment plant can reliably achieve a discharge of 307 kg N/d, based on the performance of the last five years, and that this should be the daily allowance.

TN=BL +(DL x d>5000) where TN=annual TN load limit, in tonnes per year (i.e the consent limit)

BL=base annual TN load, in tonnes per year DL=daily nitrogen load allowance, in tonnes per day d>3000=the number of days of river flow above 3000 L/s as assessed at SH26 flow gauge.

Table 20 below shows the consented N load proposed by Wallace Corporation, should WCL discharge the maximum allowable.

48


Table 20 Wallace Corporation recommendation, N loads

Year Actual load Tonne N/yr

Base limit Tonne N/yr

Days per year when river flow >3000L/s

Add 0.307 t N per day when river flow >3000 L/s

WCL-proposed Total N load, tonne/yr

2009/10 22.3 28 114 35.0 63.0

2010/11 50.5 28 130 39.9 67.9

2011/12 38.1 28 167 52.3 80.3

2012/13 34.3 28 105 32.2 60.2

2013/14 26.5 28 96 29.5 57.5

2014/15 20.9 28 72 22.1 50.1

I consider that the annual tonnages proposed by WCL are too high, compared to historic discharge loads 2009-2015. My recommendation is that the N load limit be based on a baseline of 20 tonne N/year, plus an allowance of 0.40 tonne for every day that the river flow exceeds 10 cumecs at the Mellon Rd gauge. I selected the Mellon Rd flow gauge as that is the flow gauge site preferred by WCL (see section 12.16 of this Hearing Report). This model allows for a reasonable baseline so that WCL can have some planning security for the upcoming year, but allow flexibility for a particularly wet year. This model is set out below in Table 21: Table 21 Staff recommendation N loads

Year Actual load Tonne N/yr

Base limit Tonne N/yr

Days per year when river flow>10,000 L/s

Add 0.40 t N per day when river flow >10,000 L/s.

Staff-proposed Total N load, tonne/yr

2009/10 22.3 20 53 21.2 41.2

2010/11 50.5 20 84 33.6 53.6

2011/12 38.1 20 49 19.6 39.6

2012/13 34.3 20 42 16.8 36.8

2013/14 26.5 20 20 8.0 28

2014/15 20.9 20 22 8.8 28.8

As stated earlier in this section, the above model does not achieve an improvement in the N load discharged to the Waitoa River or the Firth of Thames, it merely maintains the existing discharge loads within a reasonably tight framework, with a 5-10% contingency. This type of limit would cause some difficulty for WCL in planning for each year, as the only certainty would be the 20 tonne/yr baseline load. While there is a high certainty that the Waitoa River will exceed 10 cumecs on at least 20 days each year, it cannot be planned into the daily operations of the site; it is possible for instance that the majority of the high river flow days occur in the last few months of the monitoring year, and WCL would be in a difficult position until that wet period. The large majority of high river flows occur in the months June to November. It is likely that WCL would have to plan for at least a 20% contingency, to be sure that they would comply with the annual load. However it is important to stress that the proposed limit would have allowed WCL to comply in the last 6 years. My recommendation is that the proposed annual N load is supplemented by the daily N loads requested by WCL in the AEE, to enable flexibility in how WCL manages its wastewater treatment system day by day. However, the annual tonnage should prevail overall. The loads proposed by WCL in the AEE for various river flows are:

1000 – 1500 L/s, 108 kg N/d

1500 – 2000 L/s, 217 kg N/d

2000 - 2500 L/s, 290 kg N/d

2500 – 3000 L/s, 362 kg N/d

>3000 L/s, 432 kg N/d.

49


If WCL installs better solids removal, then the TN load may be reduced slightly, through removal of biomass from the wastewater. At present about 75-85% of the TN is in the form of ammoniacal-N, which is soluble and unlikely to be affected by the presence of a clarifier. At other meat processing sites with extensive anaerobic digestion, and which have an efficient clarifier, the ammoniacal-N concentration tends to be closer to 90% of the TN concentration. Further decrease While a reduction in N loads would be ideal, there would undoubtedly be a large cost to this for WCL, for minimal benefit to the environment. WCL’s contribution to the TN load in the Firth of Thames is about 1% of the total load, and near-field effects immediately downstream of WCL in the Waitoa River are only moderate. There is ample evidence that the N & P concentration in the Waitoa River exceeds levels which might restrict aquatic plant growth. A mitigating factor is that there is minimal discharge to the river during the summer growth period (1 December to 30 April). WCL has requested a 25 year term for the river discharge. In section 16 of this Hearing Report I propose a slightly lesser term (20 years). Nevertheless both proposed terms are long, and it is view is that there is a clear public expectation that river quality improves in that time. Submitters DOC, Fish & Game and Mr S Carter also have expressed the view that there should be an improvement in the river quality. My recommendation is that the N load limit be reduced by 5 t/yr from 2024, by reducing the baseload to 15 tonne/year. 12.9 Ammonia WCL has requested ammonia discharge loads based on the Waitoa River flow, starting at 40 kg/d when the river flow exceeds 1000 L/s, up to 221 kg/d when the river flow exceeds 3000 L/s. At all river flow bands, the new ammonia loads proposed by WCL are less than those presently consented, by about 10% on average. These limits proposed by WCL are set out below, compared to the existing consented loads.

Table 22 Ammonia load limits

River flow L/s Existing daily loads, until 30/3/19

Proposed daily loads, from 1/4/19

1000 - 1500 43 40

1500 – 2000 113 110

2000 – 2500 185 147

2500 - 3000 185 184

>3000 221 221

>4000 272 221

>5000 327 221

>6000 373 221

Initially, in August 2014, B Vant recommended that the in-river fully mixed ammonia concentration not exceed 0.88 g/m3, and this would be achieved by the WCL-proposed daily loads. At the lowest river flow of 1000 L/s, the downstream ammonia concentration would be about 0.45 g/m3, but for most river flow rates the downstream ammonia concentration would be about 0.7- 0.85 g/m3. Upstream of WCL, the ammonia concentration is typically 0.01 g/m3 but occasionally is up to 0.06 g/m3. The AEE states in Table 25, p79, that “The limits to mass loads (for ammonia) have been set to prevent exceedance of 0.88 mg/L in the receiving environment. The mass limits are proposed at levels of what is economically achievable given the proposed system upgrades, and the desire to minimise the discharge’s impact on the Waitoa River”. It is not clear how WCL will manage these proposed ammonia load limits. At the maximum proposed discharge volume of 3440 m3/d and the existing mean ammonia concentration of

50


the treated wastewater (134 g/m3), the daily ammonia load would be 308 kg/d. This is more than twice the ammonia load proposed by WCL for the highest river flow, and therefore on many days the company will have to reduce the daily volume, or reduce the ammonia concentration in the final wastewater, to meet the proposed consent limits. B Vant recommended in October 2015 (see Appendix 8B) that the in-river ammonia standard be more closely aligned to the National Policy Statement for Fresh Water 2014 (NPS-FW 2014). The NPS-Fresh Water 2014 states that ammonia concentrations for Attribute State B waters should not exceed 0.24 g/m3 ammoniacal-N as an annual median, and 0.40 g/m3 as an annual maximum. Attribute State B is described as 95% species protection level, which is the level that Council staff consider should be the level of protection for the Waitoa River, and which has been agreed by WCL. Mr Vant’s advice is based on the 2014 NIWA report for Ministry for the Environment. His advice now is: “I consider that this update of the information on ammonia toxicity should be borne in mind when assessing the effects of the proposed discharge of meatworks wastewater to the Waitoa River. It is now clear that the adverse effects of ammoniacal-N begin to occur at substantially lower concentrations than those I mention in my August 2014 memo. In particular, most of the calculated “worst case” downstream concentrations of ammoniacal-N in my Table 1 exceed the maximum concentration for “state B (95% protection of species)” in the NPS-FW (namely 0.40 mg N/L). Achieving the revised, lower guideline values for ammoniacal-N in the Waitoa River would require a substantial reduction in the loads of ammoniacal-N that are proposed to be discharged—often at least a halving of the proposed load (e.g. from 110 kg/day to 50 kg/day for a river flow of 1.5 m3/s)”. It is important to note that the NPS-FW 2014 Attribute States for ammonia are effective at present; actual ammonia concentrations are to be set by WRC after hearing public submissions, and amendment of the Regional Plan. The Council timetable is to achieve a Proposed Regional Plan by 2018, and an effective Regional Plan by 2025. There is no Council policy at this time to indicate what Attribute State is desirable for the Waitoa River. Nevertheless the technical advice from Dr Hickey and B Vant remains the same – that a river ammoniacal-N concentration of 0.88 g/m3 is not sufficiently protective if the river is to have a 95% protection status. My recommendation is that the ammonia loads proposed by WCL in Table 22 are granted, to take effect from 1st April 2019. WCL will require time to improve their wastewater treatment system. I have no recommendation on whether or not to reduce the in-river ammonia concentration further than 0.88 g/m3. The cost to WCL may be significant as it will require a major upgrade of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The consent includes a standard section 128 RMA Review condition, where Council may review discharge limits every three years, “to take into account any National Environmental Standard, National Policy Statement or Waikato Regional Plan which have become operational or effective since the granting of this consent”. 12.10 Phosphorus The WCL discharge causes a significant increase in phosphorus concentrations in the river. Bill Vant noted that the increases will be about 100% at higher river flows, and about 800% at lower river flows, and commented that “It seems likely that increases of this magnitude will have a market effect on downstream ecosystems. The discharge will also add to the cumulative nutrient enrichment of the Firth of Thames”. The actual contribution to the P load in the Firth of Thames is about 1-2% at present, and if the P load limit requested by WCL (55 kg/d) is granted, then the potential annual load is about 3%. Consent 102751 authorises a discharge of up to 55 kg P/d, but in practice the P load averages about 15 kg/d over a year, as shown below in the graph from the WCL Annual

51


Report 2013-14. At an average discharge load of 15 kg/d, the river TP concentrations increases from about 0.1 g/m3 to about 0.2 g/m3. At the maximum load requested by WCL of 55 kg/d, this would increase the TP concentration to 0.4 g/m3. This would be a substantial increase in the river phosphorus levels. Figure 16

A mitigating factor is that there is minimal discharge to the river during the summer growth period (1 December to 30 April). My recommendation is:

Until 31 March 2019 the total phosphorus load shall not exceed 55 kilograms in any 24 hour period.

From 1 April 2019 the total phosphorus load shall not exceed 6 kilograms per day, as an average over the period 1 December to 30 April.

From 1 April 2019 the total phosphorus shall not exceed 30 kilograms per day, as an average over the period 1 May to 30 November.

The Total phosphorus loads shall be discharged as evenly as possible over that 24 hour period.

Based on the last six years discharge data, the present WCL discharge will be able to comply with these TP limits, and I have set out the actual discharge loads below, based on data from the Annual Reports. Table 23 Total Phosphorus loads discharged to the River

Year Summer load, kg/d, as an average over the 152

days

Winter load, kg/d, as an average over the

213 days

2009/10 2.4 20.3

2010/11 5.7 24.6

2011/12 5.7 24.8

2012/13 0.2 27.0

2013/14 0.2 19.8

2014/15 0.7 4.2

In the worst winter season (2011/12), the average P load discharged was 24.8 kg/d, and in the worst summer season 2011/12 the average was 5.7 kg/d. If the company expands operations, it may have to improve the phosphorus removal rate. 12.11 Chromium WCL has requested a total chromium load limit of 1.5 kg/d, which is a slight reduction from the existing consent limit of 2.0 kg/d. My recommendation is that the chromium load limit is

52


substantially lower than 1.5 kg/d, given that WCL seldom exceeds 0.5 kg/d in practice. The graph below shows the discharge loads in the 2013-14 year. Figure 17

In the 2012/13 year the maximum Cr load discharged was 1.8 kg/d, but this was at a time when there was non-compliance by WCL for the major limits – daily volume, TN, TP, BOD, and SS. In the 2011/12 year the maximum discharge load was 0.9 kg/d. My recommendation is that the new chromium load limit is 1.0 kg/d, with which WCL is capable of complying. A clarifier with a performance standard of 30 g/m3 average will assist in meeting this Cr limit. 12.12 Sulphide, nitrite The treated wastewater contains variable concentrations of nitrite, and sulphide, both of which can be toxic to aquatic biota. Sulphide Sulphide is present in the wastewater in several forms, as hydrogen sulphide, organic sulphide, and metallic sulphide. The standard lab test is for total sulphides. In water, each of these types of compounds dissociates into ionised sulphide, and un-ionised sulphide. Only the un-ionised sulphide is highly toxic to aquatic life, with the other sulphide forms being much less toxic. The ANZECC Guidelines 2000 recommend a trigger value of 0.001 g/m3 expressed as hydrogen sulphide (i.e the un-ionised form). There is a paucity of information about the upstream sulphide concentration. WCL tests in 2009 indicated 0.002 g/m3 as a total sulphide. WCL has requested a renewal of the existing limits in consent 102751, of 0.001 g/m3 in-stream un-ionised sulphide. Under consent 102751, compliance is to be assessed by testing total sulphide in the discharge, estimating the dilution in the river, and assuming that the un-ionised sulphide is 10% of the total sulphide concentration. This factor is derived from a section 127 change to consent 102751 in 2004, when WCL provided information suggesting that the “10% ratio is based on the known forms of sulphide in the effluent and the pH ranges in the river. At any one time, under worse case scenario conditions, no more than 10% of the sulphide in the effluent is likely to be in the toxic form”. I am not convinced that that a standard “10%” ratio should apply. The ANZECC Guidelines 2000 provide a table (8.3.9) of estimated percentages of un-ionised sulphide in water which is reproduced below. This table assumes that the total sulphide in the water is freely dissociatable, i.e is a salt like sodium sulphide.

53


Table 23 Sulphide

WCL monthly monitoring of the Waitoa River at Landsdowne Rd and Mellon Rd indicates that the river pH can be as low as 6.8, with a river temperature as low as 11o Celsius. From this, it is possible that the un-ionised percentage could be as high as 70%. The AEE estimates that the un-ionised percentage could be as high as 57%, based on a temperature of 12.5oC and pH of 7. My recommendation is that the existing consent condition be granted, that the un-ionised sulphide concentration downstream of WCL not exceed 0.001 g/m3. However the existing assumption that the un-ionised sulphide is 10% of the total sulphide is not supportable. My recommendation is that WCL estimate the un-ionised % by measuring the pH and temperature of the river. Nitrite Nitrite is sometimes present in the final wastewater, as a result of biological conversion from ammonia. In the last few years the maximum concentration has been 0.2 g/m3, however it has been much higher, reaching 36 g/m3 in 1999. Nitrite is a relatively toxic contaminant in freshwater, and the USEPA 1986 recommends that the concentration not exceed 0.06 g/m3 to protect aquatic biota particularly cold water fish such as salmonids. The toxicity of nitrite for native fish species is unknown, but assumed to be similar to salmonids as has been found for ammonium. Nitrite is rapidly oxidised to stable nitrate, and is considered to be of short-term concern only in the river. However in converting to nitrate, oxygen is consumed. As dissolved oxygen is already a key issue for the Waitoa River quality, limiting nitrite would seem to be of high importance. Using USEPA criteria, the effective allowable discharge load at various river flows would be: 5.2 kg/d for river flows of 1000 L/s to 2000 L/s, 10.4 kg/d for river flows above 2000 L/s, and 15.6 kg/d for river flows above 3000 L/s. The above nitrite load limits (expressed as nitrite-N) were granted in 2000, and WCL has requested a renewal of the same loads. I concur with this, and expect that WCL would be able to easily achieve compliance with the recommended discharge limits. 12.13 Other contaminants There are no other known contaminants in the treated wastewater which are likely to cause adverse effects in the Waitoa River. The recorded adverse effects in the Waitoa River downstream of WCL can be ascribed to the known contaminants, particularly BOD, ammonia, and nutrients. Should there be contaminants detected in the future, which are assumed to be causing more than minor adverse effects, then WRC has the ability under section 128 RMA to rectify the situation. The wastewater is salty (up to about 900 mS/m) compared to the Waitoa River (about 16 mS/m upstream) and the WCL and Fonterra discharges increase the river conductivity to about 35 mS/m at times. Nevertheless no adverse effects have been attributed to this

54


change, and some Waikato lowland rivers have several times this conductivity for natural reasons. 12.14 E coli, pathogens In the 2013-14 year the final wastewater had an E coli concentration of 18,000 cfu per 100mls (median), 59,400 (90th percentile) and a maximum of 156,000 cfu per 100mls. As a worst case scenario in summer, where the river flow is 2000 L/s, the proposed discharge rate is 45 L/s (i.e 44x dilution), with an E coli concentration of about 60,000, the estimated increase in E coli downstream will be about 1360 cfu/100mls. WCL recognises that this scenario is untenable, and has offered to install UV disinfection of the final wastewater, to achieve a median E coli concentration (cfu per 100mls) of 500, and a 90th percentile of 10,000 cfu per 100mls. Bill Vant estimated the effect of the disinfected water on the Waitoa River, and considered that the WCL discharge “will have little additional effect on the concentrations in the river (because the concentrations in the discharge will be similar to those in the river)”. Upstream median E coli concentrations are about 600-650 cfu/100mls at present, using long term data, but occasionally are lower (2013 & 2014 years: medians of 375 & 325 cfu/100mls respectively). The Waitoa River has a WRP classification of Contact Recreation, where the standard is a median E coli of at least 7 samples in 1st December to 1st March season, in dry weather conditions not to exceed 126 E coli, and a single sample max <235 E coli. The Waitoa River seldom achieves this standard at present, as the water quality graphs in section 6.1 of this report indicate. Figure 7 of this Hearing Report (page 22) indicates a gradual improvement in E coli levels in the Waitoa River, but it may be several decades before E coli levels upstream of WCL meet contact recreation standards. The E coli standard for the winter months is not defined in the WRP. My understanding is that there is minimal contact recreation in the Waitoa River between Landsdown Rd and Mellon Rd in summer – the river has dense weed mats in places, few swimming holes, and minimal public access. However there is some public use of the river, such as eel fishing, wading and kayaking. Some swimming is likely to occur in summer. Fish & Game NZ advises that during the months of May and June, there is hunting on flood plain wetlands immediately downstream of the WCL discharge. Presumably this is mostly wading, but Fish & Game NZ advises that there is some primary water contact. As guidance, the NPS-Freshwater 2014 proposes a “wading” standard for “contact with water during activities with occasional immersion and some ingestion of water (such as wading and boating)”. The standard for Attribute State B waters would be 260 – 540 E coli/100mls as an annual median, depending on the risk of infection (1% or 5%). It must be noted that the NPS-FW2014 E coli standard does not apply to the Waitoa River at present. The NPS-FW 2014 states that the “National Bottom Line” for wading activities is 1000 E coli , as an annual median. The Waitoa River does achieve this standard. I consider the Waitoa River water quality to be degraded in terms of its suitability for contact recreation under the Water Classification. The WRP policy for water quality is to enhance water where it is degraded (i.e. where it does not meet the relevant water classification standards set out in the WRP), see Section 15.3 of this Hearing Report, pages 68-69. The WCL proposal will maintain existing water quality (for E coli) in the winter period, but will not maintain it in the summer period. My recommendation to the Hearing panel is that the E coli limits be set at:

Summer period (1 December to 1 March): A median of 300 and a 95th percentile of 1000.

Winter period (2 March to 30 November): A median of 500 and a 95th percentile of 10,000.

55


The above recommendations differ from the WCL-proposed limits, in particular in using a 95th percentile rather than a 90th percentile for the upper limit, and having a lower limit for summer. As a precaution, I recommend that a Section 128 Review condition be included in the river discharge consent, to enable the E coli discharge quality to be reduced further, if there is evidence that the upstream E coli concentration falls significantly in the future. I consider that an appropriate trigger would be if the upstream annual median E coli concentration falls below 300 cfu/100mls for two consecutive years. The WCL wastewater is extensively treated through anerobic ponds, and there is no reason to consider than pathogens of concern such as Giardia, Cryptosporidium, Salmonella, Brucellosis or retroviruses are likely to be present. Human waste does not enter the wastewater treatment system. 12.15 Turbidity and colour, oils, scums, foams The discharge appears to have minimal effect on the Waitoa River. This is predictable, as the SS concentration is typically about 200 g/m3 at present, and when diluted about 60x (maximum consented flow rate at present is 30L/s, typically when the river flow exceeds 2000 L/s) the cumulative effect in the river would be an increase of about 3 g/m3 SS. River effects monitoring have shown a much smaller change. The downstream changes in turbidity are also minor. The discharge has a light brown colour, and theoretically after mixing would have a less than minor effect on the river colour. I am not aware of any effects monitoring of colour being carried out by WCL or WRC in recent years. The wastewater does not contain any visible oils, and none are produced after mixing in the river. There can be minor scums or foams produced during mixing of the wastewater with the river, but these rapidly disperse. 12.16 Proposed river monitoring The AEE including proposed river effects monitoring (Appendix E1, p12-13), and recommendations were made by Dr R Storey, Dr B David, B Coffey, and B Vant regarding various aspects of the river monitoring. WCL modified its proposed river monitoring in August 2014 (“Responses to WRC questions”, wrcdoc3145481). I have considered these recommendations, along with the likely future requirements of the NPS-FW 2014 (especially dissolved oxygen and temperature monitoring in summer), as well as the relevant downriver monitoring requirements for Fonterra Waitoa (consent 118414 granted February 2015). My recommended river monitoring conditions are set out in Appendix 5 to this Hearing Report, and as set out below:

In the months of January to April inclusive, the consent holder shall continuously monitor the Waitoa River at a location between 60m and 100m downstream of the treated wastewater discharge point, and at a location between 10m and100m upstream of the water abstraction point, and shall test for temperature (degrees Celsius) and dissolved oxygen (% saturation). For the purpose of this condition, continuous means a test result every 15 minutes.

The consent holder shall record the discharge flow rate (litres per second) on a continuous basis, the total daily volume of the discharge (cubic metres per 24 hours), and the estimated flow of the Waitoa River at the consent holder’s site (litres per second).

56


In terms of determining compliance with conditions 12 to 16, the Waitoa River flow at the consent holder’s site shall be estimated from the Mellon Rd flow gauge. At least once per year, the consent holder shall commission an independent person with expertise in flow gauging to estimate the flow of the Waitoa River at the consent holder’s site, and at the flow gauge site, and shall use the ratio of the two river sites to determine the flow at any time at the consent holders site. If the consent holder receives written advice from the Waikato Regional Council that the established ratio may no longer be valid, then the consent holder shall commission a new flow gauging of the Waitoa River at the consent holders site within one month of receiving such advice.

The consent holder shall carry out Waitoa River effects monitoring every third year, starting in 2016, at a time when there is a wastewater discharge to the river. Sampling shall be carried out at two locations upstream of the site, and four locations downstream, these six locations being those identified within the AEE, Appendix E1, Figure 2 (“Proposed biological and water quality sampling sites”) prepared by Pattle Delamore Partners Limited, November 2013.

o At all six sites the river quality shall be tested for temperature, conductivity, Total

Chromium, BOD5, Suspended Solids, turbidity, E coli, pH, ammoniacal-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen, TKN, dissolved reactive phosphorus, total phosphorus, and dissolved oxygen. The above parameters shall be sampled by grab sample, with the exception of the dissolved oxygen which shall be a 24 hour survey. The wastewater discharge at the time of the survey shall also be tested for the same parameters.

o At all six sites the river biota shall be tested for macro-invertebrates (Average Taxa

Richness, MCI, QMCI and Average MPT Index), for periphyton and macrophytes.

o The effects monitoring shall be carried out when the river flow is less than 2500 Litres per second, and when there has been a treated wastewater discharge for at least four days continuously.

o In the years 2019 and 2025 the river effects monitoring shall include a fish survey at

each of the six sites. I have considered whether WCL should carry out a dissolved oxygen survey downstream, similar to the Fonterra Waitoa requirement in consent 118414 which is set out below:

“Within 18 months of the granting of this consent, undertaking a one-off survey to assess and evaluate the effects of all discharges and water abstractions on dissolved oxygen levels within the Waitoa River. The influence of the Waihekau Stream shall be included within this survey. The study shall be undertaken at a time of year to coincide with low river flows and shall include at least 6 continuous measuring devices over a period of at least 2 weeks to record the diurnal dissolved oxygen levels in order to predict the effects of all discharges and water abstraction on dissolved oxygen and the point within the Waitoa River at which the dissolved oxygen sag as a result of these activities is expected to occur.”

However I consider that this is not necessary, as WCL’s BOD load is much smaller than that of Fonterra Waitoa, especially in summer, and the DO survey needs to be undertaken during low flows when the river is most stressed; this would be at a time when there would be no river discharge from WCL. I consider that effects monitoring every third year when the river flow is low, preferably late summer, should be undertaken. The purpose of this testing is to determine the effect of the wastewater irrigation (from seepage or re-emergence of contaminated groundwater). Key factors for this effects monitoring should be:

57


No wastewater discharge to the river for at least a week beforehand;

River flow less than 1000 L/s (at the WCL site);

Six river sampling sites (same as the main river effects monitoring above);

Two additional sites in the “Board Drain”, to identify farm seepage effects;

Any other known discharge from the site during the survey (for instance cooling water);

Testing for temperature, conductivity, BOD5, E coli, pH, ammoniacal-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen, TKN, dissolved reactive phosphorus, total phosphorus, sodium and chloride. The above parameters shall be sampled by grab sample.

12.17 Mitigation – wetland & riparian zone. As mitigation for the river effects, WCL proposes to continue its riparian planting scheme which has been underway for many years. The riparian scheme is described in the AEE, Appendix E4, and was updated in August 2014 (wrcdoc#3145473, #3145580) and in November 2014 (Wrcdoc#3231205). The aim of the WCL riparian planting scheme is to:

Restore the remnant kahikatea forest and swamp areas.

Provide habitat for wildfowl and wetland plants/animals.

Increase diversity of native species on the floodplain and river margins.

Decrease nutrients moving to surface waters.

Improved bank stability and shading. Prior to 2011 the riparian planting (required by existing consent 102751) was sporadic and not well maintained. A 2011 review by WCL identified a need for ongoing maintenance of plantings, and identified new areas on the Waitoa River floodplain which would benefit from riparian planting. Prior to 2011, the planting scheme was minor, and according to WCL “averaged around 100-200 plants per year”. However the planting has accelerated since then, and according to WCL is now “some 10,000 trees and shrubs”. More recently, WCL has been working with the local community and Tatuanui School to facilitate riparian planting, under its “Ruru Programme” which is the new name for its riparian planting scheme. The “Ruru Programme” is based on a series of 5 year programmes, with the present programme covering 2012-2016. The “Riparian Management Plan 2013” (doc#3145473) provides a guide to the proposed planting within the present 5 year programme, with approved budgets of $20,700, $27,500 and $51,600 in the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. A budget for 2015 and 2016 has not been provided to WRC. One of the larger components of the floodplain restoration is development of a 2 ha area near the WCL factory, from semi-dry floodplain paddocks into a semi-permanent wetland. The work would include construction of a small bund to retain water. A resource consent would probably be required for this work, under Rule 3.6.4.13 of the WRP (Discretioanry Activity – stopbanks, diversions and any associated discharges of water). The planting activity is a Permitted Activity under Rule 4.3.8.1 of the WRP, “for the purposes of soil conservation or streamside enhancement”. It is difficult to evaluate such riparian planting programmes, in terms of how much it mitigates the effects of the wastewater discharge. This task is made more difficult because the WCL riparian plan is vague about the scope of its future plans, after the end of the first 5-year programme. There was considerable debate between Fonterra, WRC and submitters during renewal of the Fonterra Waitoa river discharge consent (118414), about the nature and scope of riparian mitigation. The eventual outcome agreed by all parties was a well defined plan, spanning 24 years, for the riparian improvement of the Waitoa River downstream of the factory. The costing for this work was $379,000.

58


I consider that the WCL riparian scheme should be of similar size, given that the contaminant loads discharged by WCL and Fonterra are similar overall. Dr Marie Brown has published information recently about compliance with resource consents, with respect to ecological compensation conditions. Her research indicated poor compliance at times, and a need for consent authorities to grant clear conditions, with clear targets, and to enforce them. At present I consider that a consent condition which merely references the WCL riparian plan would not meet this above criteria. The WCL riparian scheme should have a better defined work programme, with specific costs assigned for planting, fencing, and pest control (plant and animal), similar to that prepared for Fonterra Waitoa. I have drafted a riparian planting condition to this effect. 12.18 Flow gauge location - SH26 bridge or Mellon Rd bridge.

The recommended conditions for the river discharge consent include many load limits based on river flow. It is critical that WCL has access to reliable information about the river flow. At present WCL does not have a river flow gauge at its site, and relies on a flow gauge at SH26 bridge. For the purposes of the existing consents, the river flow at SH26 bridge is assumed to be the same at WCL, with no reduction in flow. There has been discussion between WCL and WRC on the most suitable site for a flow gauge, with the two main options being SH26 bridge, and Mellon Rd. The Mellon Rd flow gauge is operated and maintained by WRC, and the flow data can be accessed via the WRC website at any time. The regular gauging also provides reliability in the flow data. On the other hand, the Mellon Rd flow gauge site is about 20km (river distance) from WCL, and the Waihekau and Waiwhero Streams enter the Waitoa River in between. The general ratio between river flows at WCL and Mellon Rd has been established over many years, and is approximately 0.69 (basically 3.5 cumecs at WCL is 5 cumecs at Mellon Rd), but is not particularly exact day-by-day. WCL has requested that the river flow be assessed using the Mellon Rd flow gauge, their reasons being that the regular maintenance of the Mellon Rd flow gauge and easy acces of flow data. In contrast the SH26 gauge is likely to be more accurate in assessing flows at WCL but there have been occasional difficulties in the accuracy of the gauge. Fonterra Waitoa use the SH26 flow gauge for their consent monitoring, and presumably there could be a cost-sharing agreement between WCL and Fonterra for maintenance of the SH26 flow gauge. My recommendation is that WCL continue to base river flows on the Mellon Rd flow gauge. In terms of the nitrogen load limit, I have recommended an annual load limit, plus an allowance for each day that the river flow exceeds 10 cumecs, as measured at the Mellon Rd flow gauge. 12.19 Response to submitters concerns Department of Conservation (DOC): DOC submitted that the proposed WCL water take and river discharges (cooling water, wastewater) were such that “the effects of the increased discharge are likely to be more than minor and that further treatment of wastewater is necessary”. DOC noted that most of the remedial actions proposed by WCL relate to avoiding or reducing the magnitude of the effects of discharge, but had concerns that “There is minimal, or for some effects no, actions proposed to offset or compensate for residual adverse effects. The proposed revegetation (Appendix 4 of the AEE –riparian plan) is not directly targeted at compensating

59


for the effects of the discharge and appears to rely on third party contributions rather than being accepted as a responsibility of the applicant.” DOC was a submitter to the Fonterra Waitoa applications, and had expressed similar concerns for both consent applications. For the Fonterra applications, agreement was reached between all parties, which included extensive riparian planting, see section 12.17 of this Hearing Report. I agree with DOC that there should be a similar riparian scheme undertaken by WCL. DOC expressed concern that the cumulative effects on the Waitoa River from wastewater irrigation, mostly from discharge of shallow groundwater, may not have been acknowledged by WCL. I have considered this matter is sections 11.4 & 11.7 of this report, and concluded that, while there appear to be N losses of perhaps 9 tonne/yr to the river from the irrigation, actual losses may be much smaller - the river surveys (carried out when there was no river discharge) indicate that environmental effects on the Waitoa River from irrigation are minor. For the surface water take, WCL amended its application in October 2014 so that there would be no increase in the net surface water take. Fish & Game NZ, Auckland/Waikato Region (F&G) F&G had similar concerns to DOC, particularly with the need for a detailed mitigation plan to compensate for the residual effects of the discharge. F&G also submitted that there needed to be targeted reductions in nutrient loads. Subsequent to making its submission, F&G commented to WRC that they held concerns about the lack of E coli limits proposed in the transition period between granting the river discharge consent, and the proposed imposition of AE coli limits in 1/4/19. F&G also commented that hunters used the river flooplains in May and June, and would be in contact with river water. The proposed conditions include the requirement for a substantial riparian planting scheme, similar in size to the Fonterra Waitoa planting programme. The proposed conditions do not include reductions in P loads, and only a minor decrease in N loads from 1/4/2024. Compared to the present consent limits, this represents a large reduction in nutrients, but it must be stressed that WCL has not been discharging the maximum allowable loads for some years. Shane Carter Mr Carter expressed concerns about the increased surface water take, the increase in wastewater volume to be irrigated onto land, and the increase in wastewater volume discharged to the river. For the surface water take, WCL amended the application so that there would be no overall change in the present net take. For the land irrigation, there may be a higher total hydraulic load, however the daily depth limit remains the same as the present consent limits. More importantly, WCL will have to find ways to better manage the farms and the irrigation, in order to reduce the nitrogen leaching rate to at least 60 kg N/ha/yr from 1/4/19. This is a significant reduction from the present 80-90 kg N/ha/yr. For the wastewater discharge consent, the increase in discharge volume is not the main concern to Council - it is the contaminant loads which determine river effects. In this regard, WCL has offered to reduce the SS and BOD loads, and the N & P loads will remain unchanged.

60


Waikato District Health Board (WDHB) The WDHB acknowledged the reduction in E coli concentrations in the wastewater proposed by WCL (E coli median of 500 cfu per 100mls) but commented that further treatment would be required to meet the WRC contact recreation limit of 126 cfu/100mls as a median during the contact recreation season. I agree with this, and have recommended that the final discharge standard should be a median of 100 cfu/100mls in the summer months (December - February). WDHB also submitted that nutrient levels should be reduced, in part to prevent cyanobacterial blooms. Bill Vant has advised that cyanobacterial blooms are most unlikely to occur in the Waitoa River; the blooms typically occur in lakes or hydro-dams where water is not free flowing. In addition, high levels of nutrients are not considered to be the primary cause of cyanobacterial blooms, which can occur in very low nutrient systems. Fonterra Waitoa: While not a submitter, Fonterra Waitoa provided a written approval for renewal of site consents, provided that the river discharge consent included provision for prompt warning, in the event that there was a spill to the river from WCL. The draft conditions include spill contingency measures, including prompt warning of Fonterra Waitoa. I have used the wording of the NES (Sources of Human Drinking Water( Regulations 2007, C12(3). NES C12(3) The condition must require the consent holder to notify, as soon as

reasonably practicable, the registered drinking-water supply operators concerned and the consent authority, if an event of the type described in subclause (1) occurs that may have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the water at the abstraction point.

12.20 Indirect discharge to the Waitoa River, via seepage from the wastewater treatment system.

The AEE, s92 Response, and subsequent technical responses from WCL or PDP did not include any comment on potential seepages from the wastewater treatment system, and WCL has not made a specific application for this activity. River effects monitoring, at times when there is no direct discharge from the wastewater system, indicates that seepages to the river from the irrigation and/or the wastewater treatment system, may be relatively minor. In the absence of any reliable evidence that the pond seepage is de minimus, I consider that the pond seepage should be authorised, and expressly included in the river discharge consent. Under the Regional Plan, a discharge of a contaminant into water, or onto or into land, in circumstances which may result in that contaminant entering watering, is a Discretionary Activity (Rule 3.5.4.5).

WCL has advised (22/10/15) that: The wastewater treatment system at Wallace Corporation Waitoa site is a series of clay-lined ponds, except for the newly constructed covered anaerobic lagoon which is HDPE lined. The clay-lined ponds have been operating for a number of years and there has been no report of significant loss from the ponds as a result of seepage into the ground. Previous studies for dairy shed ponds indicate that after a long-term use of the ponds to hold wastewater, the mechanisms for natural pond sealing would have reduced any initial seepage rates to a minimum. Based on no previous actual field permeability and compaction information, a conservative estimate of the amount of seepage is based on the clay liner at 2 x 10-9 m/s with a hydraulic gradient of 10 is utilised to determine potential seepage loss. The surface area of the clay-lined ponds is estimated at 10,000 m2 and as such the maximum rate of seepage would be around 18 m3/d.

61


My recommendation is that the activity be included in the river discharge consent, as authorising an indirect discharge of wastewater to the Waitoa River.

In the event that any treatment pond is renovated for any reason, the pond should be lined to WRC guidelines. “Renovated” in this situation means completely emptied, where it would be possible to remove contaminated clay liner if present, and construct a new liner on top. The WRC guideline is a permeability of no more than 1 x 10-9 m/s, and in accordance with IPENZ Practice Note 21 (Dairy Farm Effluent Pond Design and Construction). Almost all wastewater ponds being installed in recent years have synthetic liners, often HDPE.

13 Effects of cooling water discharge

There is a reasonable assessment of effects in the AEE (Section 17, pp185-191; Appendix F1) as well as additional comments from WCL/PDP in their August 2014 response. WRC science staff and NIWA have also provided comments on the cooling water discharge effects (B David, B Vant, R Storey). The application was amended late 2014, by augmenting the cooling water volume (still a maximum of 6480 m3/d) with up to 3440 m3/d groundwater. The groundwater take (AUTH127279, granted in April 2015) allows a maximum net take in any 24 hour period and maximum net take in any year of 3440 cubic metres and 912,500 cubic metres, respectively, to augment the cooling water discharge. The augmentation of the volume of cooling water discharged to the Waitoa River will provide the applicant with the means to reduce the net take surface water allocation ‘footprint’ of its industrial site. This should be beneficial for the applicant in terms of managing site demand shortfall during periods of surface water shortage conditions and providing for an increased water requirement associated with growth at the site. In addition, the groundwater is cooler than the surface water during the summer period, and significantly cooler than the cooling water.

WCL has not provided Council with an update on how significant this groundwater cooling might be, and the following discussion is based on the AEE 2013. The key effect arising from the cooling water discharge is the increase in temperature of the Waitoa River in summer. There are direct adverse effects on river biota if river temperatures exceed 25oC. Schedule 3 of the RMA sets out standards for water bodies being managed for fishery purposes (Class F), which state that the natural temperature of the water shall not be changed by more than 3oC and shall not exceed 25oC. WCL agrees that this is the appropriate temperature standard for the Waitoa River. There is good agreement between WCL, PDP, WRC and NIWA that during some summers (perhaps 1 in 3) the Waitoa River temperature upstream of the cooling water discharge reaches 25oC, and that the cooling water probably increases the downstream temperature by a further 1-2oC. An increase in river temperature has an associated effect of decreasing oxygen solubility in the river. During low river flows, and high day time temperatures, WCL estimate that the dissolved oxygen level decreases by about 0.7 g/m3. Schedule 3 RMA also requires that the concentration of dissolved oxygen shall exceed 80% of saturation concentration, which WCL considers is the appropriate standard for the Waitoa River. At present, the Waitoa River downstream at Mellon Rd has an unsatisfactory DO levels, with an annual mean of 75% saturation. There is evidence that at times the DO saturation is as low as 50%. There is acceptance by WCL that the existing passive cooling ponds are not adequate, and the company proposes the following:

Short term: Installation of a sprinkler system in the cooling ponds, to improve heat loss.

62


Medium term: Installation of cooling towers, and recirculation of cooling water, or perhaps heat exchange within the wastewater treatment system.

It is not clear whether the addition of groundwater to the cooling water will be sufficient to negate the need for the above measures. No timeframes have been proposed by WCL for these mitigation measures. WCL propose a consent condition requiring a “cooling water management plan” which would “prompt WCL to demonstrate ...how cooling water discharges will be managed such that the water temperature of the Waitoa River will not be raised by more than 3 degrees Celsius above the ambient temperature, as measured at a point no less than 10 metres upstream of the discharge, or above 25 degrees Celsius at a point 50 metres or more beyond the point of discharge”. I have included a condition to this effect, with a Cooling Water Management Plan to be provided to Council within one year of granting. I consider that there is an urgency to improve DO levels in the Waitoa River. Although the cooling water effects are not the primary cause of the low DO, it is a factor which can be improved by relatively simple mechanical means. I consider that WCL should implement standard practices to cool the cooling water, so that there is no adverse effect on the river from the cooling water. According to AEE (Appendix F1) the current cooling water ponds are not able to reduce cooling water temperatures in the future scenario (discharge volume of 6480 m3/d) sufficiently to reliably prevent a 3oC increase in river temperature. The predicted river temperature rise is 3.5oC. From this, whenever the river temperature is about 21.5oC or more, the cooling water would cause the river temperature to exceed 25oC. The survey carried out by WCL of Waitoa River temperatures in January-February 2014 (see Figure 2, Responses to WRC Expert Panel Questions, dated 22/8/14) shows that the river temperature exceeded 21.5oC many days that summer. WCL also accepts that there must be improved monitoring of the cooling water discharge, and its effects on the Waitoa River. The proposed monitoring is focused on the summer months (January to April) and consists of continuous (in practice every 15 minutes) measurements of river temperature and dissolved oxygen, at a downstream and upstream site. The cooling water discharge temperature should also be continuously monitored during the summer months.

14 Effects of Discharge to air

See the attached s42A Hearing Report by Rachael O’Donnell.

15 Policy Statements, Plans and Regulations

15.1 National environment standards

As of June 2010 there are five NESs that have come into effect - the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (where various standards have been in effect since October 2004); Sources of Human Drinking Water; Electricity Transmission Activities; Telecommunication Facilities; and Soil Contamination. NES Air Quality – see s42A Hearing Report prepared by Rachael O’Donnell.

63


NES for Sources of Human Drinking Water

The NES regulations require that a regional council must not grant a water or discharge permit for an activity that will occur upstream of a drinking water abstraction point if specific criteria at the point of abstraction are exceeded. The matters to be considered as part of an assessment are dependent on the permit being sought and the level of effects on any drinking water supplier located downstream or down gradient of the activity.

Under this regulation a regional council may also impose a condition of consent on any resource consent application requiring the consent holder to notify, as soon as reasonably practical, the registered drinking-water supply operators and the regional council if the activity leads to an event that, or as a consequence of an event, results in a significant adverse effect on the quality of the water at the abstraction point.

There are no public drinking water supplies downstream of WCL, therefore no assessment under the NES is required. The Fonterra Waitoa factory provides drinking water for about 300 employees every day, as well as for a food processing factory, and the importance of this water abstraction needs recognition. The river discharge consent includes spill contingency measures, including prompt warning for Fonterra if there is a significant spill. However the Fonterra abstraction it is not a public drinking water supply.

It is possible that individual landowners downstream of WCL may abstract the river water for their household use. The Waitoa River is not fit for human consumption without further treatment. There is no reason to consider that the WCL discharge renders the river unfit for treatment at present.

NES Electricity Transmission Activities 2009 A high voltage transmission line transects the northwestern corner of the Glenburn Farm. As a result, WCL must comply with the NES for Electricity Transmission Activities by maintaining safe distances from the power lines. A standard condition to this effect has been included in the irrigation consent.

NES Telecommunications – not relevant to the WCL consent applications.

NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil 2011 The NES –AMCS requires Councils (particularly district councils) to ensure that contaminants in soil are adequately addressed when soil disturbance, soil sampling, or subdivision of land occurs. There is no proposed change of the site use, and therefore the NES does not apply. The WCL site is assumed to be a contaminated site, in terms of the NES definition.

15.2 Other regulations

Resource Management (Measuring and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2010 Based on the daily volume proposed, the Regulations apply. Should consent be granted I recommend conditions of consent consistent with Policy 16 of the Waikato Regional Plan and the minimum requirements of the Regulations. For further details on the water take measurements, see the attached s42A Hearing Report preprared by Cameron King.

Biosecurity (Ruminant Protein) Regulations 2004. The Regulations set out rules to minimise the risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy type disease (otherwise known as “mad cow” disease) in NZ. The disease is not present in NZ. The Regulations state that wastewater derived from premises where ruminants are processed or slaughtered, cannot be irrigated onto pasture used for grazing by ruminants, or where ruminants may be fed the harvested pasture, unless the wastewater has been treated to remove the infectious material.

64


The AEE (Section 11.3, p99) contains an evaluation of the wastewater irrigation, in terms of the Regulations, and concludes that the wastewater treatment plant removes any risk of BSE, and can be applied to land where cows/cattle are present. I concur with the WCL assessment.

15.3 National policy statements

15.3.1 NZ Coastal Policy Statement

The discharge is to the Waitoa River, although the effects of the discharge continue to the Firth of Thames. The discharge has relatively minor effects on Firth of Thames, adding about 1-2% of the total nutrient load. My recommended consent conditions include measures to reduce the WCL nutrient load, particularly TN. However it is an unfortunate fact that, even if the WCL discharges ceased, it would make no discernible difference to the water quality or ecology within the Firth of Thames, and the 1-2% improvement in nutrient loads would be negated within a year by increases in nutrients overall from non-point sources within the Firth catchments. No controls exist at present for those non-point sources of N & P. I have not assessed the WCL discharge in terms of the NPS Coastal Policy Statement, as I consider that the WCL discharge has less than minor adverse effects on the Firth of Thames. 15.3.2 National Policy Statement - Freshwater Management 2014 The NPS-FW 2014 came into effect on 1 August 2014. The policy statement sets out objectives and policies that direct local government to manage water in an integrated and sustainable way while providing for economic growth within set water quantity and quality limits. These objectives and policies aim to provide for managing land use and development activities that affect water so that growth is achieved with a lower environmental footprint. The NPS-FW 2014 is a Section 104(1)(b) RMA matter, that is, Council must have regard to the provisions of the NPS-FW2014. The relevant sections of the NPS-FW 2014 are:

A. Water quality Objective A1 To safeguard the life-supporting capacity, ecosystem processes and indigenous species including their associated ecosystems of fresh water, in sustainably managing the use and development of land, and of discharges of contaminants.

Comment: In is important to note that the NPS-FW 2014 requires regional councils to set water quality standards for various surface waters, and that many of the objectives and policies apply to the region as a whole, not to a point discharge into an individual river. In terms of Objective A1, the Waitoa River should have a 95% species protection, and I am confident that the proposed consent conditions for the WCL wastewater discharge to the Waitoa River will largely safeguard the life-supporting capacity, ecosystem processes and indigenous species, at the 95% protection level. The exception to this is ammonia. Attribute State B for ammonia (for 95% species protection) states that the annual median of receiving waters should be in the range of 0.03 – 0.24 g/m3, with an annual maximum of 0.40 g/m3. WCL requested ammonia discharge limits which allowed ammonia to reach concentrations of up to 0.88 g/m3 in the receiving water. My recommendation is that WCL be allowed to increase the in-river ammonia concentration up to 0.88 g/m3 until Council has determined the appropriate Attribute State for the Waitoa River, and that the

65


consent include a s128 RMA Review condition specifically allowing review in the event that Regional Plan adopts a lower ammonia standard for the river. Objective A2 The overall quality of fresh water within a region is maintained or improved while: a) protecting the quality of outstanding freshwater bodies b) protecting the significant values of wetlands and c) improving the quality of fresh water in water bodies that have been degraded by human activities to the point of being over-allocated.

Comment: The Waitoa River is over-allocated, and the NPS-FW states that the water quality should be improved. My recommended consent conditions for the wastewater discharge include substantial improvements in the wastewater quality, and in particular a focus on improving dissolved oxygen levels in the river. Policy A4 By Regional Councils amending Regional Plans such that: (1) When considering any application for a discharge the consent authority must have

regard to the following matters: a. The extent to which the discharge would avoid contamination that will have an

adverse effect on the life-supporting capacity of fresh water including on any ecosystem associated with fresh water and

b. The extent to which it is feasible and dependable that any more than minor adverse effects on fresh water, and on any ecosystem associated with fresh water, resulting from the discharge would be avoided.

(2) When considering any application for a discharge the consent authority must have regard to the following matters:

a. The extent to which the discharge would avoid contamination that will have an adverse effect on the health of people and communities as affected by their secondary contact with fresh water; and

b. The extent to which it is feasible and dependable that any more than minor adverse effect of the health of people and communities as affected by their secondary contact with fresh water resulting from the discharge would be avoided.

(3) This policy applies to the following discharges: a. A new discharge or b. A change or increase in any discharge – of any contaminant into fresh water.

(4) Paragraph 1 of this policy does not apply to any application for consent first lodged before the NPS-FW 2011 took effect on 1 July 2011.

(5) Paragraph 2 of this policy does not apply to any application for consent first lodged before the NPS-FW 2014 takes effect (1/8/14).

Comment: The WCL application was lodged before 1/8/14, and therefore Policy A4(2) does not apply. The NPS-FW 2014 Policy A4 allows councils to put the policy into effect quickly under section 55 RMA, without going through the normal Schedule 1 RMA procedures. WRC has not amended the WRP yet, and published timetable includes a proposed Plan by 2018, and operative Plan by 2025. It is not clear whether Policy A4(1) applies to the WCL application - the application includes some changes to the existing discharge, including an increase in discharge volume, although contaminant loads remain unchanged, or are reduced. My assessment is that Policy A4 does not apply to the WCL application, but in any event, I have had regard to the requirements of Policy A4(1) & A4(2), and consider that the proposed consent conditions are consistent with Policy A4 of the NES-FW. Water quality appendices:

The NPS-FW 2014 includes water attribute tables (Appendix 2) which set out the proposed water quality for different levels of protection (e.g 95% species protection). For rivers, these standards include periphyton, nitrate, ammonia, dissolved oxygen and E coli. The proposed standards have not been set by Council yet, and do not apply to the WCL application. However it is likely that water quality standards will be set by WRC within several years of granting the WCL river discharge consent, and

66


provision needs to be made for reviewing the conditions in light of any standards which are stricter than the conditions granted.

15.4 Operative and proposed Regional Policy Statements

The RPS is a high-level broad-based document containing objectives and policies the purpose of which is to provide an overview of the resource management issues of the region and to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the Region. The RPS was made operative in late 2002 however the Waikato Regional Council notified a proposed Regional Policy Statement (PRPS) on 3/11/2010. For the WCL applications, there are no relevant matters remaining under appeal, and the proposed RPS is effective. The only matters not resolved are in relation to indigenous biodiversity and landscapes.

15.5 Proposed Regional Policy Statement The Proposed RPS has policies and objectives which are similar to the RPS, with respect to protection of surface water, air quality, and land contamination. Relevant objectives and policies are set out below.

Objective 3.10: Air quality Avoid adverse effects on local amenity values including from particulate matter, smoke, odour and dust, and recognizing that it is appropriate that some areas will have a different amenity level to others. Comment: the key air emission of concern to neighbours is odour, and the proposed consent conditions will ensure that odour is minimised. There have been only a few odour complaints in recent years, and WCL appears to be managing odour well. Objective 3.12: Mauri and health of marine waters Maintain or enhance the mauri and identified values of marine waters Comment: The WCL wastewater discharges contribute to the nitrogen and phosphorus load in the Firth of Thames. The health of the Firth depends on nitrogen loads being at least maintained, and preferably lowered. The proposed consent conditions maintain N & P loads at present levels. Objective 3.13: Mauri and values of fresh water bodies: Maintain or enhance the mauri and identified values of fresh water bodies. Comment: The proposed consent conditions will maintain the existing mauri and values of the Waitoa Stream. Objective 3.14: Allocation and use of fresh water Avoid over-allocation and increase efficiency in the allocation and use of water. Comment: The surface water and groundwater takes have been assessed under the relevant rules set out in Variation 6 of the WRP, which has precedence over the Proposed RPS. Objective 3.15: Riparian areas and wetlands Increase the extent and quality of riparian areas and wetlands. Comment: WCL has an existing riparian improvement plan, and the consent conditions recommend continuation of this work. Objective 3.20: Amenity Amenity maintained or enhanced in areas. Comment: WCL has proposed to disinfect the wastewater discharged to the Waitoa River, to a “wading” contact standard. This will improve amenity use of the river downstream.

67


Objective 3.24: Soil values The soil resource is managed to safeguard its life supporting capacity, for the existing and foreseeable range of uses. Comment: The wastewater discharge has occurred for over 20 years now, and has not affected normal agricultural or horticultural uses of the WCL farms. I consider that the continued irrigation of wastewater will not affect soil values, or foreseeable uses of the soil. Policy 8.3: All fresh water bodies: Manage the effects of activities to maintain or enhance the identified values of fresh water bodies and coastal water including by: a) Reducing sediment in fresh water bodies that is derived from human based

activities, microbial and nutrient contamination, and other identified contaminants, and

b) Where appropriate, protection and enhancement of riparian and wetland habitat, instream habitat diversity, and indigenous biodiversity, and

c) Providing for the migratory patterns of indigenous freshwater species, and d) Avoiding physical modification of fresh water bodies, and e) Managing groundwater and surface water flow regimes, and pest and weed

species where they contribute to fresh water degradation.

Comment: The wastewater loads discharged to the Waitoa River will be improved for some contaminants (SS, BOD) and maintained for others (ammonia, N, P).

15.6 Regional Plan

The Waikato Regional Plan (WRP) became fully operative in September 2007 with respect to water discharges. Section 104(1)(b)(iv) RMA requires that the Council must have regard to the Plan’s objectives, policies and rules when assessing consent applications. WRP objectives, policies, and implementation methods which I consider relevant to the WCL activities are: 3.1.2 – Objective (Management of water bodies) 3.2.3 – Policy 1: Management of Water Bodies 3.2.3 – Policy 2: Managing Degraded Water Bodies 3.2.3 – Policy 4: Waikato Region Surface Water Class 3.2.3 – Policy 5: Natural State Water Class 3.2.3 – Policy 6: Contact Recreation Water Class 3.2.3 – Policy 7: Fishery Class 3.2.3 - Policy 8*: Reasonable mixing 3.2.4.1 – Water Management Classes 3.2.4.2 – Waikato Region Surface Water Class Standards 3.2.4.4 – Contact Recreation Water Class 3.2.4.5 – Fishery Class – a. Significant Indigenous Fisheries and Fish Habitat 3.5.2 – Discharges – objective 3.5.3 – Discharges – Policies 5.2.2 – Discharges onto land – Objective 5.2.2 – Discharges onto land - Policies WRP Section 3.1.2 sets out Council’s objectives regarding management of water bodies. Relevant objectives for this application are:

People able to take and use water for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing.

Net improvement of water quality across the Region.

Avoidance of significant adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems.

The range of foreseeable uses of ground and surface water are protected.

Significant effects on the relationship tangata whenua have with the water are avoided.

68


Concentrations of contaminants leaching from land use activities.... to shallow ground water and surface waters do not reach levels that present significant risks to human health or aquatic ecosystems.

Comment: The “net improvement of water quality” is a region-wide objective, and is not intended to strictly apply to any particular point discharge or to any particular stream. It does not imply that there must be an improvement in the receiving water every time an existing consent comes up for renewal. However the objective of “net improvement” will not be achieved unless point discharges are improved where practicable; the most appropriate time to achieve any improvement is during a consent renewal. In terms of the irrigation, adverse effects on the Waitoa River from leaching of nitrates and other contaminants from the WCL activities appears to be not significant. For the WCL activities, I consider the key outcome is to ensure that there are no significant adverse effects on the Waitoa River (from the direct discharge and indirectly from the irrigation); this is consistent with section 107 RMA.

WRP Section 3.2.3 sets out the policies describing how water resources are to be managed, in accordance with the objectives of section 3.1.2. Relevant policies include:

Policy 1 (Management of Water Bodies) (b) Maintaining overall water quality in areas where it is high, and in

other water bodies avoiding, remedying or mitigating cumulative degradation of water quality from the effects of resource use activities.

(c) Enhancing the quality of degraded waterbodies.

Policy 2 (Managing Degraded Water Bodies) (a)(i) For activities controlled by rules in the Plan, discharges to water

shall not further degrade water quality with respect to those parameters of the relevant classes for that water body that are not currently met.

(a)(ii) Land-based treatment systems will be promoted where soil type and drainage allow, and where adverse effects are less than the adverse effects of direct discharges into water.

Policy 8 (Reasonable mixing)

The zone of reasonable mixing is the area within which a discharge into water (including any discharge that occurs subsequent to a discharge onto or into land) does not need to achieve the standards specified in the water management class for the receiving water body. The size of the mixing zone must be minimised as far as is practicable and will be determined on a case-by-case basis, including consideration of the following matters:

a. The nature of the effluent, including its flow rate, composition and contaminant concentrations.

b. River flow rate and flow characteristics. c. The design of the outfall. d. The depth, velocity and rate of mixing in the receiving water body. e. Existing contaminant concentrations in the receiving water body both

upstream and downstream of the discharge point and the assimilative capacity of the water body.

f. The frequency of the discharge. g. The speed with which any contaminants will be diluted. h. The ability of the discharger to alter the location of the discharge and

the mixing characteristics of the outfall so as to ensure that adverse effects of the discharge beyond the zone of non-compliance are not inconsistent with the purpose for which the water body is being managed.

69


i. Whether the discharger has taken all practicable steps to minimise the concentration and volume of contaminants at source.

j. Any effects of the mixing zone on other users of the water body. k. The extent of adverse effects within the mixing zone.

Comment: The Waitoa River meets the water classification standards for Waikato Region Surface Water and Indigenous Fishery, but does not meet the Contact Recreation Water Class. In particular the river upstream and downstream of WCL often fails the black disc horizontal visibility standard, and the median E coli (summer bathing season only). The river effects surveys indicate variable cover by periphyton/slime growths, but generally below 40%. There are no bacterial or fungal slime growths downstream of the WCL discharge. The Waitoa River is thus considered to be a “degraded water body” in terms of the Contact Recreation Water Class. The WRP objectives set out above provide expectations that degraded water will be enhanced, and any discharges should not further degrade the receiving water quality. I have addressed these issues in section 6.1 of my report – in summary the applicant has offered to undertake UV disinfection of the wastewater discharge. The poor visibility is a difficult matter for WCL to improve, since it is a complex parameter dependent on the presence or not of sediments, biological growths and soluble colour. In terms of the turbidity (one of the causes of poor water visibility) the WCL discharge increases the in-river turbidity only slightly. I consider that the proposed WCL discharge will not compromise the Waikato Surface Water and Indigenous Fishery classification standards. In particular, there will be decreases in nutrient concentrations in the Waitoa River, these are not predicted to cause a significant increase in undesirable biological growths. Ammoniacal-N concentration after mixing will approach the Indigenous Fishery Class standard of 0.88 g/m3 under worst case scenario but are unlikely to exceed it, and under more typical situations will cause the stream ammoniacal-N concentration to increase to half the ammoniacal-N limit. I provide an assessment of the reasonable mixing zone in section 6.1.5 of the Hearing Report.

WRP Section 3.2.4 sets out water classifications and standards. The Waikato Regional Plan has a number of water classes that provide statements about how water bodies are to be managed. The Waitoa River downstream of the site has a Contact Recreation and Significant Indigenous Fishery & Fish Habitat Classifications. Both waterways also have a Waikato Region Surface Water Classification. To summarise the relevant requirements of these standards:

Waikato Region Surface Water standards

No significant changes in dissolved oxygen.

No significant changes in pH.

No significant increase in deposition of bed sediments.

No significant increase in undesirable biological growths.

No increase in water temperature more than three degrees Celcius.

No conspicuous change in visual colour or clarity.

The discharge shall not increase the suspended solids concentration in the receiving water by more than 10 percent.

The water shall not be tainted or contaminated so as to make it unpalatable or suitable for consumption by humans after treatment.

The water shall not be tainted or contaminated so as to make it unsuitable for irrigation.

70


Indigenous Fishery standards

Ammoniacal-nitrogen shall not exceed 0.88 g/m3. Contact Recreation Water standards

The black disc horizontal visibility of the water shall be greater than 1.6 m

The median concentration of E coli through the summer bathing season shall not exceed 126 E coli per 100ml. The maximum E coli shall be 235 per 100mls.

The waters shall not be rendered unsuitable for contact recreation activities by the presence of contaminants.

Bacterial and/or fungal slime growth shall not be visible to the naked eye as plumose growths or mats.

The seasonal maximum cover of stream or river beds by periphyton as filamentous growths or mats shall not exceed 40%.

WRP Section 3.5.3 sets out Council’s expectations regarding discharges to water and effects on Tangata Whenua. Relevant policies include:

Policy 2: Control, through resource consents, discharges to water that are likely to have more than minor adverse effects, so that the adverse effects are avoided as far as practicable and otherwise remedied or mitigated.

Policy 3: Land-based treatment systems will be promoted where soil type and drainage will allow and where adverse effects are minor or are less than those from a direct discharge to water.

Policy 4: Discharges to land – ensure that the discharge of contaminants to land maximises the reuse of nutrients and water contained in the discharge.

Policy 5: Groundwater – Minimise the adverse effects of discharges onto land on groundwater quality to ensure that the existing or reasonably foreseeable uses of the groundwater is not compromised.

Policy 6: Ensure that the relationship of tangata whenua as Kaitiaki with water is recognised and provided for.

Comment: WCL preferentially disposes of the site wastewater onto land, with a river discharge occurring for about 40% of the year, mostly in autumn and winter when the river flow is high. This preference for land-based disposal is consistent with section 3.5.3 of the WRP. I have recommended application rates of wastewater to land which will minimise groundwater contamination.

WRP Section 5.2.2 has the objective that discharges of wastes onto land be undertaken in a manner that:

does not contaminate soil to levels that present significant risks to human health or the wider environment.

does not have adverse effects on aquatic habitats, surface water quality or groundwater quality that are inconsistent with the Water Management objectives in Section 3.1.2.

Section 5.2.2 Policy 2 (Other discharges onto or into land) states that discharges of contaminants onto land should avoid, where practicable the following relevant effect:

contamination of soils with hazardous substances or pathogens to levels that present a significant risk to human health or the wider environment

Comment: The irrigated farm soils are contaminated with nitrates, salts and traces of heavy metals, but I consider this does not present a risk to human or stock health. The soils are not contaminated with hazardous substances.

Summary of WRP assessment: I consider that the activity will not be contrary to the above relevant provisions, provided that it is carried out as per the consent conditions that I have proposed.

71


15.7 Regional Coastal Plan

The WCL discharge of treated wastewater to the Waitoa River is not a direct discharge to the coast, nevertheless the nutrient loads in particular contribute to the overall loads discharged into the Firth of Thames from the Waihou, Piako and Waitakaruru rivers. There are no specific rules in the RCP relevant to a wastewater discharge into the Waitoa River, some 50 kilometres upstream of the coastal area. WRCP Policy 4.1.1 is to maintain or enhance water quality characteristics of coastal waters. I consider that the WCL discharge has only minor adverse effects on the Firth of Thames, and I have recommended consent conditions which will reduce the N & P loads discharged by WCL when compared with existing consent limits, and at least maintain N & P loads compared to actual discharge levels in recent years.

15.8 Other Matters - S104(2A) – value of investment

Section 104(2A) RMA states that when considering an application affected by s124, the Council must have regard to the value of the investment of the existing consent holder. Section 124 permits the applicant to continue to exercise the existing consents beyond expiry date of 30 June 2014. The AEE did not include comment of the value of the investment, however it is reasonable to assume that the investment in plant, machinery and property must be at least $50 million and is therefore substantial. The value of the investment can be seen in non-financial terms too, in that the rendering plant in particular has a value to the Waikato farming community in providing an option to process dead stock and meat processing by-products.

15.9 Consideration of alternative methods of discharge. Under section 105 (1) RMA, since the cooling water discharge, stormwater discharge, treated wastewater discharges to land & surface water and discharge to air, are all discharges of contaminants into the environment, WRC must have regard to:

nature of discharge & sensitivity of receiving environment

Applicants reasons for proposed choice

Possible alternative methods of discharge, including any other receiving environment.

In addition Schedule 4(1)(b) RMA, states that, where it is likely that an activity will result in any significant adverse effect on the environment, the AEE should include a description of any possible alternative locations or methods for undertaking the activity. The AEE described the nature of the discharges and sensitivity of the receiving environment, and my Hearing Report provides additional assessment. In addition the AEE section 12, pages 125-130, set out a reasonably complete assessment of alternatives. I consider that the preferential discharge of wastewater to land, rather than surface water, is best practice, and there is no practicable better alternative. The discharge of stormwater has no practicable alternative discharge location. The method of discharge, and discharge standards can be improved, and I have recommended consent conditions which will achieve this aim.

72


The cooling water discharge is less than ideal, and while there is no alternative discharge location, the cooling water must have a lower temperature before discharge in summer. The technology to achieve this has been available to industry for many decades, and I have recommended consent conditions to achieve this aim. For the wastewater discharge to the Waitoa River, WCL has an extensive wastewater treatment plant, which is generally consistent with that found at other rendering and tannery plants in NZ. Improvements are proposed by WCL, to disinfect the wastewater and to install a clarifier, which as an overall treatment package, will be Best Practicable Option for this type of wastewater treatment in NZ.

15.10 Hauraki Iwi Management Plans

Under the RMA, WRC must have regard to the Hauraki Iwi Environmental Plan 2004 in considering the WCL applications. Relevant objectives of the HIEP are:

Peatlands and wetlands are protected and restored as ecological, cultural and economic resources of Hauraki Whanui.

Riparian margins of rivers and streams in the Hauraki tribal region are protected and restored.

The HIEP desires the following outcomes:

Increased diversity of native species, habitat and ecosystems through wetland, peatland, river and stream and duneland restoration activities.

Enhancement of the freshwater fisheries habitat.

Restoration of wetland, river and stream plant life.

Improved water quality.

Increased populations of fisheries, birds and plant resources. Comment: WCL proposes to disinfect the final wastewater before discharge to the Waitoa River, and to install a clarifier which will improve the final wastewater quality. These improvements will contribute to the restoration of the Waitoa River. In addition, WCL intends to riparian plant 25 ha of the Waitoa River floodplain over about five years. I consider that renewal of the WCL discharges to land, air and water is generally consistent with the objectives and outcomes desired by Hauraki iwi.

15.11 Section 107 RMA – no significant adverse effects on surface water Section 107 RMA states that a consent authority shall not grant a discharge permit (discharge wastewater to surface water, or discharge wastewater to land where it may enter water), where after reasonable mixing, the discharge is likely to give rise to any of the following effects in the receiving waters:

1(c) the production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums, foams, or floatable or suspended materials;

1(d) any conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity; 1(e) any emission of objectionable odour; 1(f) the rendering of fresh water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals; 1(g) any significant adverse effects on aquatic life. I consider that, if the wastewater discharge consent is granted in accordance with the conditions which I have recommended, then none of the above effects will occur.

15.12 Historical compliance with resource consents WCL had has a mixed record of consent compliance, as shown in the table below. The compliance status for each year is an overall assessment for the whole WCL site.

73


Audit period Overall site compliance Main reasons for non-compliance status

2015/15 High Level of compliance

2013/14 High Level of compliance

2012/13 Significant Non-compliance Large exceedances of the N load limit, for two irrigation farms. Excessive water take from the Waitoa River. Exceedances of some of the river discharge limits.

2011/12 High level of compliance

2010/11 High level of compliance

2009/10 Partial compliance

2008/9 Significant Non-compliance Exceedances of the N load limit, for two irrigation farms. Excessive take from the Waitoa River. Exceedances of the river discharge limits.

2007/8 Significant Non-compliance Exceedances of the N load limit, for two irrigation farms. Excessive take from the Waitoa River. Exceedances of a few of the river discharge limits.


2005/6 Significant Non-compliance Objectionable odour discharge. Exceedances of many of the river discharge limits.


RMA case law is that previous non-compliance is not a valid reason to decline consent, but it may be appropriate to grant consent conditions which ensure better compliance. For instance such conditions might include more extensive monitoring (to detect non-compliances earlier), compulsory auditing at regular intervals by an external reviewer, more regular reporting by WCL, imposition of external peer reviewers, or a more tiered approach where there are ramped-up consequences for non-compliances. WCL’s compliance history indicates that it does react positively to non-compliance, and carries out improvements to allow compliance. I consider that there is no need for unusually strict conditions for APPs 127279 or 130915, and that the consents have standard conditions as far as practicable, and consistent with similar industrial sites in the Waikato.

15.13 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000

The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 provides broad statements about sustainable and integrated management of the Hauraki Gulf and the activities that occur within it. The Hauraki Gulf is an area of national importance that supports a rich ecosystem as well as providing a range of recreational and economic activities. Relevant requirements of the HGMPA are set out below:

7 Recognition of national significance of Hauraki Gulf (1) The interrelationship between the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments and the

ability of that interrelationship to sustain the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands are matters of national significance.

(2) The life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Gulf and its islands includes the capacity— (a) to provide for— (i) the historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship of the tangata whenua of the Gulf with the Gulf and its islands; and (ii) the social, economic, recreational, and cultural well-being of people and

communities: (b) to use the resources of the Gulf by the people and communities of the Gulf and New Zealand for economic activities and recreation: (c) to maintain the soil, air, water, and ecosystems of the Gulf.

8 Management of Hauraki Gulf To recognise the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, the objectives of the management of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments are—

74


(a) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments: (b) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments: (c) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of those natural, historic, and physical resources (including kaimoana) of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments with which tangata whenua have an historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship: (d) the protection of the cultural and historic associations of people and communities in and around the Hauraki Gulf with its natural, historic, and physical resources: (e) the maintenance and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the contribution of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments to the social and economic well-being of the people and communities of the Hauraki Gulf and New Zealand: (f) the maintenance and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, which contribute to the recreation and enjoyment of the Hauraki Gulf for the people and communities of the Hauraki Gulf and New Zealand.

In recent years NIWA and WRC science staff have expressed concerns about the increasing nutrient load discharged into the Firth of Thames, amidst uncertainties as to the effects, and whether there may be a “tipping point” in the future. Zones of low dissolved oxygen have been recorded by NIWA in the outer Firth, which are possibly caused by accumulated phytoplankton (which in turn is related to the nutrient levels in the Firth). WCL contributes about 0.7% N and about 1.2% P of the load discharged into the Firth, and my recommended consent conditions will reduce this further. I consider that the WCL discharge to the Waitoa River will have less than minor adverse effects on the Firth of Thames.

15.14 Relevant Part 2 Considerations

Section 5 RMA Section 5 states that the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. For the WCL applications, relevant requirements of section 5 include safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of the Waitoa River, the farm soils, and local air quality, while avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of the various discharges. Section 5 also requires Waikato Regional Council to protect natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their economic and cultural well being, and for their health and safety. In the context of this consent application, WCL is a significant employer in the area and contributor to the economic well-being of the local community. The rendering plant in particular has a significant role in supporting agriculture in the Waikato, as it is the only rendering plant in the Waikato which can process dead stock such as dairy cows and bobby calves. I consider that the discharges do not compromise cultural expectations, or render the Waitoa River unsafe for contact recreation or drinking water abstraction. Section 6 RMA There are no matters of national importance such as protection of outstanding natural features, protection of significant habitats, or maintenance of public access, which are relevant to this consent application. The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga, has been recognised and has been discussed elsewhere in this report. Section 7 RMA Section 7 sets out those matters which Waikato Regional Council shall have particular regard to, when assessing this consent application. Matters of relevance to the WCL application include kaitiakitanga, maintenance and enhancement of amenity values (including prevention of objectionable odour), intrinsic values of ecosystems, maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment and protection of the habitat of trout of salmon. The Waitoa River is not a significant trout fishery but does have a recognised

75


indigenous fishery. The Waitoa River downstream of the WCL site has a Contact Recreation classification. I consider that I have had particular regard to these matters, as discussed elsewhere in this report. Section 8 RMA Section 8 states that Waikato Regional Council shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is a principle of the Treaty that decision-makers such as Environment Waikato must, in order to act in good faith, make informed decisions based on all the relevant information about the interests of Maori. This will usually, but not invariably, require consultation with iwi. Local iwi were provided an opportunity to make a submission and the applicant has carried out consultation with them. In a general sense, the interests of the wider iwi community has been taken into account by an assessment of the effect of the effluent discharges on the Waitoa River and Hauraki Gulf. I have taken the Hauraki Iwi Environmental Plan 2004 into account in preparing this Hearing Report.

16 Discussion/Conclusions

Wallace Corporation has applied for renewal of resource consents for its Waitoa site. The consent applications have been processed as Discretionary Activities under section 104B RMA. WRC staff recommendation to the Hearing Commissioners is that all the consent applications be granted, subject to the attached recommended conditions. There have been extended discussions between WRC and WCL on proposed conditions, and substantial agreement on these. The large majority of conditions have standard wording, as is found in similar consents for similar sites. Key conditions which agreement has not been reached between WCL, submitters and Council are the river discharge loads of TN and TP, and TN loads applied to land. WCL proposes to expand operations at the site, although not immediately. To facilitate this expansion, WCL proposes to improve wastewater treatment at the site, by installing better solids removal and UV disinfection of the final effluent. This will lead to a noticeable reduction in SS and BOD loads discharged to the Waitoa River, and will help restore the river for contact recreation. There will be a substantial cost to WCL to complete this work. WCL has proposed a minor reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus loads discharged to the river, perhaps 10% less than present consent limits. However, I recommend that the consent limits be based on what WCL has actually discharged in recent years. For a number of reasons, WCL has not utilised the maximum N & P load limits authorised by the existing consents, and the actual discharge loads are about 50-60% of consented limits. To clarify the situation, my recommendation is that present actual loads for N & P are maintained in the medium term. From 2024, my recommendation is that the N load be reduced by a further 10%. It should be noted that WRC science staff strongly support further reductions of nutrients, to improve surface water quality and to protect the Firth of Thames. In contrast, WCL advises that there would be a high cost to this, which would be disproportionate to the scale of the effects caused by WCL. If WCL wishes to expand operations, there will be a significant cost to upgrade the wastewater treatment system, to remove additional N & P. This is a decision for WCL in the future, and has not influenced my recommendation to maintain existing nutrient loads.

76


For the wastewater irrigation, the existing consent limits are recommended, regarding nitrogen loads and hydraulic application depths. There is reasonable evidence that these limits lead to high leaching rates, possibly in the 80—90 kg N/ha/yr range; this leaching rate significantly exceeds the leaching rate from other wastewater irrigation schemes in the Waikato, and is not sustainable. My recommend is that a leaching target of 60 kg N/ha/yr is imposed, to be achieved by WCL by 2019, and a further decrease to 40 kg N/ha/yr by 2024. My understanding is that all other land irrigation consents granted by Council in recent years have leaching rates less than 40 kg N/ha/yr. To offset residual effects from the river discharge and land irrigation, WCL proposes to continue its riparian planting scheme. WCL staff support this scheme. Term WCL requested a term of 25 years. The ground water take and surface water take consents have shorter terms (expiry in December 2030), consistent with Policies 15 & 19, of Section 3.3 Waikato regional Plan (Water takes). My recommendation is that the cooling water discharge, stormwater discharge, and air discharge consents be granted with a term of 25 years, expiring in December 2040. These consents have relatively well defined effects, of low environmental impact. For the wastewater and irrigation consents, my recommendation is that a term of 20 years be granted for the river discharge consent, to expire in 31/12/2034. I have considered whether the land irrigation consent could have a longer term, to expire in 2040, but the two activities are closely linked, and need to expire together, and to be re-assessed together. Section 113(1)(b) RMA states that where a resource consent is granted for a shorter duration than specified in the application, the reasons for deciding on the shorter duration shall be provided. The reasons I recommend that the land irrigation consent (APP130915.03) and the wastewater discharge to the Waitoa River (APP130915.04) be granted for 20 years are set out below:

1. An expiry date of 31/12/34 corresponds to the expiry date of the nearby Fonterra Waitoa river discharge consent (AUTH118414.01) which was granted in January 2015. Fonterra Waitoa and Wallace Corporation are the two major point dischargers to the Waitoa River, and there is logic in having a common expiry so that the two sites can be assessed for their cumulative river effects.

2. The Environment Court has held in Bright Wood NZ Ltd v Southland Regional Council that an applicant is entitled to as much security of term as is consistent with sustainable management. Undoubtedly the site has capital assets in excess of $100 million and is a significant provider of employment locally and regionally. This is accepted but this is not a greenfield site and much of the infrastructure for the operation of the site is already in place. The life expectancy of an asset for which consents are sought is a factor to be taken into account. Council is mindful of that but I would note that this particular factory has been there for decades, far longer than the maximum possible grant of term and continues its operations.

3. The applicant has not provided any evidence that a term lesser than 25 years would put the operation in jeopardy and there has never been a suggestion that consents would not be granted.

4. Balancing this is the need for sustainable management. Judge M Harland in a

keynote address to the Environmental Law and Regulation Conference7 highlights the tension that exists between “supporting economic activity (which enables the social and economic wellbeing of society to be met) and restoring, protecting and enhancing the environment”.The site is able to exist because it takes a community

7http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court/environment-court-decisions-and-

publications/documents/Melanie%20Harland%20paper%2030.4.pdf

77

http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court/environment-court-decisions-and-publications/documents/Melanie%20Harland%20paper%2030.4.pdf

http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court/environment-court-decisions-and-publications/documents/Melanie%20Harland%20paper%2030.4.pdf


resource (water) and uses it for its economic benefit and then returns that water to the river in potentially a more degraded state than what was extracted. Essentially this is a cost to a community by taking up allocation of a resource in an over-allocated catchment and the potential effect on amenity and cultural values. Part of sustainable management is balancing these costs to the community with the economic benefits that are part of the equation. In this context I consider that it is reasonable for the community to have these tensions tested through the consent renewal process.

5. A term of 20 years is not unusually low, either in the Waikato or the wider NZ. In

April 2000, all regional councils and unitary authorities were surveyed to provide base data on consent durations for a range of resource consents8. The results of the survey were tabulated and are reproduced below:

Table 1: Overall typical consent durations

This data is now fourteen years old but the average term for discharges to water is in the range of 10-19 years with the average for discharges to fresh water being 11 years. Most wastewater discharges to water in the Waikato Region that I am familiar with would have been granted for 15-20 years. Whilst this does not constrain future decisions and each has to be assessed on its merits, a term in that region would not be inconsistent with the general approach taken by Council.

6. The Waitoa River is partially degraded, and needs improvement. The most effective

way to achieve this is to have consents with shorter terms, rather than consents with long terms which rely on s128 RMA Review for future improvement. About 1% of all consents in NZ are reviewed, and it is not an effective tool for achieving improvement. The chief mechanism for reduction of loadings for point source discharges is through the consenting process. In PVL Proteins Limited v Auckland Regional Council, EC Auckland, A61/2001, 3 July 2001 the court stated that a “review of conditions may be more effective than a shorter term to ensure conditions do not become outdated, irrelevant or inadequate” (Section 30, emphasis added). They further state in section 82 that in their opinion “the existence of a review condition can properly influence a decision on the term of a discharge consent, but should not obscure the fundamental difference between the two”. So this is not an ‘either or’ situation. In the absence of review conditions I would have recommended

8 Resource consent durations and reviews, A study of regional council and unitary authority practice under the Resource

Management Act 1991, Ministry for the Environment, September 2000

78


a much shorter term. Having them there becomes one factor in weighing up the balance between security of term and sustainable management.

The fundamental issue with s128 review is that it only allows modification of the existing conditions, not a fresh look at the acceptability of the discharge itself within that particular receiving environment and applying the policy context and public expectations of the day.

7. Technological improvement in wastewater treatment during the last 15-20 years is significant, and I have no doubt that this rate of improvement will continue. Unduly long terms limit the ability of the Regional Council to bring about the improvements in a reasonably timely way.

8. Under the NPS Fresh Water 2014, Council will eventually adopt new limits for the Hauraki rivers. Public notice was provided early October 2015 that Council intends to “develop policy and methods to set limits and targets and manage water quality in the Waihou, Piako and Coromandel catchments” by notifying a Proposed Plan Change by 2018, and a deadline of achieving an operative Plan change by December 2025. The proposed consent conditions include a standard s128 Review condition, which includes the ability to “take into account any National Environmental Standard, National Policy Statement, or Waikato Regional Plan which have become operational of effective since the granting of this consent”. Nevertheless, as pointed out above, a consent renewal process is likely to be more effective than a s128 review.

9. Should the Hearing Panel consider that a common expiry of site consents is essential, then I recommend an expiry date of 31/12/30 (15 years).

17 Monitoring

The existing consents for air discharge, cooling water stormwater, land irrigation and river discharge contain extensive monitoring conditions, and I have included similar conditions in the new consents. A summary of the proposed monitoring is set out below: Groundwater and surface water takes The surface water take and groundwater take has standard monitoring conditions for these activities, which are largely determined by the Resource management Regulation 2010 (Water measurement and reporting). Stormwater

Stormwater quality, 2 main discharge points

monthly pH, SS, BOD, TN, TP

6-monthly Tot Cr, Tot zinc

Land irrigation

Wastewater quality Daily volume

Weekly TN, TP, sodium

Monthly Tot Cr, E coli

Soil quality Annually pH, phosphorus (measured as Olsen P), available nitrogen (at 15 cm depth, kg/ha), sodium, chromium, boron, cation exchange capacity, exchangeable sodium percentage, organic matter %, soil carbon (%), soil nitrogen (%) and C:N ratio.

Groundwater, 26 bores 3-monthly pH, electrical conductivity, ammonium-N, nitrate-N, E coli, total chromium, and

79


sodium

Groundwater, 12 farm bores –water supply

6-monthly nitrate-N, sodium and chloride

5 farm drains, Park & Auchenhaen Farm

3 monthly Conductivity, sodium, chloride, ammoniacal-N, nitrate-N, total phosphorus

Wastewater discharge to the Waitoa River

Wastewater quality Daily Volume

Weekly Ammoniacal-N, TKN, nitrate-N, nitrite-N, SS, BOD, Tot phosphorus, DRP

Fortnightly Conductivity, pH, dissolved sulphide

Monthly Sodium, Tot chromium

River effects, 2 sites (upstream and downstream site)

January to April

Continuous logging of temperature and dissolved oxygen

River effects, 6 sites (2 upstream, 4 downstream) When river flow <2500 L/s and wastewater is discharging

Every third year starting 2016

Temperature, conductivity, Tot Cr, BOD, SS, turbidity, E coli, pH, ammoniacal-N, nitrate-N, nitrite-N, TKN, DRP, TP, DO, MCI, QMCI, Average MPT Index, periphyton, macrophytes.

River effects, 6 sites When river flow<2500 L/s and wastewater is discharging

2019, 2025 Fish survey

River effects, 8 sites. No discharge and river flow <1000 L/s

Every third year in February or March, starting 2016,

Temperature, conductivity, BOD, E coli, pH, ammoniacal-N, nitrate-N, nitrite-N, TKN, DRP, TP, sodium and chloride.

Cooling water

River effects, upstream and downstream

January to April

Temperature and dissolved oxygen

Cooling water discharge Weekly temperature

Monthly pH, SS, BOD, TN, TP

Air discharge

Tannery biofilter Daily Inlet temperature, bed pressure drop

Monthly pH

Rendering biofilter Continuous Inlet temperature, bed pressure drop

Monthly pH

Biogas biofilter Monthly pH

Biogas flare Weekly Hydrogen sulphide

Record keeping and reporting Provide monthly reports and annual report. Notify Council of exceedances within defined timeframes Keep records of activities

80


18 Recommended Decisions

I recommend that in accordance with s104B resource consent applications for

APP130915.01.01 To take water from Waitoa River.

APP130915.02.01 To discharge stormwater into water from various sub-catchments at Wallace Corporation Limited complex via two discharge locations

APP130915.03.01 To discharge treated wastewater and biosolids to land, including circumstances which may result in contaminants entering air.

APP130915.04.01 To discharge treated wastewater at a rate of up to 3,440 cubic metres per day from the Wallace Corporation Limited wastewater treatment plant to the Waitoa River.

APP130915.05.01 To discharge cooling water, including heat, at a rate not exceeding 75 L/s with a total volume of no more than 6,480 cubic metres per day to the Waitoa River

APP130915.06.01 To discharge contaminants into air be granted in accordance with the duration and conditions prescribed in the attached Resource Consent Certificate for the following reasons:

The activities will have no more than minor actual or potential adverse effects on the environment

The activities are not contrary to any relevant plans or policies The activities are consistent with the purpose and principles of the Resource

Management Act 1991

Barry Campbell Date: 22/10/15

Senior Resource Officer

Resource Use Group

81


Appendix 1: APP 127279.01.01 - Groundwater Take (Conditions as granted

24/4/15)

RESOURCE CONSENTCERTIFICATE

Resource Consent: AUTH127279.01.01

File Number: 60 93 77A

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

Wallace Corporation Limited

C/- Aaron Findson

PO Box 11

Waitoa 3341

(hereinafter referred to as the Consent Holder)

Consent Type: Water Permit

Consent Subtype: Groundwater take

Activity Authorised: To take groundwater

Take Site Map Reference:

NZTM 1832541 E 5832623 N

Consent Duration: This consent will commence on the date of decision notification and expire on 31 December 2030

Subject to the conditions overleaf:

82


1. The activity authorised by this resource consent must be undertaken: (1) in general accordance with the application for this resource consent and any

documentation supporting the application; (2) as specified in the resource consent conditions below. Where there is any disagreement between the application documentation and resource consent conditions the resource consent conditions below shall prevail.

2. The water taken pursuant to this resource consent:

(1) must be via the bore identified as Waikato Regional Council Located ID 72_6416 (hereinafter referred to as “72_6416”);

(2) may be used to irrigate pasture during the irrigation season only, defined for the purposes of this resource consent as the period October through March the following year, inclusive (hereinafter referred to as “irrigation”);

(3) may be used, at any time of year, to augment the volume of cooling water discharged to the Waitoa River pursuant to resource consent AUTH130915.05.01 (hereinafter referred to as “augmentation”).

3. The net take volume for irrigation purposes must not exceed:

(1) 2300 cubic metres in any 24 hour period; (2) 276,000 cubic metres in any irrigation season.

4. The net take volume for augmentation purposes must not exceed:

(1) 3440 cubic metres in any 24 hour period; (2) 912,500 cubic metres in any 12 month period.

5. The total combined net take volume for irrigation and augmentation purposes must

not exceed 4800 cubic metres in any 24 hour period.

6. A water measuring system must quantify water taken via the bore on a cumulative basis. The system must have a reliable calibration to flow and must be maintained to an accuracy of +/- 5%. Prior to first commencing to take water under this consent, evidence of the water measuring system’s calibration to an accuracy of +/- 5% must be provided to the Waikato Regional Council.

7. Additional calibration of the water measuring system must be undertaken by the

consent holder: (1) at the written request of the Waikato Regional Council; (2) at a frequency of no less than five yearly from the date of the first calibration

required by condition 6; (3) to the satisfaction of the Waikato Regional Council. Evidence documenting each respective additional calibration must be forwarded to the Waikato Regional Council within one month of the calibration being completed.

8. The consent holder must telemeter – via a telemetry system developed after liaison

with the Waikato Regional Council to ensure that the telemetry system is compatible with Waikato Regional Council telemetry system standards and data protocols – continuous 1–hourly values of net take volume (in units of cubic metres) for: (1) irrigation purposes; (2) augmentation purposes. The data must be reported once daily to the Waikato Regional Council via the telemetry system and there must be 24 irrigation values and 24 augmentation values per daily report. When no water for either irrigation or augmentation purposes is being taken the data must specify the net take volume as zero.

9. The consent holder must measure and record via data logger at a 1-hourly

frequency the depth to water below the casing head flange of the bore identified as

83


Waikato Regional Council Located ID 72_6418 (hereinafter referred to as “72_6418”).


with the Waikato Regional Council to ensure that the telemetry system is compatible with Waikato Regional Council telemetry system standards and data protocols – the data recorded pursuant to condition 9. The data must be reported once daily to the Waikato Regional Council via the telemetry system and there must be 24 values per daily report.

11. If the depth to water below the casing head flange of 72_6418 is:

(1) between 67 and 69 metres the consent holder must immediately notify Silver Fern Farms Limited of those circumstances;

(2) greater than 69 metres no water may be taken until the pump intakes in the Silver Fern Farms Limited bores identified as Waikato Regional Council Located ID 64_429 (hereinafter referred to as “64_429”) and Waikato Regional Council Located ID 72_7035 (hereinafter referred to as “72_7035”) have been located to a greater depth.

12. Notwithstanding condition 11, if the taking of water pursuant to this resource

consent prevents Silver Fern Farms Limited from obtaining any of its lawfully established water allocation via either of 64_429 and 72_7035, the consent holder must cease taking water and mitigate this adverse effect by locating the pump intake of 64_429 and/or 72_7035 to a greater depth within the affected bore(s).

13. After any event whereby Silver Fern Farms Limited is prevented from obtaining any

of its lawfully established water allocation via either of the bores 64_429 and 72_7035, the taking of water pursuant to this resource consent may only recommence upon the Waikato Regional Council providing written approval in this regard to the consent holder.

14. Within three months of the commencement of this resource consent, the consent

holder must monitor the depth to water below the casing head flange of 64_429 and 72_7035. The depth of water below the casing head flange of 64_429 and 72_7035 must be: (1) measured with electronic continuous water level monitoring equipment; (2) measured for at least four weeks; (3) measured during periods when water is being both taken and not taken via the

bore identified as Waikato Regional Council Located ID 72_6416; (4) recorded at a 1-hourly frequency.

15. The monitoring data recorded pursuant to condition 14 must be provided to the

Waikato Regional Council in electronic spreadsheet format within one month of the monitoring ending.

16. Prior to the exercise of this resource consent, the consult holder must either:

(1) identify an existing bore that can be used to monitor water level within the aquifer designated “shallow water table aquifer” in the application for this resource consent (hereinafter referred to as “shallow aquifer”); or

(2) establish a new bore that can be used to monitor water level within the shallow aquifer.

In either case, the bore will be to the satisfaction of the WRC in terms of the bore’s suitability for monitoring water level within the shallow aquifer and no water is to be taken from the bore at any time.

17. The consent holder must measure and record via data logger at a frequency of at

least daily the depth to water below the casing head flange of the bore required pursuant to condition 16.

84


18. The data recorded pursuant to condition 17 and for the preceding 12 month period

must be provided to the Waikato Regional Council in electronic spreadsheet format by 1 July each year that this water take is authorised. The data must also be supplied in electronic spreadsheet format when requested by the Waikato Regional Council.

19. At any time during the years 2018, 2021, 2024 and 2027 the Waikato Regional

Council may, following service of notice on the consent holder, commence a review of the conditions of this resource consent pursuant to section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the following purposes: (1) to review the effectiveness of the conditions of this resource 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 resource consent conditions;

(2) to review the adequacy of and the necessity for monitoring undertaken by the consent holder;

(3) to review the appropriateness of the volumes specified within conditions 3, 4 and 5 and, if necessary, to address any inappropriateness of these volumes by way of reducing these volumes.

20. The consent holder must pay to the Waikato Regional Council any administrative

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

Advice Notes 1. In accordance with s125 RMA, this consent shall lapse five 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 (s134-137 RMA).

4. The consent holder may apply to change the conditions of the resource consent under s127 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 s333 of the RMA, 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.

85


Appendix 2:

APP 130915.01.01: Water Take from Waitoa River

Recommended conditions

Consent Type: Water permit

Consent Subtype: Surface water take

Activity authorised: Take water from the Waitoa River

Spatial Reference: NZTM 1832792 E 5832765 N


Conditions:

1. The activity authorised by this resource consent must be undertaken:(1) in general accordance with the application for this resource consent and anydocumentation supporting the application;(2) as specified in the resource consent conditions below.Where there is any disagreement between the application documentation andresource consent conditions the resource consent conditions below shall prevail.

2. The water taken pursuant to this resource consent may be used to provide the waterrequirements of a tannery, rendering plant and meat plant.

3. Any intake must be screened with a mesh aperture size not exceeding 1.5millimetres by 1.5 millimetres (or 1.5 millimetre diameter holes).

4. The consent holder must ensure that the velocity of water through any intake screendoes not exceed 0.3 metres per second at all times. If requested by the WaikatoRegional Council in writing, the consent holder must provide information on how thisvelocity requirement is achieved.

5. The instantaneous take rate must not exceed 115 litres per second.

6. For the purposes of this resource consent, the net take volume in any 24 hourperiod is calculated as the gross take volume in any 24 hour period pursuant to thisresource consent less the discharge volume to the Waitoa River in any 24 hourperiod pursuant to resource consent AUTH130915.05.01. Synchronous valuesmust be used to calculate the net take volume.

7. During the months of January, February, March, April, May, November andDecember the net take volume in any 24 hour period must not exceed:(1) 2300 cubic metres when the Waitoa River 7–day rolling average flow at

Mellon Road (Waikato Regional Council Site Number 1249.18, MapReference NZTM 1832321 E 5843131 N) (hereinafter referred to as“1249.18”) is greater than 0.810 cubic metres per second;

(2) 1560 cubic metres when the 7–day rolling average flow at 1249.18 isbetween 0.810 cubic metres per second and 0.729 cubic metres per second;

86


(3) 0 cubic metres when the 7–day rolling average flow at 1249.18 is less than 0.729 cubic metres per second.

8. During the months of June, July, August, September and October the net take

volume in any 24 hour period must not exceed: (1) 3440 cubic metres when the Waitoa River 7–day rolling average flow at

1249.18 is equal to or greater than 0.729 cubic metres per second; (2) 0 cubic metres when the 7–day rolling average flow at 1249.18 is less than

0.729 cubic metres per second. 9. A water measuring system must quantify water taken on a cumulative basis. The

system must have a reliable calibration to flow and must be maintained to an accuracy of +/- 5%. Prior to first commencing to take water under this consent, evidence of the water measuring system’s calibration to an accuracy of +/- 5% must be provided to the Waikato Regional Council.

10. Additional calibration of the water measuring system must be undertaken by the

consent holder: (1) at the written request of the Waikato Regional Council; (2) at a frequency of no less than five yearly from the date of the first calibration

required by condition 9; (3) to the satisfaction of the Waikato Regional Council. Evidence documenting each respective additional calibration must be forwarded to the Waikato Regional Council within one month of the calibration being completed.


with the Waikato Regional Council to ensure that the telemetry system is compatible with Waikato Regional Council telemetry system standards and data protocols – continuous 15 minute values of: (1) gross take volume (in units of cubic metres); (2) discharge volume to the Waitoa Stream pursuant to resource consent

AUTH130915.05.01 (in units of cubic metres); (3) calculated net take volume (in units of cubic metres). The data must be reported once daily to the Waikato Regional Council via the telemetry system. For data (1), (2) and (3) there must be 96 values, respectively, per daily report. When no water is being taken the data must specify the gross take volume as zero.

12. At any time during the years 2018, 2021, 2024 and 2027 the Waikato Regional

Council may, following service of notice on the consent holder, commence a review of the conditions of this resource consent pursuant to section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the following purposes: (1) to review the effectiveness of the conditions of this resource 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 resource consent conditions;


(3) to review the appropriateness of the rate specified within 5 and, if necessary, to address any inappropriateness of this rate by way of reducing this rate;

(4) to review the appropriateness of the volumes specified within conditions 7and 8 and, if necessary, to address any inappropriateness of these volumes by way of reducing these volumes.

13. The consent holder must pay to the Waikato Regional Council any administrative

charge fixed in accordance with section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991,

87


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

Appendix 1 to surface water take consent 130915.01 – Location Map

88

P a g e | 85 WRC Hearing Report wrcdoc#3077559 Version 6 22/10/15

Schedule B – Recommended Advice Notes 1. In accordance with s125 RMA, this consent shall lapse five 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.


4. The consent holder may apply to change the conditions of the resource consent under s127 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.


89


Appendix 3:

APP 130915.02.01 Stormwater Discharge



Wallace Corporation Limited PO Box 11 Waitoa 3341


Consent Type: Discharge permit

Consent Subtype: Stormwater

Activity authorised: Discharge up to 785 litres of storm water per second from two separate points in to the Waitoa River in the general vicinity of Wood Road, Waitoa.

Location: Wood Rd : Waitoa

Spatial Reference: NZTM 1832753E, 5832712N and 1832638E, 5832893N

Consent Duration: This consent will commence on the date of decision notification, unless otherwise stated in the consent’s conditions, and expire on 31 December 2040


90


Recommended conditions - stormwater Definitions For the purposes of this consent, the following definitions apply.

Term Definition

Certified (or Certification)

In relation to a Management Plan or Monitoring Plan: means that the Council has certified that the Management Plan or Monitoring Plan contains all information specified in the relevant condition(s) and that the Management Plan or Monitoring Plan meets all the requirements set out in the conditions of the resource consent.

Council or WRC Waikato Regional Council

Year, yearly, annual, annually, annum

Shall be the period of the consent holder’s monitoring and compliance year, which shall be 1 April of one year to 31 March inclusive of the following year.

Reasonable mixing

In terms of condition 8, the reasonable mixing zone shall extend 30 metres downstream from each of the two stormwater discharge points, “SW Ponds” and SW River Discharge”.

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

this consent relates shall be undertaken generally in accordance with the information contained in the application for this consent (Wallace Corporation Limited – Resource Consent Applications and Assessment of Environmental effects, Volumes 1,2 & 3, dated November 2013, prepared by Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd, wrcdoc#2916722). Where there is any disagreement between the application documentation and consent conditions, the consent conditions below shall prevail.

2 The consent holder shall at all times operate, maintain, supervise, monitor and control all

processes on site so that contamination of natural rainwater is kept to the minimum practicable level.

3 No material, washwater, discharge, cooling water, condensate or other contaminant shall be

deliberately added to the stormwater, without the prior written approval from the Waikato Regional Council.

4 The consent holder shall notify the Waikato Regional Council as soon as practicable, and as

a minimum requirement within 24 hours, of the consent holder becoming aware of the limits and performance standards specified in this resource consent being exceeded and/or of any accidental discharge, plant breakdown, or other circumstances which are likely to result in the limits and 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 exceedance, possible causes, steps taken to remedy the effects of the incident, and measures that will be undertaken to ensure future compliance.

5 The consent holder shall maintain and keep a complaint register for all aspects of all

operations at the site. The register shall detail the date, time, duration and type of complaint, cause of the complaint, and action taken by the company in response to the complaint. The register shall be available to the Waikato Regional Council at all reasonable times. The

91


consent holder shall forward to the Waikato Regional Council a copy of all complaints received as soon as practicable but in any event within 48 hours of receipt.

6 The consent holder shall maintain in good working order a shut-off valve for the “Ponds

Catchment” outlet to the wetland. 7 The stormwater discharge quality at discharge points “SW-Ponds” and “SW-River

Discharge” (see attached map) shall comply with the following: a. The pH at all times shall not be below 6.0 or higher than 9.0 units. b. The 5-day BOD concentration shall not exceed 10 grams per cubic metre at any

time. c. The Total Suspended Solids concentration shall not exceed 100 grams per cubic

metre at any time. d. Within two years of the granting of this consent, but following the review of

stormwater quality discharges (set out in condition 15) and the implementation of the proposed improvement (set out in condition 16), the total nitrogen concentration shall not exceed 5 grams per cubic metre, expressed as a 90th percentile for all samples taken over a 12 month period in accordance with the monitoring programme.

e. The total phosphorus concentration shall not exceed 1 gram per cubic metre, expressed as a 90th percentile for all samples taken over a 12 month period in accordance with the monitoring programme.

f. The discharge shall not contain floatable fat.

8 After reasonable mixing within the Waitoa River, the stormwater discharges shall not produce the following effects:

a. Conspicuous oil or grease film, scums, foams or floatable or suspended materials in the Waitoa River.

b. Raise the turbidity of the Waitoa River by more than 10 NTU, if the turbidity of the Waitoa River as measured no less than 5 metres above the point of discharge, is less than 10 NTU; or

c. More than double the turbidity of the Waitoa River, if the turbidity of the Waitoa River, as measured no less than 5 metres above the point of discharge, is greater than 10 NTU.

d. Raise the temperature of the Waitoa River by more than 3oC.

9 Any erosion control works which become necessary as a result of the exercise of this resource consent shall be undertaken as directed by the Waikato regional Council at the expense of the consent holder.

10 The consent holder shall, unless otherwise required to do so by the Waikato Regional

Council following consultation with the consent holder, characterise the stormwater discharge at locations “SW-Ponds” and SW-River Discharge” at no less than monthly frequency, by testing for pH, SS, BOD5, TN and TP. Should insufficient rainfall occur during any given month, thereby not allowing a sample event to be obtained, this shall be recorded and reported to the Waikato Regional Council in accordance with Condition 13 and 14.

11 In addition to the monthly sampling above, the consent holder, unless otherwise required to

do so by the Waikato Regional Council following consultation with the consent holder, characterise the stormwater discharge at locations “SW-Ponds” and SW-River Discharge” at least twice per year (and with an interval of at least two months between the samples), by testing for total chromium and total zinc.

92


12 All sample methods of analysis shall be as detailed in the most recent edition of the “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water” by A.P.H.A. and A.W.W.A. and W.E.F. or by any other method approved in advance by Waikato Regional Council.

13 On a monthly basis the consent holder shall prepare and forward to the Waikato regional

Council a report on the stormwater discharges authorised by this consent, including any monitoring results required under conditions 10 and 11 of this consent.

14 The consent holder shall provide an annual report to the Waikato Regional Council by 1

July each year, which as a minimum: a. Summarises all the data collected as required under conditions 10 and 11 of this

consent, discusses trends or changes in the environmental effects evident from the monitoring data, both within the annual period and compared to previous years;

b. Summarise any monitoring undertaken of the effects of the stormwater discharges on the Waitoa River water quality and ecology and compared to previous years;

c. Report on any improvements to the stormwater treatment systems. 15 The consent holder shall provide a report to Waikato Regional Council within 12 months of

grant of this consent, which sets out practicable options for improving the discharge quality of the site stormwater, and in particular the stormwater from the “Hides and Skins” catchment. The report shall provide options regarding shut-off valves, retention basins, bunding or other treatment methods.

16 The consent holder shall implement the proposed improvements set out in condition 15

within two years of grant of this consent. 17 The consent holder shall update the “Wallace Corporation Limited Spill Contingency Plan”

within three months of grant of this consent, to provide details of spill prevention measures, in relation to the stormwater system. The Spill Contingency Plan shall include detailed maps or plans which show where hazardous chemicals are stored, extent of bunded areas, location of shut-off valves, location of spill recovery materials, and location of all stormwater sumps and discharge pipes. The WCLSCP shall also include details of the training staff have in the use of such spill contingency measures. The WCLSCP shall include details of the training staff will have in the use of spill prevention or recovery equipment, and how disposal of contaminated materials will be undertaken.

18 The consent holder shall inspect all stormwater sumps on at least a monthly basis, and

remove accumulated contaminates as required. A record of all inspections and maintenance shall be kept for at least three years, and made available to Waikato Regional Council upon request at any reasonable time.

19 The stormwater compliance points (which are also the monitoring points) are located at

NZTM 1832712E, 5832523N (SW-Pond) and NZTM 1832615E, 5837748N (SW-Waitoa River), shown below:

93


20 The Waikato Regional Council may review the conditions of this consent at the consent

holders expense in accordance with section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991 within six months of the granting of this consent, and thereafter every three years within five months of the anniversary of the granting of this consent, for the following purpose:

a. ensuring that the best practicable options are utilised to remove or reduce any adverse effect on the Waitoa River caused by the discharge;

b. 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 and/or

c. to review the adequacy of monitoring undertaken by the consent holder. d. to take into account any National Environmental Standard, National Policy

Statement, or Waikato Regional Plan which have become operational or effective since the granting of this consent.

21 Pursuant to section 127 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the consent holder may

apply to change the conditions of this resource consent if circumstances change. 22 The consent holder shall pay to the Waikato Regional Council any administrative charge

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

Advice notes 1. In accordance with section 125 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.

SW-Waitoa River

SW-Pond

94


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.

8. 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.

END

95


Appendix 4:

APP 130915.03.01 Treated Wastewater & Biosolids Discharge to Land






Consent Subtype: Land - Other

Activity authorised: Discharge to land of wastewater and biosolids and associated discharge of contaminants to air





96


Recommended conditions - land discharge

Definitions

Term Definition



Council, or WRC Waikato Regional Council

Cut and carry Pasture used for cut-and-carry cropping is required to be used so exclusively for the reported irrigation season, with harvested crop removed from the irrigation areas and livestock fully excluded.

Irrigation area Areas on which wastewater can be irrigated pursuant to this consent, shall only be those shown indicatively on the map contained in Schedule One of this resource consent.

The irrigated area is taken to be the total area (hectares) of the paddocks in which irrigation is undertaken based on:

i) If greater than 80% of the paddock area is wetted then the irrigatedarea is taken to be the total paddock area.

ii) If less than 80% of the paddock area is irrigated the irrigated area istaken to be the percentage (on a pro-rata basis) of the total paddockarea. For example if 50% only of a paddock is wetted the irrigated areais 50% of the paddock area.

Irrigation dose The depth of irrigation in millimetres over any one 24-hour period.

Irrigation event In relation to treated wastewater or biosolids irrigation: An irrigation dose, or two or more irrigation doses within one rotation period.

Irrigation rate The rate of irrigation in millimetres per hour.

Irrigation season Commences on 1 April and ends on 31 March of the following year.

NLA Nutrient Leaching Allowance. See condition 4.

Overseer parameter report

A report prepared by a suitably qualified person for the purposes of revising the Nutrient Leaching Allowance in the event that the version of the Overseer model changes from version 6.1.2.

97


Wastewater or treated wastewater

Any wastewater discharge to the river is assumed to be treated wastewater, and any reference to either term is deemed to mean treated wastewater. Influent to the wastewater treatment plant includes, but is not limited to:

The rendering plant

The abattoir, including stockyard effluent

The Hides & Skins plant

Dairy farm effluent

Clean in place (CIP) wash water

Contaminated stormwater

Rotation period The start of one irrigation event to the start of the next, for any particular paddock.

Significant ponding

Where wastewater or dairy liquids remain on the surface, over any one area of 10 square metres or more, after 24 hours of being irrigated.

Year, yearly, annual, annually

Shall all be the period of the dairy season being from 1 April of one year to 31 March inclusive of the following year

General:

1. This consent authorises the land application of wastewater and biosolids on Wallace Corporation Limited Farmland (known at the time of the application as Glenburn, Tulliebelton, Brimmer and Park & Auchenhaen Farms, as shown in Figure 1 of the AEE dated November 2013, page 10, wrcdoc#2916722) and set out in Appendix 1 of this consent certificate. The consent holder shall undertake the application of wastewater and biosolids to land in accordance with:

a. the application for this resource consent dated 28 November 2013 including the appendices and subsequent information submitted in support of the application; and

b. the “Farms and Floodplains Irrigation Management Plan 2799178 submitted on 28 November 2013 in support of the application including any subsequent amendments or revisions necessary to improve the environmental performance of the activity; and

c. the resource consent conditions below which shall prevail should any inconsistencies between the application documentation, management plan and the conditions occur.

For the purposes of this consent the term “wastewater” and “biosolids” refers to any material originating from the Wallace Corporation Limited wastewater treatment plant. These definitions exclude solids generated from the dedicated tannery wastewater treatment system.

2. The material authorised to be applied to land under this consent shall be applied no

closer than: a. 10 metres to any watercourse or open drain, whether flowing continuously or

intermittently; b. 20 metres to any property boundary or public road. The distance to a property

boundary may be reduced with the written agreement of the property owner or occupier. A copy of this written agreement shall be provided to the Waikato Regional Council prior disposal of wastewater or biosolids occurring.

98


c. 150 metres to any residential dwelling where the wastewater or biosolids material is applied to land, unless the written agreement of the occupier has been obtained. A copy of this written agreement shall be provided to the Waikato Regional Council prior disposal of wastewater or biosolids occurring.

Compliance Limits

3. The nitrogen loading rate to land from all sources of applied nitrogen (including treated wastewater, biosolids, dairy farm effluent, fertiliser, soil conditioner or any other material containing nitrogen) shall not exceed a total of:

a. 150 kg of nitrogen per hectare per year for all floodplain land; b. 300 kg of nitrogen per hectare per year for grazed pasture; c. 500 kg of nitrogen per hectare per year for non-grazed pasture; and d. 350 kg of nitrogen if cropping for maize and/or silage, based on a combination of

both grazing and cropping where at least one cropping event occurs within a 12 month period, and that crop removes at least 250 kg N/ha/yr from that paddock.

e. Any other irrigation and farm management option, where the consent holder has provided written report using Overseer modelling, and which estimates the nitrogen leaching rate is no more than 60 kg N/ha/yr (prior to 1/4/2024), or more than 40 kg N/ha/yr from 1/4/2024, and has been approved in writing by WRC.

Exceedence of the above loading rates may be utilised for leaching rate trials on various soil types, with the prior written agreement from Waikato Regional Council. The trials shall be undertaken on no more than 10 hectares in any one year. In terms of condition 3(c), there shall be no stock on the pasture or paddock for the period 1st April to 31st March if, in that period, wastewater and/or biosolids is applied at a rate of more than 300 kg N/ha/yr.

4. A Notwithstanding the nitrogen load limits set out in Condition 3, from 1/4/2019 the Nutrient Leaching Allowance (NLA) shall be 60 kg nitrogen per hectare per year, and the consent holder shall ensure that the nitrogen leaching rate does not exceed this rate, as an average over the available land (277 hectares as of October 2015), and as estimated by Overseer® or equivalent nitrogen modelling system accepted by Council in writing. This condition shall prevail over condition 3.

B In addition, from 1/4/2024 the NLA shall be 40 kg of nitrogen per hectare per

year, and the consent holder shall ensure that the nitrogen leaching rate does not exceed this rate, as an average over the available land and as estimated by Overseer® or equivalent modelling system accepted by Council in writing. This condition shall prevail over condition 3.

C The NLA shall be assessed for compliance as a 5-year rolling average from the

date that the NLA applies. D Until 1/4/2024 the consent holder shall report annually to the Waikato Regional

Council on progress towards achieving compliance with the NLA limits (60 kg N/ha/yr and 40 kg N/ha/yr). The report shall be included in the Annual Report required by condition 28.

99


E Overseer, or an equivalent model approved by the Council, shall be used to assess compliance with conditions 3e, 4A and 4B. In the event that the version of Overseer changes, the NLA referred to in condition 4 may need to be adjusted so as to ensure an accurate comparison between the base case and a future situation. The consent holder may commission an ‘Overseer parameter report’ from a suitably qualified person for the purposes of calculating a revised NLA as detailed below:

(i) The calculation of a revised NLA must be based on the same inputs as were

used for the calculation of the NLA under Overseer model version 6.1.2, unless the consent holder can show there were inaccuracies in the original inputs and prior certification has been obtained from the Council for such amendments;

(ii) A copy of the Overseer parameter report (and revised NLA) shall be provided to the Council; and

(iii) The consent holder shall not seek to rely on the revised NLA unless the Council has certified in writing that it accepts the revised NLA. Should such certification be provided the revised NLA will replace the NLA described in condition 4.

Advice Note: An equivalent model to Overseer must be fit for purpose for the consented activity, have a demonstrable repeatability of results, be field tested, and be validated to accepted scientific standards.

5. There shall be no irrigation of any floodplain in the period 1st April to 30th September, and the irrigation of the floodplain shall be carried out in accordance with the following:

a. No irrigation shall occur if there has been any rain in the preceeding day, or more than 15 mm rainfall in the preceeding 72 hours, or if there is a forecast or prediction of rain in excess of 15mm in the next 24 hour period.

b. Irrigation shall be spreader truck or relocatable pod-type irrigators at a maximum hydraulic application rate of 5 mm per hour.

c. No compost or biosolids material shall be applied to any flood plain area. d. The irrigation shall not occur over any part of the floodplain where there is

ponding or visible water.

6. For the purpose of establishing the annual nitrogen loading rate, nitrogen associated with wastewater and liquid biosolids shall be considered to be 100% plant available. The plant available nitrogen of dewatered biosolids applied to land shall be considered to be 75% of the total nitrogen of the dewatered biosolids.

7. Irrigation of wastewater or biosolids to the consent holders land shall not result in an

exchangeable sodium percentage of soil in excess of 10%. If the exchangeable sodium percentage exceeds 10%, action to remedy the elevated exchangeable sodium percentage shall be conducted within one month of the consent holder becoming aware of the elevated exchangeable sodium percentage level. Advice Note: It is expected that action by the consent holder to remedy elevated ESP is likely to commence at a lower ESP, as set out in the Irrigation Management Plan. As a guide, this may be approximately 3-5% ESP.

100


Management

8. Until 1/4/2024 the hydraulic application rate shall not exceed 25mm/hour. After 1/4/2024 the hydraulic application rate shall not exceed 10 mm/hour. The maximum loading rate for the duration of this consent shall not exceed 25 mm per day or per event (i.e may be 2-3 days to achieve the 25mm depth). No irrigation shall occur if there has been more than 25 mm rainfall in the preceeding 24 hours, or more than 25 mm rainfall in the preceeding 72 hours, or if there is a forecast or prediction of rain in excess of 25mm in the next 24 hour period.

9. The consent holder shall ensure that the following return periods and stock withholding periods occur:

(a) For the treated wastewater, the irrigation return period shall be not less than 7 days between events for grazed pasture. There is no return period limit when preparing for cropping.

(b) For the treated wastewater, there shall be a minimum stock withholding period of 7 days after a wastewater irrigation event.

(c) For the biosolids, there shall be a minimum stock withholding period of 14 days after a biosolids disposal event.

10. There shall be no overland flow of wastewater or biosolids neighbouring property not

owned by the consent holder, to any flowing watercourse, drainage ditch, or permanent pond, nor discharge of wastewater from field tile drains into any flowing drainage ditch or canal. Where there has been an irrigation incident where contamination of a drain or waterway has occurred, the consent holder shall:

a. Advise the Waikato Regional Council as soon as practicable, but no later than 24 hours of the incident;

b. Record details of the date and time of the incident; c. Record details of where the spill went, potentially affected persons and whether

they have been contacted; d. Record any remedial work that is going to be undertaken; e. Record any actions to be undertaken to prevent a reoccurrence; and f. Provide a written report including the above details and records to the Waikato

Regional Council within 5 working days of the incident.

11. All field tile drains or similar seepage collection systems which are less than 0.6m deep, shall be destroyed or removed in all irrigation farms by 1/4/2016, and from that date there shall be no preferential flow along any destroyed drains or where drains were removed.

12. There shall be no significant ponding of effluent (for the purpose of this consent significant ponding is deemed to occur if wastewater remains on an area of more than 10 square metres 24 hours after being irrigated).

13. There shall be no detectable spray drift beyond the boundaries of the property.

14. This discharge shall not result in odour that causes an objectionable or offensive effect beyond the boundary of the site.

101


15. Notwithstanding Condition 14, should an emission of odour occur that has an

objectionable or offensive effect, the consent holder shall provide a written report to the Waikato Regional Council within five days of being notified by the Waikato Regional Council. The report shall specify:

a. The cause or likely cause of the event and any factors that influenced its severity. b. The nature and timing of any measures implemented by the consent holder to

avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects. c. The steps to be taken in future to prevent recurrence of similar events.

16. The consent holder shall maintain and keep a complaints register for complaints

received by the consent holder about all aspects of operations at the site. The register shall record:

d. The date, time and duration of the incident that has resulted in a complaint. e. The location of the complainant when the incident was detected. f. The possible cause of the incident. g. Any corrective action undertaken by the consent holder in response to the

complaint.

17. The complaints register shall be available to the Waikato Regional Council at all reasonable times. Complaints received by the consent holder which may indicate non-compliance with the conditions of this resource consent shall be forwarded to the Waikato Regional Council within 5 days of the complaint being received. The complaint information provided to the Waikato Regional Council shall include all information recording in condition 16 above. Details of all other complaints shall be forwarded to the Waikato Regional Council on a monthly basis.

18. The consent holder shall provide to the Waikato Regional Council for certification an

Irrigation Management Plan which details the procedures that will be implemented to operate in accordance with conditions of this resource consent. This plan shall be lodged with Waikato Regional Council within six months following the granting of this consent and shall be reviewed and updated as a minimum every three years thereafter. Any changes to the plan shall be confirmed in writing by the consent holder following consultation with the Waikato Regional Council. The plan shall address but not be limited to:

a. A comprehensive description of the disposal area, disposal methods and equipment;

b. On-site responsibilities, including operation and maintenance of the transfer pipeline to the site, and record-keeping;

c. Management responses to wind speed and direction, or rainfall on the site; d. Contingency measures in place to deal with unusual events including spills; e. Routine inspections and monitoring by the consent holder, including farm drains; f. Hydraulic application rates (particularly in relation to rain), rotation periods and

nutrient loadings; g. Procedures and precautions to prevent emission of offensive odours, or

spraydrift beyond the boundary; h. Circumstances in which irrigation will be initiated and in which irrigation will

cease. i. Description of progressive remediation measures to be taken by the consent

holder when the soil ESP exceeds 5%, in terms of tonnes of lime or gypsum or

102


equivalent material to be added per hectare, for each of the major soil types found on the farms.

Certification means that the Council review the IMP for its approval in a technical capacity that it meets all the requirements set out in the conditions of this resource consent. Except where the Council provides notice in writing that it refuses to certify the AMP, then should certification not be provided within 20 working days, the Consent Holder shall regard the relevant IMP as being deemed to have been certified. Subject to any other conditions of this consent the IMP shall be implemented and all activities shall be undertaken in accordance with the latest revision of the IMP

19. Where liquid effluents or biosolids irrigation occurs on properties crossed by high-voltage transmission lines, the consent holder shall ensure that the spray discharge will not directly contact the transmission lines or support structures, and shall take all practicable measures to avoid or minimise spray or spray drift onto (electricity) support structures or electricity distribution lines. To this end:

a. All equipment and/or mobile plant on site shall maintain a clearance distance of at least 4 metres from the transmission line conductors at all times in accordance with Section 5.2.1 of the NZ Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP 34:2001).

b. In addition to (a), for truck or tractor spreading application, a 4 metre clearance distance shall be maintained between any mobile plant and the footing of any tower and pole base.

c. For travelling irrigator or pod application methods, equipment shall be located and operated so that a 20 metre buffer distance (no spray zone) is maintained at all times. The buffer distance shall apply 20 metres either side of the centre line drawn directly underneath the transmission lines.

Advice Note 1: Any conductive fence (even wooden fences can be conductive when wet) close to a National Grid support structure (pole or tower) or running basically parallel to a transmission line may need to be earthed and/or insulated to manage the potential for electrical hazards. Advice Note 2: Please refer to NZECP 34:2001 for further details about safe distances of mobile plant from conductors.

Monitoring

20. The consent holder shall characterise the irrigated effluent as follows, unless otherwise required to do so by the Waikato Regional Council in writing following consultation with the consent holder:

Frequency Parameter Unit

Daily Volume m3/d

Weekly Total nitrogen g/m3

Total phosphorus g/m3

Sodium g/m3

Monthly Total chromium g/m3

103


E. coli cfu/100ml

21. The consent holder shall characterise the irrigated soils annually for the following

parameters: pH, phosphorus (measured as Olsen P), available nitrogen (at 15 cm depth, kg/ha), sodium, chromium, boron, cation exchange capacity, exchangeable sodium percentage, organic matter %, soil carbon (%), soil nitrogen (%) and C:N ratio.

To this end, the consent holder shall take no less than the following number of representative soil subsamples at each farm: Park & Auchehaen Farm: 10 subsamples from Waihou soils to form one composite 10 subsamples from Waitoa soils to form one composite Brimmer Farm: 10 subsamples from Te Puninga soils to form one composite 10 subsamples from Waitoa soils to form one composite Glenburn Farm: 10 subsamples from Waihou soils to form one composite 10 subsamples from Waitoa soils to form one composite Tulliebelton Farm: 10 subsamples from Waihou soils to form one composite 10 subsamples from Waitoa soils to form one composite All subsamples shall be collected at a depth of 0-15 cm. The sampling shall occur in the months of June to August, and shall be collected using standard soil sampling procedures and in appropriate laboratory supplied containers or sample bags. The locations from which samples are collected shall have their GPS coordinates recorded and any subsequent annual sampling shall also be collected from these same locations.

22. The consent holder shall sample monitoring bores outlined below, quarterly each year and tested for pH, electrical conductivity, ammonium-N, nitrate-N, E coli, total chromium, and sodium.

Monitoring bores Latitude Longitude

Gb1 37°37'1.28"S 175°37'59.45"E

Gb2 37°37'9.29"S 175°38'8.45"E

Gb3 37°37'17.90"S 175°38'2.63"E

Gb4 37°37'16.70"S 175°37'48.91"E

Gb5 37°37'2.96"S 175°37'44.06"E

Tb1 37°37'17.50"S 175°38'28.81"E

Tb2 37°37'29.09"S 175°38'23.13"E

Tb3 37°37'44.78"S 175°38'24.65"E

Tb4 37°37'35.54"S 175°38'38.13"E

Tb5 37°37'25.55"S 175°38'37.15"E

Tb6 37°37'24.28"S 175°38'51.39"E

Tb7 37°37'3.45"S 175°38'42.06"E

Tb8 37°37'4.85"S 175°38'37.70"E

Tb9 37°37'36.82"S 175°38'24.50"E

PA1 37°37'38.38"S 175°38'6.06"E

PA2 37°37'34.16"S 175°37'58.15"E

PA3 37°37'45.02"S 175°37'57.58"E

PA4 37°37'44.89"S 175°37'40.68"E

PA5 37°37'34.00"S 175°37'36.44"E

PA6 37°37'21.62"S 175°37'46.12"E

104


PA7 37°37'20.72"S 175°37'19.09"E

PA8 37°37'52.02"S 175°37'17.27"E

Br1 37°37'59.66"S 175°37'38.66"E

Br2 37°38'7.31"S 175°37'31.13"E

Br3 37°38'8.07"S 175°37'42.63"E

Br4 37°37'54.49"S 175°37'51.36"E

23. The consent holder shall monitor the following water supply bores at six-monthly

intervals and test for nitrate-nitrogen, sodium and chloride. Sampling shall only be carried out with the permission of the land owner.

Supply bore Location Approximate location

NZTM Easting NZTM Northing

153 Ngarua Road 1833230 5834257

199 Ngarua Road 1833377 5833863

212 Ngarua Road 1833141 5833658

237 Ngarua Road 1833451 5833489

251A Ngarua Road 1833523 5833320

277 Ngarua Road 1833624 5833155

282B Ngarua Road 1833429 5833016

376B Ngarua Road 1833342 5831886

174 Wood Road 1830989 5832680

299 Wood Road 1831928 5833217

323 Wood Road 1831910 5833412

4879 State Highway 27 1832234 5831306

The results of all groundwater bore monitoring required under condition 23 shall be forwarded to owners of those bores within one month of the consent holder receiving the test results.

24. All sample analyses shall be undertaken in accordance with the methods detailed in the

"Standard Methods For The Examination Of Water And Wastewater, 2012" 22nd edition by A.P.H.A. and A.W.W.A. and W.P.C.F. or any subsequent updated version of that document, or any other method approved in advance by the Waikato Regional Council.

25. The consent holder shall maintain a map of the irrigated farms that identifies individual paddocks and soil types, and shall keep records of the dates of irrigation of the Wallace Corporation wastewater or biosolids onto each paddock. The records shall include daily rainfall, flowmeter readings, pump hours, paddocks irrigated, number of hours irrigated, number of runs, irrigator speed setting, total number of tanker laods per paddock per day, and volume of biosolids applied per paddock per day. These records shall be made available to the Waikato Regional Council staff or agents at all reasonable times and shall be forwarded to the Waikato Regional Council by 30 June each year, in accordance with Condition 28.

26. The consent holder shall sample farm drains which flow through or alongside the

irrigated area for the purpose of assessing the extent of seepage from the irrigation farms to surface water, and for confirming compliance with condition 11 (removal of field tile drains less than 0.6m deep). To this end, on a 3-monthly frequency, test for

105


conductivity, sodium, chloride, ammoniacal-N, nitrate-N and total phosphorus, at the 5 locations set out below, and as shown in Appendix 2 to this consent.

a. The “Board Drain” upstream of the Park & Auchenhaen Farm, b. The 3 drains running south to north in the Park & Auchenhaen Farm, where they

outlet to the “Board Drain”; and. c. The “Board Drain” at the entrance to the main factory site.

27. All monitoring results as required under this consent shall be forwarded to the Waikato

Regional Council at monthly intervals.

28. The consent holder shall forward to the Waikato Regional Council by 30 June each year an Annual Report which shall provide:

a. Annual loads (kg/ha/yr) of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, chromium and boron applied to any irrigated paddocks.

b. Annual volume of effluent applied to any irrigated paddocks, including application rates in mm/day.

c. Details of any incident or equipment failure which caused a breach of any condition in this consent, and improvements to prevent any similar event occurring in the future.

d. Details of any complaints regarding irrigation, and action taken in response. e. Results of the groundwater and soil testing. f. A nutrient budget prepared as specified in condition 28. g. Details of any nitrogen leaching rate trials carried out in accordance with

condition 3, and the outcome of the trials. h. Progress with achieving the NLA limits required by condition 4A and 4B.

The annual monitoring period shall be from 1 April to 31 March the following year.

29 The Consent Holder shall provide to Waikato Regional Council by 31 July each year a

nutrient management budget for each irrigation farm and for the overall 277 hectare irrigation area, that has been developed based on the outputs of either Overseer or any other nutrient management planning tool that meets the following criteria:

a. Be a Crown Research Institute, University or Industry developed model that has successfully completed commercial trials commensurate with climatic, terrain and soil conditions expected to be encountered in the Waikato region.

b. Be able to predict annual, seasonal or crop nutrient losses at either a paddock or total crop area scale with a margin of error no more than 30%.

c. Have been calibrated against current versions of Overseer, or versions that are no more than 3 years old, and any departures from those models when using identical data sets documented and explained.

d. Have product maintenance and support currently available as of the date of use or guaranteed for a period of one year.

30 The nutrient management budget required by condition 28 shall as a minimum record

the following information for at least nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) (in units of kilograms of N and P per hectare per year):

a. Inputs from dairy liquids, fertiliser, and any nutrient source. b. Outputs in product. c. Results of soil testing.

106


31 The Waikato Regional Council may review the conditions of this consent at the consent holders expense in accordance with section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991 within six months of the granting of this consent, and thereafter every three years within five months of the anniversary of the granting of this consent, for the following purpose:



c. to review the adequacy of monitoring undertaken by the consent holder. d. To take into account any National Environmental Standard, National Policy

Statement, or Waikato Regional Plan which have become operational or effective since the granting of this consent.


apply to change the conditions of this resource consent if circumstances change. 33 The consent holder shall pay to the Waikato Regional Council any administrative charge


Appendix 1 to consent 130915.03 (discharge wastewater to land): Authorised irrigation area.

107


108


Appendix 2 to consent 130915.03 (discharge wastewater to land): Drain sampling locations for condition 26

Advice notes 1. In accordance with section 125 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.





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

Wood Rd

Board Drain

upstream P&A

Farm

P&A Farm

drain No 1, outlet to Board

Drain

P&A Farm

drain No 2

outlet to

Board Drain

P&A Farm

drain No 3 outlet to

Board Drain

Board Drain by

main factory

entrance

109


continue exercising this consent after it expires in the event that your application is not processed prior to this consent's expiry.


END

110


Appendix 5: APP 130915.04.01 Treated Wastewater Discharge to Waitoa River Recommended conditions





Consent Subtype: Wastewater

Activity authorised: To discharge treated wastewater at a rate of up to 3,440 cubic metres per day from the Wallace Corporation Limited wastewater treatment plant to the Waitoa River. The authorised discharge also includes indirect seepage of wastewater from unlined treatment ponds to the Waitoa River.

Location: Wood Rd: Waitoa

Spatial Reference: NZTM 1840405E, 5839473N



111


Recommended conditions – river discharge Definitions For the purposes of this consent, the following definitions apply.

Term Definition



Council or WRC

Waikato Regional Council



Wastewater or treated wastewater

Any wastewater discharge to the river is assumed to be treated wastewater, and any reference to either term is deemed to mean treated wastewater. Influent to the wastewater treatment plant includes, but is not limited to:

The rendering plant

The abattoir, including stockyard effluent

The Hides & Skins plant

Dairy farm effluent

Clean in place (CIP) wash water

Contaminated stormwater

Summer and winter periods

In terms of the E coli discharge limits (condition 17), the summer period is defined as the period from 1 December to 1 March, and the winter period is the remainder of the year, being 2 March to 30 November. This definition is consistent with the E coli standards stated in Rule 3.2.4.4 of the Regional Plan. For all other discharge limits and conditions, the summer period is defined as the period from 1 December to 30 April, and the winter period is the remainder of the year, being 1 May to 30 November

Reasonable mixing zone

For the purposes of this consent, the reasonable mixing zone extends 30 metres downstream of the wastewater discharge point.

Discharge or direct discharge

Discharge or direct discharge means that treated wastewater discharged by point source to the Waitoa River from the final treatment pond, and does not include any indirect discharge to the Waitoa River which may occur as a result of seepage from the treatment ponds to ground or groundwater and hence to the Waitoa River.

IPENZ Practice Note 21

The Institution of Professional Engineers (IPENZ) Practice Note 21 (Farm Dairy Effluent Pond Design and Construction, Version 2, March 2013) provides good practice guidance for the construction of dairy farm effluent ponds. The same standard is applicable to wastewater treatment ponds as found at WCL. The link to the above document is https://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/Forms/pdfs/PN21_Dairy_Farm_Effluent_Pond_Design.pdf

Wastewater In terms of condition 42, wastewater pond is defined as any wastewater storage

112

https://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/Forms/pdfs/PN21_Dairy_Farm_Effluent_Pond_Design.pdf


pond or treatment facility at the site, and includes ponds, lagoons, or tanks. For clarity, the term “wastewater pond” does not include the wetland ponds located to the north of the treatment ponds and which receives treated wastewater prior to discharge to the Waitoa River.

Limits 1 The volume of wastewater directly discharged to the Waitoa River in any 24 hour period

shall not exceed 3440 cubic metres. The wastewater shall be discharged as evenly as possible over each 24 hour period. During wet weather the allowable discharge volume may be increased by 12 cubic metres for every 1 millimetre rainfall which has occurred in the 24 hour period. Where there is any conflict between the volume limit in Condition 1 and conditions 8-18 of this consent then conditions 8-18 shall prevail.

2 The rate of wastewater direct discharge to the Waitoa River shall not exceed 45 L/s at

any given time. 3 The direct discharge to the Waitoa River shall not occur when the Waitoa River flow is

less than 1000 Litres per second during winter (1 May to 30 November) or less than 2000 Litres per second during summer (1 December to 30 April).

4 For the purposes of this consent, the reasonable mixing zone is defined as extending 30

metres downstream from the point of discharge into the Waitoa River. 5 The treated wastewater shall pass through the wetlands pond before discharge to the

Waitoa River, and the compliance point shall be as shown in the vicinity of NZTM 1840405E 5839473N, as shown in the AEE dated November 2013, Figure 13, p 54 (wrcdoc#2916722). From 1/4/2019 the discharge point to the Waitoa River shall be approximately 250m further north, as shown in Figure 13, page 54 AEE.

6 The pH of the treated wastewater at the compliance point shall not be less than 6.0 and

greater than 9.0 pH units. 7 The direct discharge shall not cause the Waitoa River electrical conductivity to increase

more than 50 milliSiemens per metre (mS/m) beyond the reasonable mixing zone. 8 Until 31st March 2019 the total phosphorus load shall not exceed 55 kilograms in any 24

hour period. From 1st April 2019 the total phosphorus load shall not exceed a total of 906 kilograms in the period 1 December to 30 April, and shall not exceed a total of 6420 kilograms in the period 1 May to 30 November.

9 The total chromium load shall not exceed 1.50 kilograms in any 24 hour period and shall be discharged as evenly as possible over that 24 hour period. Hexavalent chromium shall not exceed 0.03 gram per cubic metre in the discharge.

10 The total boron load shall not exceed 5 kilograms in any 24 hour period and shall be discharged as evenly as possible over that 24 hour period.

11 The direct discharge shall not increase the Waitoa River un-ionised sulphide

concentration by more than 0.001 grams per cubic metre, beyond the reasonable mixing zone. The un-ionised sulphide concentration to be used when calculating the in-stream concentration shall be 20% of the dissolved sulphide concentration of the discharge.

113


Sampling shall be by grab sample of the final wastewater and the sample shall be stabilised immediately.

12A Until 31st March 2019 the BOD load discharged to the Waitoa River shall not exceed the

following, in any 24 hour period, and discharged as evenly as possible over that 24 hour period: a. When the river flow is 1000 L/s <1500 L/s, 50 kilograms; b. When the river flow is 1500 L/s < 2000 L/s, 75 kilograms; c. When the river flow is >2000 L/s, 109 kilograms;

12B From 1st April 2019 the BOD load discharged to the Waitoa River shall not exceed the

following in any 24 hour period, and discharged as evenly as possible over that 24 hour period: d. When the river flow is 1000 L/s <1500 L/s, 25 kilograms; e. When the river flow is 1500 L/s < 2000 L/s, 45 kilograms; f. When the river flow is 2000 L/s < 2500 L/s, 65 kilograms; g. When the river flow is 2500 L/s <3000 L/s, 75 kilograms; h. When the river flow is > 3000 L/s, 90 kilograms.

13A Until 31st March 2019 the Total Suspended Solids load discharged to the Waitoa River

shall not exceed the following, in any 24 hour period, and shall be discharged as evenly as possible over that 24 hour period: a. When the river flow is 1000 L/s <1500 L/s, 57 kilograms; b. When the river flow is 1500 L/s < 2000 L/s, 135 kilograms; c. When the river flow is > 2000 L/s, 230 kilograms;

13B From 1st April 2019 the Total Suspended Solids load discharged to the Waitoa River

shall not exceed the following, and shall be discharged as evenly as possible over that 24 hour period: d. When the river flow is 1000 L/s <1500 L/s, 57 kilograms per day maximum; e. When the river flow is 1500 L/s < 2000 L/s, 129 kilograms per day maximum; f. When the river flow is 2000 L/s < 2500 L/s, 172 kilograms per day maximum; g. When the river flow is 2500 L/s < 3000 L/s, 200 kilograms per day maximum; h. When the river flow is >3000 L/s, 200 kilograms per day maximum.

14A Until 31st March 2019 the Total Nitrogen load discharged to the Waitoa River shall not

exceed the following, in any 24 hour period, and discharged as evenly as possible over that 24 hour period: a. All year round, when the river flow is 1000 L/s <2000 L/s, 273 kilograms; b. During September to April inclusive, when the river flow is >2000 L/s, 354 kilograms; c. During May to August inclusive, when the river flow is > 2000 L/s, 458 kilograms.

14B From 1st April 2019 the Total Nitrogen load discharged to the Waitoa River shall not

exceed the following: d. An annual load of 20 tonnes plus 400 kilograms for each day during which the

Waitoa River flow (as measured at the Mellon Rd flow gauge) exceeds 10,000 L/s at any time in that day. (As an example, if in any year there were 50 days where the Waitoa River flow exceeded 10,000 L/s, then the maximum authorised TN load would be 20 + 50x0.4 = 40.0 tonne/yr.)

114


14C From 1st April 2024 the Total Nitrogen load discharged to the Waitoa River shall not exceed the following: e. An annual load of 15 tonnes plus 400 kilograms for each day during which the

Waitoa River flow (as measured at Mellon Rd flow gauge) exceeds 10,000 L/s at any time in that day.

14D Within the annual limits set out in (d) and (e) above, in any 24 hour period, and

discharged as evenly as possible over that 24 hour period, the consent holder shall not exceed a daily limit of: f. When the river flow is 1000 L/s <1500 L/s, 108 kilograms; g. When the river flow is 1500 L/s < 2000 L/s, 174 kilograms; h. When the river flow is 2000 L/s < 2500 L/s, 233 kilograms; i. When the river flow is 2500 L/s <3000 L/s, 291 kilograms; j. When the river flow is 3000 L/s or more, 348 kilograms.

15 The ammoniacal-N load discharged to the Waitoa River shall not exceed the following, in

any 24 hour period, and shall be discharged as evenly as possible over that 24 hour period. a. When the river flow is 1000 L/s <1500 L/s, 40 kilograms; b. When the river flow is 1500 L/s < 2000 L/s, 110 kilograms; c. When the river flow is 2000 L/s < 2500 L/s, 147 kilograms; d. When the river flow is 2500 L/s <3000 L/s, 184 kilograms; e. When the river flow is 3000 L/s or more, 221 kilograms.

Notwithstanding the above ammoniacal-nitrogen loads, the discharge shall not cause the concentration of ammoniacal-nitrogen in the Waitoa River to exceed 0.88 grams per cubic metre beyond the reasonable mixing zone.

16 The Nitrite-nitrogen load discharged to the Waitoa River shall not exceed the following,

in any 24 hour period, and discharged as evenly as possible over that 24 hour period: a. When the river flow is 1000 L/s <1500 L/s, 5.2 kilograms; b. When the river flow is 1500 L/s < 2000 L/s, 7.8 kilograms; c. When the river flow is 2000 L/s < 2500 L/s, 10.4 kilograms; d. When the river flow is 2500 L/s <3000 L/s, 13.0 kilograms; e. When the river flow is 3000 L/s or more, 15.6 kilograms.

17A From 1st April 2019, for the winter period (2 March to 30 November) the E. coli concentration in the wastewater discharge shall not exceed the following (estimated from all test results over the winter period): a median of 500 cfu/100ml, and a 95th percentile of10,000 cfu/100ml.

17B From 1st April 2019, for the summer contact recreation period (1 December to 1 March)

the E coli concentration in the wastewater discharge shall not exceed the following (estimated from all test results over the summer period): a median of 300 cfu/100mls, and a 95th percentile of 1000 cfu/100ml.

18 Beyond the reasonable mixing zone, the discharge shall not cause the Waitoa River

temperature to increase by more than 3 degrees Celsius above ambient river temperature, and shall not cause the river temperature to exceed 25 degrees Celsius at any time.

115


19 Beyond the reasonable mixing zone, the treated wastewater discharge shall not produce the following effects: a. Conspicuous oil or grease film, scums, foams or floatable or suspended materials in

the Waitoa River. b. Raise the turbidity of the Waitoa River by more than 10 NTU, if the turbidity of the

Waitoa River as measured no less than 5 metres above the cooling water discharge, is less than 10 NTU; or

c. More than double the turbidity of the Waitoa River, if the turbidity of the Waitoa River, as measured no less than 5 metres above the cooling water discharge, is greater than 10 NTU.

d. Conspicuously change the colour of Waitoa River.

Monitoring 20 The consent holder shall sample and test the treated wastewater discharge at the

compliance point (as defined in condition 5) at the following frequencies: a. Weekly, for ammoniacal-nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, nitrite-

nitrogen, Total suspended solids, cBOD5, Total Phosphorus, Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus and E coli.

b. Fortnightly, for electrical conductivity, pH, dissolved sulphide. c. Monthly, for Total chromium and sodium.

The sample shall be obtained using a manual grab sampling techniques. The sulphide sample which shall be a grab sample and stabilised immediately to prevent loss of sulphide. All grab samples shall be taken at a time and in a manner that the sample is likely to be reasonably representative of the wastewater to be discharged that day.

21 In the months of January to April inclusive, the consent holder shall continuously monitor

the Waitoa River at a location between 50m and 100m downstream of the treated wastewater discharge point, and at a location between 50m and100m upstream of the water abstraction point, and shall test for temperature (degrees Celsius) and dissolved oxygen (% saturation). For the purpose of this condition, continuous means a test result every 15 minutes, for a period of at least four days without servicing. The temperature and dissolved oxygen measurements shall be relayed to the consent holder for digital storage in real time and be capable of remote access from the river monitoring unit by the consent holder at any time. As far as is practicable, this monitoring shall be co-ordinated with the temperature and dissolved oxygen monitoring required by condition 11 of consent 130915.05 (cooling water discharge).

22 All sample methods of analysis shall be as detailed in the most recent edition of the

“Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water” by A.P.H.A. and A.W.W.A. and W.E.F. or by any other method approved in advance by Waikato Regional Council.

23 The consent holder shall record the discharge flow rate (litres per second) on a

continuous basis, the total daily volume of the discharge (cubic metres per 24 hours), and the estimated flow of the Waitoa River at the consent holder’s site (litres per second).

116


24 In terms of determining compliance with conditions 12 to 16, the Waitoa River flow at the consent holder’s site shall be estimated from the Mellon Road flow gauge. At least once per year, the consent holder shall commission an independent person with expertise in flow gauging to estimate the flow of the Waitoa River at the consent holder’s site, and at the flow gauge site, and shall use the ratio of the two river sites to determine the flow at any time at the consent holders site. If the consent holder receives written advice from the Waikato Regional Council that the established ratio may no longer be valid, then the consent holder shall commission a new flow gauging of the Waitoa River at the consent holders site within one month of receiving such advice.

25 The consent holder shall be responsible for taking any necessary action, including

seeking any necessary resource consents, and other approvals to avoid remedy or mitigate any river side erosion which may arise as a result of the exercise of this consent.

26 The consent holder shall operate and manage the treated wastewater discharge as far

as practicable to achieve rapid initial mixing with a high proportion of the river flow. 27 The consent holder shall carry out Waitoa River effects monitoring every third year,

starting in 2016, at a time when there is a wastewater discharge to the river. The effects monitoring shall be carried out when the river flow is less than 2500 Litres per second, and when there has been a treated wastewater discharge for at least four days continuously.

Sampling shall be carried out at two locations upstream of the site, and four locations downstream, these six locations being those identified within the AEE, Appendix E1, Figure 2 (“Proposed biological and water quality sampling sites”) prepared by Pattle Delamore Partners Limited, November 2013, and as attached to this certificate.

At all six sites the river quality shall be tested for temperature, conductivity, Total Chromium, BOD5, Suspended Solids, turbidity, E coli, pH, ammoniacal-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen, TKN, dissolved reactive phosphorus and total phosphorus. At three of the six sites, including an upstream site, dissolved oxygen shall also be measured. The above parameters shall be sampled by grab sample, with the exception of the dissolved oxygen which shall be a 24 hour survey. The wastewater discharge at the time of the survey shall also be tested for the same parameters.

At all six sites the river biota shall be tested for macro-invertebrates (Average Taxa Richness, MCI, QMCI and Average MPT Index), for periphyton and macrophytes.

In the years 2019 and 2025 the river effects monitoring shall include a fish survey at each of the six sites.

28 The consent holder shall carry out Waitoa River effects monitoring every third year,

starting in 2016, at a time when there has been no wastewater discharge to the river for at least a week beforehand, and in the months of February or March when the river flow is less than 1000 L/s. The purpose of this monitoring is to assess the impact of other discharges to the river attributable to the consent holder such as cooling water and nutrient losses from the land irrigation farms.

117


Sampling shall be carried out at two locations upstream of the site, and four locations downstream, these six locations being those identified within the AEE, Appendix E1, Figure 2 (“Proposed biological and water quality sampling sites”) prepared by Pattle Delamore Partners Limited, November 2013, and as attached to this certificate. The “Board Drain” shall also be sampled at two locations, one upstream of the consent holder’s site, and the other opposite Pond 5, as shown in Appendix 3 of this consent. A sample shall also be taken of any known discharge from the consent holder’s site at the time of the effects survey (for instance if there was a cooling water discharge).

At all eight sites (or more if there is a known discharge from the consent holder’s site) the river quality shall be tested for temperature, conductivity, BOD5, E coli, pH, ammoniacal-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen, TKN, dissolved reactive phosphorus, total phosphorus, sodium and chloride. The above parameters shall be sampled by grab sample.

29 The consent holder shall update the Wallace Corporation Limited Monitoring Programme

2013/14 (wrcdoc#3098016, received 30 June 2014) within three months of grant of this consent, to ensure that the Programme includes all monitoring required by this consent, as well as required by the cooling water discharge, stormwater, and land discharge consents held by the consent holder. The consent holder shall provide the Waikato Regional Council with a copy of the updated Monitoring Programme within three months of grant of this consent,

Reporting 30 On a monthly basis the consent holder shall prepare and forward to the Waikato

Regional Council a report on the treated wastewater discharge authorised by this consent, including any monitoring results required under conditions 20 - 23 of this consent.

31 The consent holder shall provide an annual report to the Waikato Regional Council by 1

July each year, which as a minimum: a. Summarises all the data collected as required under conditions 20 - 23 of this


b. Summarise any monitoring undertaken of the effects of the treated wastewater discharges on the Waitoa River water quality and ecology and compared to previous years;

c. Report on any improvements to the wastewater treatment systems, completed, underway or proposed.

d. Comment on compliance with conditions of this resource consent, including any reasons for non-compliance or difficulties in achieving compliance.

Management 32 The wastewater treatment plant shall be managed and operated by an appropriately

trained person.

118


33 The consent holder shall update the “Wallace Corporation Limited Spill Contingency

Plan” (WCLSCP) within three months of grant of this consent, to provide details of spill prevention measures, in relation to the wastewater treatment system, and in terms of spills of hazardous materials into the wastewater treatment system, and of spills of wastewater from the treatment system. The WCLSCP shall include detailed maps or plans which show where hazardous chemicals are stored, extent of bunded areas, location of shut-off valves, and location of spill recovery materials. The WCLSCP shall include details of the training staff will have in the use of spill prevention or recovery equipment, and how disposal of contaminated materials will be undertaken.

34 The consent holder shall implement the requirements of the spill contingency plan in the

event of a spill of wastewater, or hazardous material into the wastewater treatment system. In addition the consent holder must promptly notify the site manager (or their representative) of the Fonterra Waitoa dairy factory, if a spill or an event occurs that may have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the water at the Fonterra Waitoa water abstraction point.

35 The consent holder shall notify the Waikato Regional Council as soon as practicable,

and as a minimum requirement within 48 hours of any event which has or is likely to result in the limits of this consent being exceeded.

36 The consent holder shall take adequate precautions to ensure contractors are made

aware of the conditions of this resource consent and ensure compliance with those conditions.

37 The consent holder shall maintain and keep a complaints register for complaints

received by the consent holder about all aspects of operations at the site. The register shall record:

a. The date, time and duration of the incident that has resulted in a complaint. b. The location of the complainant when the incident was detected. c. The possible cause of the incident. d. Any corrective action undertaken by the consent holder in response to the

complaint

The complaints register shall be available to the Waikato Regional Council at all reasonable times. Complaints received by the consent holder which may indicate non-compliance with the conditions of this resource consent shall be forwarded to the Waikato Regional Council within 5 days of the complaint being received. Details of all other complaints shall be forwarded to the Waikato Regional Council on a monthly basis.

38 The consent holder shall prepare a Management and Operations Manual for the

wastewater treatment facility. The Manual shall take account of all operations potentially affecting the quality of the treated wastewater discharged and affecting the discharge of contaminants into the air from this facility, and shall include at least the following matters:

a. treatment facility operation and maintenance procedures; b. sludge disposal provisions and procedures; c. procedures and precautions to prevent emission of objectionable odours and

procedures to prevent objectionable odours if they occur;

119


d. provisions for the identification and labelling of wastewater and clean water drains; e. measures to ensure that the permitted daily load of contaminants in the discharge

are not exceeded.

The Manual shall be provided to the Waikato Regional Council within six months of the granting of this consent, and any subsequent updates shall be provided to the Waikato Regional Council within three months of completion.

Riparian Mitigation 39 The consent holder shall continue to implement riparian management actions in

accordance with the Wallace Corporation Riparian Management Plan 2013 (Received August 2014, wrcdoc#3145473 & 3145580) and the update received 28/11/14 (wrcdoc#3231205). The consent holder shall ensure that stock are excluded from the riparian zone once planted, to preserve the zone’s integrity, and shall maintain the riparian zone by regular removal of plant pest species and animal pests. The riparian zone maintenance shall also include replanting of dead, damaged, or diseased trees so that a continuous canopy is maintained.

Within 12 months of grant of this consent, the consent holder shall provide an updated Riparian Planting Plan to the Waikato Regional Council, which sets out the proposed programme for the duration of this consent, in five yearly programmes. Each five year programme shall set out the specific planting scheme, the location of any proposed planting and floodplain development, maintenance, pest control and estimated yearly costs. Work shall be undertaken in accordance with the timetable set out within the updated Riparian Planting Plan unless written approval for a variation has been given by the Council. The plan shall be reviewed every 5 years from the date of granting of the consent, and any agreed changes shall be approved in writing by the Council.

Review 40 The Waikato Regional Council may review the conditions of this consent at the consent

holders expense in accordance with section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991 within six months of the granting of this consent, and thereafter every three years within five months of the anniversary of the granting of this consent, for the following purpose: a. ensuring that the best practicable options are utilised to remove or reduce any

adverse effect on the Waitoa River caused by the discharge; b. 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 and/or


Statement, or Waikato Regional Plan which have become operational of effective since the granting of this consent.

e. to reduce the E coli limit below the median of 500 and 90th percentile 10,000 cfu/100mls, in the event that the Waitoa River upstream annual median concentration of E coli reduces below 300 cfu/100mls for two consecutive years.


apply to change the conditions of this resource consent if circumstances change.

120


Administration 42 The consent holder shall pay to the Waikato Regional Council any administrative charge


Wastewater pond lining 43A Any wastewater pond, tank, lagoon or other treatment facility (hereby all defined as

pond) which is installed after the date of grant of this consent, shall be lined to achieve a permeability of no more than 1 x 10-9 m/s, and in accordance with best practice for lining wastewater storage or treatment facilities.

43B For any wastewater pond which exists at the time of grant of this consent, and in the

event that the pond is emptied or is renovated for any purpose, then that pond shall be lined to achieve a permeability of no more than 1 x 10-9 m/s, and in accordance IPENZ Practice Note 21 (Farm Dairy Effluent Pond Design and Construction, Version 2, 2013) or any upgrade to that Practice Note.

43C Where any pond has been lined in accordance with the above standard, no wastewater

shall be placed in the pond until the liner has been certified by a member of IPENZ that it meets the design requirements and has been constructed in accordance with best practice as set out in the IPENZ Practice Note 21.

121


Appendix 1 to consent 130915.04 (discharge wastewater to the Waitoa River): Location of compliance point and discharge point (condition 5 and 20)

Treated wastewater discharge point

until 1/4/19

After 1/4/19

122


Appendix 2 to consent 130915.04 (discharge wastewater to Waitoa River): Location of river monitoring sites (Conditions 27 & 28)

123


Appendix 3 to consent 130915.04 (discharge wastewater to Waitoa River): Location of “Board Drain” sampling points (condition 28).

Advice notes 1. In accordance with section 125 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.




Upstream

location

Downstream

location,

opposite Pond 5

124





END

125


Appendix 6:

APP 130915.05.01 Cooling Water Discharge to Waitoa River Recommended conditions





Consent Subtype: Cooling water

Activity authorised: Discharge up to 6,480 cubic metres per day of cooling water (augmented by up to 3440 cubic metres per day of groundwater) in to the Waitoa River in the general vicinity of Wood Road, Waitoa.


Spatial Reference: NZTM 1832779E, 5832584N



126


Recommended conditions – cooling water Definitions For the purposes of this consent, the following definitions apply.

Term Definition

Certified (or Certification) In relation to a Management Plan or Monitoring Plan: means that the Council has certified that the Management Plan or Monitoring Plan contains all information specified in the relevant condition(s) and that the Management Plan or Monitoring Plan meets all the requirements set out in the conditions of the resource consent.




Reasonable mixing zone For the purposes of this consent, the reasonable mixing zone extends 30 metres downstream of the cooling water discharge point.

Augmented with groundwater

Augmented means groundwater taken under consent 127279 may be added to the stormwater before discharge to the Waitoa River.

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

this consent relates shall be undertaken generally in accordance with the information contained in the application for this consent (Wallace Corporation Limited – Resource Consent Applications and Assessment of Environmental effects, Volumes 1,2 & 3, dated November 2013, prepared by Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd, wrcdoc#2916722). Where there is any conflict between the application documentation and consent conditions, the consent conditions below shall prevail.

2 The consent holder shall at all times operate, maintain, supervise, monitor and control all

processes on site so that contamination of the cooling water is kept to the minimum practicable level.

3 Except for groundwater discharges to the cooling water (used for the purposes of Waitoa

River augmentation) and contaminants associated with the groundwater discharge, no material, wash water, waste water or other contaminant shall be deliberately added to the cooling water, without the prior written approval from the Waikato Regional Council.

4 The consent holder shall notify the Waikato Regional Council as soon as practicable, and as

a minimum requirement within 24 hours, of the consent holder becoming aware of the limits and performance standards specified in this resource consent being exceeded and/or of any accidental discharge, plant breakdown, or other circumstances which are likely to result in the limits and 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

127


Regional Council. Identifying the exceedance, possible causes, steps taken to remedy the effects of the incident, and measures that will be undertaken to ensure future compliance.

5 The consent holder shall maintain and keep a complaint register for all aspects of all

operations at the site. The register shall detail the date, time, duration and type of complaint, cause of the complaint, and action taken by the company in response to the complaint. The register shall be available to the Waikato Regional Council at all reasonable times. The consent holder shall forward to the Waikato Regional Council a copy of all complaints received as soon as practicable but in any event within 48 hours of receipt.

6 The cooling water discharge shall comply with the following:

a. The maximum daily discharge volume shall not exceed 6,480 cubic metres, excluding rainfall of 3.5 m3 per mm rainfall, and augmented by up to 3440 cubic metres of groundwater.

b. The maximum discharge rate of cooling water and groundwater combined shall not exceed 115 Litres per second.

c. The pH at all times shall not be below 6.0 or higher than 9.0 units. d. The 5-day BOD concentration shall not exceed 10 grams per cubic metre at any time. e. The Total Suspended Solids concentration shall not exceed 50 grams per cubic metre

at any time. f. The E coli concentration shall not exceed 500 cfu per 100mls as an annual median, and

shall not exceed 10,000 cfu per 100mls as an 95th percentile in any year.

7 There shall be no major alteration to the outfall structure or mechanisms that may adversely affect fish movement past the discharge point, except as provided for in the conditions of this consent.

8 The consent holder shall be responsible for taking any necessary action, including seeking

any necessary resource consents, and other approvals to avoid remedy or mitigate any river side erosion which may arise as a result of the exercise of this consent.

9 The consent holder shall operate and manage the cooling water discharge as far as

practicable to achieve rapid initial mixing with a high proportion of the river flow. 10 Beyond the reasonable mixing zone, the discharge shall not result in the river temperature

at any time either: a. Increasing by more than 3.0 degrees Celsius above ambient river temperature, or b. Exceeding 25.0 degrees Celsius.

For the purposes of this consent, the reasonable mixing zone extends for 30 metres downstream of the cooling water discharge point.

11 During the months of January to April inclusive, the consent holder shall measure the river

temperature and dissolved oxygen levels at a location between 50m and 100m upstream from the water abstraction point, and at a location no closer than 50 metres downstream of the cooling water discharge and no further than 100m downstream of the wastewater discharge point, using monitoring devices capable of continuously measuring the river temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration. For the purposes of this consent, continuously means a measurement at least every 15 minutes, for a period of at least four days without servicing. The temperature and dissolved oxygen measurements shall be relayed to the consent holder for digital storage in real time and be capable of remote

128


access from the river monitoring unit by the consent holder at any time. As far as is practicable, this monitoring shall be co-ordinated with the temperature and dissolved oxygen monitoring required by condition 21 of consent 130915.04 (wastewater discharge to the Waitoa River).

12 The river temperature and dissolved oxygen monitoring unit shall be calibrated to a standard

of +/- 0.1 degrees Celsius prior to commencement of the summer monitoring period, and to a standard of +/- 0.5 grams per cubic metre dissolved oxygen or +/- 5% oxygen saturation % on at least a monthly basis. Written confirmation from a suitably qualified individual that the devices are calibrated appropriately shall be forwarded to the Waikato Regional Council within one month of the calibrations being completed.

13 The consent holder shall sample the cooling water discharge, and at least once per week

shall test for temperature, and at least once per month shall test for pH, total suspended solids, BOD5, total nitrogen and total phosphorus.

14 All sample methods of analysis shall be as detailed in the most recent edition of the

“Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water” by A.P.H.A. and A.W.W.A. and W.E.F. or by any other method approved in advance by Waikato Regional Council.

15 The Consent Holder shall develop a Cooling Water Management Plan (CWMP) and provide

a copy to the Waikato Regional Council for certification within one year of the consent being granted. The Plan shall include, but not limited to, the following:

a. A description of the cooling water control objectives;

b. Outline all process descriptions and methods of operation of all equipment and

control devices related to cooling water use and management;

c. All management, operational, contingency and monitoring procedures and

measures to be adopted to meet the conditions of this consent, and to ensure

that emissions from the site are minimised;

d. Individual responsibilities for staff of the Consent Holder, including responsibility

for ensuring the effective application of procedures and measures identified

above;

e. How the cooling water will be augmented with groundwater; and

f. Methods of collecting, reporting all monitoring information.

The Consent Holder shall review and update the CWMP every two years and when any change occurs at the site that may result in a change in the nature, scale or intensity of cooling water use and management. The Consent Holder shall provide to the Council a copy of any subsequent revisions of amendments to the CWMP. Certification means that the Council review the CWMP for its approval in a technical capacity that it meets all the requirements set out in the conditions of this resource consent. Except where the Council provides notice in writing that it refuses to certify the CWMP, then should certification not be provided within 20 working days, the Consent Holder shall regard the relevant CWMP as being deemed to have been certified. Subject to any other conditions of this consent the CWMP shall be implemented and all activities shall be undertaken in accordance with the latest revision of the CWMP.

129


16 In the event that the consent holder utilises cooling water recirculation systems where

chemicals are used to control scaling, bio-fouling or pathogen growths, the consent holder shall ensure that these chemicals are not discharged to the Waitoa River in concentrations where they may cause more than minor adverse effects in the river after reasonable mixing.

17 On a monthly basis the consent holder shall prepare and forward to the Waikato Regional

Council a report on the cooling water discharges authorised by this consent, including any monitoring results required under conditions 11 and 12 of this consent.

18 The consent holder shall provide an annual report to the Waikato Regional Council by 1 July

each year, which as a minimum: (i) Summarises all the data collected as required under conditions 10 and 11 of this


(ii) Summarise any monitoring undertaken of the effects of the stormwater discharges on the Waitoa River water quality and ecology and compared to previous years;

(i) Report on any improvements to the cooling water systems. 19 The Waikato Regional Council may review the conditions of this consent at the consent

holders expense in accordance with section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991 within six months of the granting of this consent, and thereafter every three years within five months of the anniversary of the granting of this consent, for the following purpose:




Statement, or Waikato Regional Plan which have become operational of effective since the granting of this consent.


apply to change the conditions of the resource consent if circumstances change. 21 The consent holder shall pay to the Waikato Regional Council any administrative charge





130








END

131


Appendix 7:

APP 130915.06.01 - Discharge to Air Recommended conditions





Consent Subtype: Air

Activity authorised: Discharge contaminants to air including odour from rendering and tannery operations, associated ancillary processes including combustion from gas fired boilers and biogas and wastewater treatment plant.





132

Doc # 3121699

Recommended conditions – air discharge Definitions For the purposes of this consent, the following definitions apply.

Term Definition






Appropriate person In terms of condition 5, an appropriate person is defined as a person who has recognised expertise in air discharges, particularly odour control, from rendering, and tannery operations, and ancillary processes.

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; “Wallace Corporation Limited Resource Consent Applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects, prepared for Wallace Corporation Limited, dated November 2013, WRC ref DM2916722.

Performance Standards

2. 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.

3. The discharge shall not result in odour that causes an objectionable and or offensive

effect at or beyond the boundary of the subject property.

For the purposes of Condition 3 the boundary of the subject property is defined by LOT 4 DPS78332, LOT 1 DP26606 LOT 2 DP26606, Sec 2 Blk IV MAUNGAKAWA SD, LOT 1 DPS47313, LOT 4 DP5006, Lot 1 DPS 43759 PT LOT 2 DP29915 PT LOT 3 DP29915 and LOT 1 DPS3568. The site boundary is shown in Appendix 1 attached to this consent.

Note: For the purposes of this consent, whether an odour is objectionable is determined having regard to the odour assessment guidelines specified in section 6.4.1 of the Waikato Regional Plan.

4. All raw material received at the rendering plant shall be delivered to its allocated area and processed in accordance with the following:

(i) As soon as practicable and within 12 hours of arrival at the site; (ii) No fallen stock that has been dead for more than 3 days shall be collected;

133

Doc # 3121699 130

(iii) All soft offal shall be processed within 6 hours of arrival on site unless it has been adequately stabilised using sodium metabisulphate or an equivalent preservative;

(iv) All stabilised soft and hard offal that is not derived from fallen stock shall be processed within 24 hours from the time the animal from which it was derived is killed; and

(v) All blood shall either be processed or stabilised with sodium metabisulphate or an equivalent preservative within 12 hours from the time the animal from which it was derived was killed, and all blood that has been stabilised with sodium metabisulphate or an equivalent preservative shall be processed within 24 hours from the time the animal from which it was derived was killed.

Technology Improvements 5. The Consent Holder shall engage an appropriate person to investigate improvements

in technology as applicable to the operations occurring on this site with respect to improving air discharges. This may include improving processes, minimising contaminant loadings particularly odour and improving the reliability of the plant components. The findings shall be reported to the Council by 30 August 2020 and at five yearly intervals thereafter. In the event that the Council receives complaints and it verifies non-compliance with condition 3, the Consent Holder shall if directed in writing by the Council, engage an appropriate person to investigate improvements in technology as applicable to the operations occurring on this site with respect to improving air discharges. This may include improving processes, minimising contaminant loadings particularly odour and improving the reliability of the plant components. The findings shall be reported to Council within three months of receiving the written advice of the non-compliance.

Natural Gas Combustion Plant Management

6. The Consent Holder shall ensure that all combustion plant are operated and

maintained in good operational condition in order to ensure compliance with the conditions of this consent. This shall include tuning of the combustion plant at least annually in order to prevent poor burner combustion. Records of maintenance and servicing shall be made available to the Waikato Regional Council (the Council) upon request.

7. Emissions from the three gas fired boilers shall occur via dedicated stacks that are a

minimum of 19 metres in height above the adjacent ground level.

Note: It is Council's intention that stack height will be assumed to comply unless Council becomes aware of evidence that indicates otherwise.

Rendering and Tannery Biofilter Management

8. All concentrated sources of odour from the rendering and tannery plants shall be treated through the dedicated biofilters with sufficient mechanical extraction to minimise fugitive emissions of odour to the atmosphere.

9. The tannery and rendering biofilters shall be operated in accordance with the following

requirements: (i) The bed media shall be a fine bark/compost mixture, or alternative media which

has equivalent odour removal efficiency and is approved in writing by the Council.

(ii) The gas inlet temperature shall be monitored continuously for the rendering biofilter and daily for the tannery biofilter.

134

Doc # 3121699 131

(iii) The temperature of all gases entering the biofilters shall not exceed 45 degrees Celsius for more than 10% of the time, and shall not exceed 50 degrees Celsius for more than 1% of the monthly dataset.

(iv) The bed pressure drop shall be maintained between 0 to 200 mm water-gauge. The bed pressure drop shall be monitored continuously for the rendering biofilter and daily measurements made for the tannery biofilter.

(v) The bed pH, at representative locations and depths within the biofilter, shall be recorded monthly for the biofilters, and shall be maintained at a pH of between pH 4 to pH 8 in the upper two-thirds of the beds.

(vi) The biofilter bed media shall be irrigated as required to maintain moist conditions.

If the biofilter parameters listed above 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.

10. The Consent Holder shall maintain a record of the biofilter operating parameters

required to be monitored under condition 9 and that record shall be made available to the Council at all reasonable times and a copy shall be forwarded to the Council annually as required by condition 24.

Biogas Management

11. 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.

12. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the biogas flare stack and burner is operated

and maintained in good operational condition in order to ensure compliance with the conditions of this consent. 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.

13. 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.

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

are combusted via a flare at all times except under the following circumstances:

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

(ii) for combustion equipment maintenance purposes; or

(iii) when adverse weather conditions prevent flare operation.

Under the circumstances described above where biogases are not flared then biogases shall be vented to the biofilter, designed and maintained in accordance with

condition 16.

135

Doc # 3121699 132

15. The Consent Holder shall maintain a record of all flare outages for periods longer

than 24 hours and shall indicate the dates and times for which biogas was discharged un-combusted including those discharges authorise by condition 14. The record shall be made available to the Council at all reasonable times and a copy shall be forwarded to the WRC annually as required by condition 25.

16. The biogas biofilter shall be designed with an empty bed residence time of at least 4

minutes, a loading rate of no more than 15 m3/hr per m3 media and operated in accordance with the following requirements:

(i) The bed media shall be a fine bark/compost mixture, or alternative media which has equivalent odour removal efficiency and is approved in writing by the Council.

(ii) 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 2 to pH 8 in the upper two-thirds of the beds.

(iii) If not already moist, the bed media shall be irrigated 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 Council at all reasonable times and a copy shall be forwarded to the Council annually as required by condition 24.

Emission Monitoring

19. The level of sulphur dioxide emissions from any thermal combustion equipment

including the biogas flare unit shall not exceed 570 µg/m3 expressed as a 1-hour

mean and no more than 9 exceedences in a 12-month period of a limit of 350 µg/m3

expressed as a 1-hour mean beyond the boundary of the site, as defined under

Condition 3 of this consent.

20. The mass loading rate of sulphur being combusted through the biogas flare shall not exceed 3.0 kg S/hr, as averaged over an hour period.

21. To demonstrate compliance with Condition 20, testing for hydrogen sulphide concentration in the biogas shall be undertaken once per wek, using either field H2S monitoring equipment, an inline meter or samples sent to a testing laboratory. If the biogas combustion rate is to be extended beyond 200 m3/hr or the biogas concentration of H2S is measured above 10,000 ppm, the monitoring frequency shall be increased to daily until the combustion rate decreases below 200 m3/hr or the concentration of H2S in the biogas decreases to below 9,000 ppm.

Air Management Plan

22. The Consent Holder shall provide an updated Air Management Plan (AMP) (WRC

ref DM3098021) to the Council for certification within twelve months after to this consent being authorised, 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 AMP shall address the following specific matters:

136

Doc # 3121699 133

i. Description of the site and its operations with a focus on site components that

are of direct relevance to the discharges to air from the site; ii. Procedures for inspections, maintenance and servicing of all combustion plant

to ensure optimum combustion. The plan shall include the frequency and scope of inspections, maintenance and servicing;

iii. Management procedures specific to the receipt and stabilisation for all types of raw material;

iv. Management and maintenance procedures to ensure effective extraction of odorous gases associated with all rendering and tannery plant operations.

v. Management procedures specific to the tannery operation including but not limited to the minimisation of odour emissions related to raw hides and skin skinning and handling, tanning process vessels and treatment of hydrogen sulphide in wastewater and all other wastewater types and solids produced;

vi. Management and operational procedures for ensuring biogas flare optimisation, burner efficiency and maintenance;

vii. Management and operational procedures relating to the biogas flare outages;

viii. Management and operational procedures for ensuring integrity of the anaerobic treatment facility reactor covers and related infrastructure;

ix. Management and operational procedures for desludging the wastewater treatment facility;

x. Management and operational procedures for mechanical removal of fats from the prefermenter;

xi. Management and operational procedures for all biofilters;

xii. Contingency plans for events including non-compliant emissions;

xiii. Procedures for reviewing and / or improving the Air Management Plan;

xiv. Complaint response procedures and contact telephone numbers, including after hours, for staff of the Consent Holder who are responsible for responding to complaints;

xv. Reporting requirements and timeframes;

xvi. Odour survey method and procedures; and

xvii. Individual responsibilities for staff of the Consent Holder, including responsibility for ensuring the effective application of mitigation measures identified above.

The Consent Holder shall review and update the AMP every two years. The Consent Holder shall provide to the Council a copy of any subsequent revisions of amendments to the AMP. Certification means that the Council review the AMP for its approval in a technical capacity that it meets all the requirements set out in the conditions of this resource consent. Except where the Council provides notice in writing that it refuses to certify the AMP, then should certification not be provided within 20 working days, the Consent Holder shall regard the relevant AMP as being deemed to have been certified. Subject to any other conditions of this consent the AMP shall be implemented and all activities shall be undertaken in accordance with the latest revision of the AMP Complaints

23. The Consent Holder shall maintain a log of all complaints (including those received via third parties including the Council) regarding dust, odour or other contaminants. The Consent Holder shall notify the Council of each complaint as soon as practicable

137

Doc # 3121699 134

and no later than 24 hours following receipt of the complaint. The Consent Holder shall record the following details in the 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) the weather conditions including wind direction at the time of complaint; (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 Council at all reasonable times and a copy shall be forwarded to the Council annually.

Reporting

24. The Consent Holder shall notify the Council as soon as practicable, and as a

minimum requirement within 24 hours, of the Consent Holder becoming aware of the limits and performance standards specified in this resource consent being exceeded and/or any accidental discharge, plant breakdown, or other circumstances which are likely to result in the limits and 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 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.

25. The Consent Holder shall provide to the Council a written report by 30 June 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 to the biofilter un-combusted;

(v) Review of biofilter parameter monitoring carried out in accordance with conditions of this consent together with annual and trend summaries of the data;

(vi) Estimation of the anaerobic pond biogas production rates, flare inlet flow rates and hydrogen sulphide concentrations in relation to predicted offsite sulphur dioxide concentrations;

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

(viii) Comment on the implementation of the Air Management Plan;

(ix) 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; and

(x) A copy of the complaints log summarising the information recorded under condition 24 in respect of all complaints received by the Consent Holder during the previous year.

Community Meeting

26. The Consent Holder shall organise a community meeting on an annual basis. The Consent Holder shall invite, as a minimum, every owner and occupier of land within

138

Doc # 3121699 135

2km of the boundaries of the subject site as well as representatives of the Regional Council and Territorial Authority and other interested parties, to the meeting to provide feedback and comment on issues related to this resource consent. Minutes recording attendance, main topics of discussion and any outcomes shall be recorded and made available on a request basis.

Reviews

27. During the six month period beginning 1 June 2016, and every third year thereafter, or

during the three month period following receipt of a report submitted pursuant to condition 24 of this consent the Council may serve notice on the Consent Holder under section 128 (1) 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 operation and if appropriate to deal with such effects by way of further or amended conditions; and

(ii) If necessary and appropriate, to require the holder of the consent to adopt the best practicable option to remove or reduce adverse effects on the surrounding environment.

(iii) To review the adequacy of and the necessity for monitoring undertaken by the Consent Holder.

(iv) To take into account any National Environmental Standard, National Policy Statement, or Waikato Regional Plan which have become operational of effective since the granting of this consent.

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.

Administration

28 The consent holder shall pay to the Waikato Regional Council any administrative charge fixed in accordance with section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991, or any charge prescribed in accordance with regulations made under section 360 of the resource Management Act 1991.

139

Doc # 3121699 136

Appendix 1 to consent 130915.06 (Air discharge) Map showing boundary of the site






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

140

Doc # 3121699 137

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.




9. The discharge of odour to air from the irrigation of treated wastewater and composting activities undertaken at the site shall be included in resource consent 130915.03.01.

END

141

Doc # 3121699 138

Appendix 8 Technical advice from WRC water scientist Bill Vant.

File No: 47 03 05

Date: 13 August 2014

To: Barry Campbell

From: Bill Vant

Subject: Water quality effects of discharges from Waitoa meatworks

You have asked for comment on the effects on the water quality of the Waitoa River of discharges from the meatworks/rendering plant/tannery at Waitoa (hereafter called “Waitoa meatworks”). The meatworks currently has consents to discharge wastewater, stormwater and cooling water to the Waitoa River, and has applied to renew these, allowing for an expected increase in production at the plant. I have reviewed the (very comprehensive) AEE provided by the applicant.9

In June 2014 I provided a preliminary assessment of the information in the AEE to our colleague Mark Row (DM #3086869). This primarily dealt with matters that I disagreed with, or which I considered had not been dealt with adequately. I’ve attached a copy of my 18 June 2014 memo to this document. Since then we met with the applicant and their consultants on 23 July to discuss these and other matters. At this meeting, some of the matters I had raised were able to be resolved (namely the items numbered 12, 13, 15 and 16 – which have been struck-out in the attached copy). At this stage, however, I consider thatthe majority of the matters raised in my 18 June memo are still outstanding. While none ofthese are likely to be critical, I consider there is still a degree of uncertainty associated withthe application as it currently stands.

In this memo, I provide my assessment of the effects of the proposed discharge on river water quality in the Waitoa River downstream of the meatworks. In particular, I provide an analysis of the contaminant concentrations that can be expected to occur under each of the five proposed discharge regimes (namely river flows of 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500 and 3000 L/s). That is, rather than waiting for the applicant to respond to my item #1 of 18 June, I have provided the results of my own analysis of downstream contaminant concentrations

Water quality of the Waitoa River downstream of the proposed discharge The concentrations of many water quality variables change as river flow changes. For example, turbidity and suspended solids concentrations are low at low flow, and vice versa. So the water quality of the Waitoa River upstream of the meatworks discharge will vary. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed that the loads of contaminants that may be discharged to the river should vary as river flow increases (see AEE section 20.5, p. 225). So the water quality of the Waitoa River downstream of the discharge point will depend on (1) river flow through its effect on upstream water quality and dilution of the discharged loads,and (2) on the loads of contaminants discharged.

Calculating water quality downstream of the discharge is reasonably straight-forward, and is based on the principle that mass is conserved (i.e. a “mass balance” approach). I have used

9 Wallace Corporation Ltd 2014: Resource consent applications and Assessment of environmental effects. Wallace

Corporation and Pattle Delamore Partners. WRC document #2916722.

142

Doc # 3121699 139

an Excel spreadsheet to make the various calculations. I have estimated the water quality of the river upstream of the discharge point by using WRC’s 20-year record from the routine water quality monitoring site located about 25 km upstream of the meatworks (Waitoa @ Landsdowne Rd). That is, in the absence of other information, and as a first approximation, I have assumed that conditions immediately upstream of the meatworks discharge are the same as those at Landsdowne Rd. Under the circumstances I regard this as a reasonable assumption. The figures below show how turbidity and total phosphorus concentrations varied with river flow during 1994–2013. In each case, concentrations were low at low river flow, and increased progressively as flows increased. I used log-log (or “power law”) regression to determine the relationship between flow and water quality. The relationships are shown on the figures below, together with the estimate of the “goodness of fit” (r2, where r is the correlation coefficient for the log-log regression).

y = 6.2538x0.8621

R² = 0.7199

0.5

5.0

50.0

500.0

0.1 1.0 10.0

Turb

idit

y (N

TU)

Flow (m3/s)

Turbidity

y = 0.0751x0.4403

R² = 0.4967

0.01

0.10

1.00

0.1 1.0 10.0

Tota

l ph

osp

ho

rus

(g/m

3)

Flow (m3/s)

Total P

Table 1 shows the results of log-log regression analyses for six water quality variables measured at the Landsdowne Road site. Apart from the concentrations of E. coli, all the water quality variables varied with river flow. The relationships in Table 1 were used to calculate the water quality of the Waitoa River upstream of the meatworks discharge at a range of river flows (namely 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and 10 m3/s, and noting that 1 m3/s = 1000 L/s, and that the average flow of the river is about 1.5 m3/s). The proposed contaminant loads (AEE section 20.5) and the proposed discharge rate (3440 m3/d) were then used to calculate the river flow and contaminant concentrations downstream of the discharge point. Finally, the change in the contaminant concentrations resulting from the proposed discharges was expressed as a percent of the upstream value.

Table 1: Dependence of water quality on river flow in the Waitoa River at Landsdowne Road, 1994–2013. Coefficients for power regressions between water quality (C) and river flow (Q) of the general form, C = aQ

b. n,

number of samples; r, correlation coefficient. Except for E. coli, all regressions were highly statistically significant (p-value < 0.01%).

n a b r

Turbidity8 222 6.25 0.86 0.85 Ammoniacal-N 239 0.026 0.66 0.58 Total N 239 2.03 0.24 0.75 Nitrate/nitrite-N 239 1.49 0.20 0.57 Total P 239 0.075 0.44 0.71

E. coli 71 657 –0.03 0.02 *used here as a surrogate for suspended solids, assuming 1 NTU = 1 g/m

3

143

Doc # 3121699 140

Table 2: Calculated contaminant concentrations in the Waitoa River, upstream and downstream of the proposed

meatworks discharges (Cu and Cd, respectively; units are g/m3, except for E. coli, cfu/100 mL). Results are shown

for river flows in the range 1–10 m3/s. “Δ%”, percent change in concentration downstream of the discharge point;

“Disch”, proposed load of contaminants (AEE, section 20.5; units are kg/d, except for E. coli, cfu/100 mL); “ns”, not stated.

Flow Disch Cu Cd Δ% Disch Cu Cd Δ%

Suspended solids Ammoniacal-N 1.0 57 6.3 6.6 6% 40 0.03 0.47 1700% 1.5 129 8.9 9.6 8% 110 0.03 0.86 2500% 2.0 172 11.4 12.1 7% 147 0.04 0.87 2100% 2.5 215 13.8 14.5 6% 184 0.05 0.88 1800% 3.0 230 16.1 16.8 4% 221 0.05 0.89 1600%

10.0 230 45.5 45.6 0% 221 0.12 0.37 220% Total N Nitrate/nitrite-N

1.0 108 2.0 3.2 55% ns 1.5 ? ? 1.5 217 2.2 3.8 70% ns 1.6 ? ? 2.0 290 2.4 4.0 67% ns 1.7 ? ? 2.5 362 2.5 4.1 64% ns 1.8 ? ? 3.0 432 2.6 4.2 61% 172 1.9 2.5 34%

10.0 432 3.5 4.0 14% 172 2.4 2.6 8% Total P BOD

1.0 55 0.08 0.68 810% 35 (0.9) 1.3 39% 1.5 55 0.09 0.50 460% 55 (0.9) 1.3 43% 2.0 55 0.10 0.41 300% 75 (0.9) 1.3 45% 2.5 55 0.11 0.36 220% 90 (0.9) 1.3 44% 3.0 55 0.12 0.33 170% 110 0.9 1.3 45%

10.0 55 0.21 0.27 30% 110 (0.9) 1.0 14% E. coli Chromium

1.0 500 657 651 –1% 1.5 0.0005 0.017 3100% 1.5 500 649 645 –1% 1.5 0.0005 0.012 2100% 2.0 500 643 641 0% 1.5 0.0005 0.009 1600% 2.5 500 639 637 0% 1.5 0.0005 0.007 1300% 3.0 500 636 634 0% 1.5 0.0005 0.006 1100%

10.0 500 613 613 0% 1.5 0.0005 0.002 330%

Table 2 shows the results of my mass balance calculations. For example, at a river flow of 1 m3/s, the suspended solids concentration upstream of the discharge point is estimated to be 6.3 g/m3. A discharge of 3440 m3/d, containing a suspended solids load of 57 kg/d would result in a suspended solids concentration of 6.6 g/m3 downstream of the discharge point, being a change of about 6%. Similarly, at a river flow of 1 m3/s, the ammoniacal-N concentration upstream of the discharge point is estimated to be 0.03 g/m3. A discharge of 3440 m3/d, containing an ammoniacal-N load of 40 kg/d would result in an ammoniacal-N concentration of 0.47 g/m3 downstream of the discharge point, being a change of about 1700%. The following conclusions can be drawn from the results in Table 2:

The concentrations of suspended solids upstream of the discharge point increase markedly with river flow. The concentrations of ammoniacal-N, total N, nitrate/nitrite-N and total P also increase with flow, but only to a moderate degree. And concentrations of E. coli fall slightly as flow increases.

For several contaminants, the conditions of the proposed consent would permit the amount of contaminant to increase as river flow increases. The exceptions are total P, E. coli and chromium; for these contaminants, the mass permitted to be discharged would not change as river flow varied.

The increases in the concentrations of suspended solids and E. coli downstream of the discharge point would be relatively small (0–8%), and would not change much across the range of flows considered.

The relative increases in the concentrations of total N, nitrate/nitrite-N and cBOD downstream of the discharge point would be moderately-large (30–70%) for river flows in the range 1–3 m3/s, and would not change much across this range of flows.

144

Doc # 3121699 141

(Increased dilution at substantially higher river flows such as 10 m3/s would mean the relative increases would be smaller.)

The relative increases in the concentrations of ammoniacal-N, total P and chromium downstream of the discharge point would be large-to-very large (170–3000%) for river flows in the range 1–3 m3/s. The proposed increase in the discharged mass of ammoniacal-N as river flow increased means the relative increase downstream of the discharge point would not change much across this range of flows. By contrast, keeping the mass of total P and chromium discharged constant across the range of river flows means that the relative increase downstream of the discharge point would fall as flows increased (due to increased dilution).

The potential effects of the various changes in contaminant concentration downstream of the discharge point can be summarised as follows: 1. Suspended solids. The relatively small increases in suspended solids are unlikely to cause anything other than small adverse ecological effects in the river. And the increases are unlikely to cause a “conspicuous change” in the colour and clarity of the water. 2. Ammoniacal-N. The increases in the concentrations of ammoniacal-N downstream of the discharge will be relatively large. However, the downstream concentrations will generally not exceed the relevant toxicity guideline values (0.88 g N/m3), so there are unlikely to be significant adverse toxic effects on the ecosystem in the river. Further downstream much of the ammoniacal-N is likely to be oxidised to nitrate/nitrite-N. While nitrate is also toxic, it is somewhat less toxic than ammonia. If relatively little in-stream denitrification occurs the discharge will exacerbate the already-high potential for the water to support nuisance plant growth in the near-field river channel, and in the far-field waters of the Firth of Thames. 3. Total N. Upstream of the meatworks discharge, concentrations of total N in the river are high: the river is markedly “nutrient-enriched”. The discharge of nitrogen in the meatworks wastewater exacerbates this. As noted above, the increases caused by the proposed discharge will be moderately-large. It is not clear just how the elevated concentrations of total N affect the ecosystem in the river, but the values are well-above those at which the growth of nuisance plants is stimulated, so some degree of adverse effect seems likely. The discharge also adds to the cumulative nutrient enrichment of the Firth of Thames, a waterbody that is likely to be sensitive to additions of nitrogen. 4. Nitrate/nitrite-N. The increases in nitrate/nitrite-N caused by the discharge will also be moderately-large. Furthermore, at higher river flows at least, downstream concentrations will slightly exceed the toxicity guideline value for “slightly-to-moderately disturbed systems”, namely 2.4 g N/m3. There will thus be an increased risk of adverse ecological effects occurring in the river. (Note that the absence of information in the AEE about the loads of nitrate/nitrite-N to be discharged at lower river flows means I’ve been unable to determine the downstream concentrations at these flows, although presumably these will decrease along with the proposed reduction in the loads of total N.) 5. Total P. Upstream of the meatworks discharge, concentrations of total P in the river are high: the river is markedly “nutrient-enriched”. The discharge of phosphorus in the meatworks wastewater exacerbates this. As noted above, the increases caused by the proposed discharge will be large (c. 200–800%), particularly at lower river flows. It seems likely that increases of this magnitude will have a marked effect on downstream ecosystems. The discharge will also add to the cumulative nutrient enrichment of the Firth of Thames. 6. Biochemical oxygen demand. The increases in BOD caused by the discharge will be moderately-large. Even so, the downstream concentrations will only be moderately-elevated, and seem unlikely of themselves to cause a marked depletion in downstream concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Having said that, we know that dissolved oxygen levels in the river are already moderately-depleted, and the discharge is likely to further exacerbate this.

145

Doc # 3121699 142

7. E. coli. Concentrations of E. coli upstream of the meatworks are moderately high. The meatworks discharge will have little additional effect on the concentrations in the river (because the concentrations in the discharge will be similar to those in the river). 8. Chromium. Background concentrations of chromium in the river are low. As a result, the proposed discharge will cause relatively-large increases in the river (1000–3000%), particularly at lower river flows. At river flows in the range 1–3 m3/s, the downstream chromium concentrations (0.006–0.017 g/m3) exceed the toxicity guideline for chromium (VI), namely 0.001 g/m3. However, the AEE states that most of the chromium in the meatworks wastewater is present as the less toxic form, chromium (III). There are no toxicity guidelines for chromium (III). It is thus unclear what effect the discharge of this component of the wastewater will have on the river ecosystem. In summary, in several cases the changes in contaminant concentrations downstream of the discharge point will either be small (suspended solids, E. coli), or will be unlikely to cause significant adverse effects on the stream ecology (toxic effects of ammoniacal-N and nitrate-N). In some cases, any adverse effects appear to be modest, but there are some residual uncertainties about this (BOD, chromium). However, for total N and total P—and particularly the latter—the proposed changes will be large and will exacerbate the already nutrient-enriched state of the river water. It seems likely that this will affect the ecology of the river, but the nature of any effect is unclear.

146

Doc # 3121699 143

Memo

File No: 47 03 05

Date: 18 June 2014

To: Mark Row

From: Bill Vant

Subject: Waitoa meatworks reconsenting: water quality effects of proposed discharges

You have asked for comment on the effects on the water quality of the Waitoa River of discharges from the meatworks/rendering plant/tannery at Waitoa (hereafter called “Waitoa meatworks”). The meatworks currently has consents to discharge wastewater, stormwater and cooling water to the Waitoa River, and has applied to renew these, allowing for an expected increase in production at the plant. I have reviewed the (very comprehensive) AEE provided by the applicant.10

In the time available I have been unable to make a thorough assessment of the likely effects of the expanded operation. Instead this memo lists matters where I disagree with the analysis or conclusions stated in the AEE, or where I consider that more information is needed before I would be able to form a clear view of the water quality effects of the proposed expanded operation of the plant.

AEE sections 16 (wastewater effects) and 17 (cooling water effects)

1. Section 16.1, “For river flow rates lower than 3000 L/s the proposed load limits arereduced in steps ... ensure that the in-stream effects at any given flow rate are the same orbetter”I’m not sure that I agree with this claim. In particular, my understanding of water quality inthe Waitoa River upstream of the meatworks (WRC site at Landsdowne Rd) is that it varieswith flow. For example, turbidity and suspended solids concentrations are low at low flow,and vice versa. I therefore consider that it may be too simplistic to simply assume thatdownstream contaminant concentrations and effects will vary in direct proportion to streamflow and the loads discharged. I think the varying upstream conditions will also affect thedownstream concentrations. I therefore consider that the applicant should provide an much-expanded version of Table 52 that shows just what downstream contaminant concentrationscan be expected at the following river flows: 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500 and 3000 L/s.

2. Section 16.1, “The effect on the Waitoa River is based on factors including ... theconcentration of ammoniacal-N and nitrite-N to prevent toxicity.”I consider the implication that it is acceptable to “pollute up to” some toxicity threshold iscontentious. Indeed I note that the recent (April 2014) Board of Enquiry for the proposedHawkes Bay plan change/Tukituki reservoir explicitly rejected this approach, finding insteadthat the RMA required the protection of the ecological health of waterbodies (with theguideline values for this being much lower than the toxicity thresholds). This suggests that itshould no longer be possible to regard waterbodies as places where toxicants like ammoniacan be “treated” simply by diluting them in the environment.

10 Wallace Corporation Ltd 2014: Resource consent applications and Assessment of environmental effects. Wallace

Corporation and Pattle Delamore Partners. WRC document #2916722.

147

Doc # 3121699 144

3. Section 16.2, “With respect to the guidelines for the protection of river ecology ... protection of 90% of species have been selected as the most appropriate ... river may be classed as slightly to moderately disturbed” I agree that the Waitoa River can be regarded as a slightly to moderately disturbed ecosystem. But section 3.4.2.4 of the ANZECC guidelines states that, “In most cases the 95% protection level” should apply to such ecosystems. The contaminant concentrations consistent with a 95% level of protection are all lower than those proposed by the applicant (for 90% protection). I consider that the analysis of effects needs to be repeated, taking account of the more stringent— and more appropriate— 95% ANZECC guidelines. 4. Section 16.4, “fully mixed within 60 m of the discharge source”. I haven’t yet been able to check the mixing analysis. But assuming it is correct, I note that the result presented here is for complete mixing of the wastewater (at a river flow of 3000 L/s). While the judgement as to what is the zone of “reasonable” mixing is for the decision maker(s) to make, I consider it is likely to be smaller than the zone within which mixing is complete—for example, maybe half as long (i.e. 30 m downstream of the discharge point). Furthermore, I consider that mixing will be slower at lower river flows, such that the zone within which mixing is complete at a flow of 1000 L/s is likely to be considerably longer than 60 m. For completeness, I consider that the decision maker(s) should also be provided with information about mixing of the wastewater at this lower river flow. 5. Section 16.5, “At stream flows between 1000 L/s to 3000 L/s ... so that the in-stream concentrations of contaminants are less than those which occur when the full mass loads are discharged” As noted above (#1), I think the mass balance calculations need to be provided to demonstrate that this will indeed be the case. 6. Section 16.6.1, “to prevent in-stream ammoniacal nitrogen concentrations from exceeding 0.88 mg/L ... well below the USEPA and ANZECC guidelines” I disagree with this claim. I have consulted a copy of the USEPA (2013) guidelines for ammoniacal nitrogen, and find that in fact 0.88 mg/L is the guideline at pH 8 and a temperature of 18°C in USEPA’s Table 6 for chronic exposure to ammonia (which is the relevant consideration for a reasonably-continuous exposure to a discharge). At higher pH and temperatures the USEPA chronic guideline is even lower than 0.88 mg/L. For example, at a pH of 9 and a temperature of 25°C, the guideline value is 0.11 mg/L. Similarly, ANZECC Table 8.3.7 contains guideline values for ammoniacal nitrogen well below 0.88 mg/L for pH in the range 8–9 (noting that ANZECC chose to ignore the effects of water temperature when identifying guideline values). 7. Section 16.7, “The Waitoa River is nitrogen limited downstream of the wastewater discharge”. What evidence is there to support this conclusion? I note that Table 52 predicts that the wastewater discharge will cause total phosphorus concentrations in the river to increase markedly—by more than three-fold at a river flow of 3000 L/s. I consider that this is a major change, and that the applicant needs to more thoroughly assess the likely effects of this on the river’s ecology. At this stage, there seems to be little more than the opinion that “WCL considers that it is unlikely that WCL’s discharge will cause a noticeable increase in periphyton growth within the receiving environment”. 8. Section 16.10, “WCL considers that the discharge of cBOD5 at the proposed load limits will cause no more than minor effects on the Waitoa River”. I’m uneasy about this conclusion, particularly when the section refers to measurements showing dissolved oxygen levels as low as 70% of saturation downstream of the discharge point—and noting that the RMA fishery class specifies a minimum level of 80% of saturation. Ideally the AEE would provide the results of a comprehensive assessment of dissolved oxygen in the reach affected by the river (e.g. using a dissolved oxygen river model).

148

Doc # 3121699 145

9. Section 16.11 “the limit for sulphide is proposed as an in-stream total sulphide concentration limit of 3 µg/L”. I suggest it’s best for WRC to continue to follow ANZECC’s approach and use guidelines for un-ionised sulphide (and not total sulphide). As stated above (#3), I also consider that WRC should follow ANZECC’s recommendation of using the 95% protection level for slightly to moderately disturbed ecosystems like the Waitoa River. ANZECC’s 95% protection guideline for un-ionised sulphide is 1.0 µg/L. From information provided by the applicant, this may be equivalent to a concentration of total sulphide of about 2 µg/L. However, whether or not the single result from the river that found a concentration of this magnitude is representative is unclear—and what was the likely source of this substance? I consider more work would be needed to reliably establish the average upstream concentration of sulphide in the Waitoa River. 10. Section 16.13, “the downstream concentration [of chromium] is likely to be 5 µg/L”. I’m puzzled about this value. Table 52 reports the predicted downstream concentration of chromium to be “0.00064 mg/L” or 6.4 µg/L. Why the discrepancy? 11. Section 16.16 “The WCL treated wastewater discharge will contribute to the nutrient load in the Waitoa River, but is unlikely to exacerbate nutrient enrichment effects” As noted above (#7), I don’t think this has been adequately demonstrated. Table 52 shows the discharge will increase total N levels in the river by 60–70%, while total P will increase by more than three-fold. These are major increases, and it seems reasonable to conclude they will have some adverse effect on stream ecology. 12. Section 17.4, “would increase the temperature of the Waitoa River by 3.5°C”. I’m puzzled by this. My calculations show that adding a discharge of 75 L/s at 46.4°C to an upstream flow of 521 L/s at a temperature of 22°C gives a downstream flow of 596 L/s at a temperature of 25.1°C (= {[75×46.4] + [521×22]}/[75+521]), or an increase of 3.1°C (and not “3.5°C”). How was the increase of “3.5°C” obtained? 13. Section 17.4, “worst case scenario” I disagree with this analysis. In my mind the worst case would occur when upstream temperature was close to 25°C. For example, adding a discharge of 75 L/s at 46.4°C to an upstream flow of 521 L/s at a temperature of 24°C gives a downstream flow of 596 L/s at a temperature of 26.8°C (= {[75×46.4] + [521×24]}/[75+521]). Under these conditions the discharge would breach both the WRP and the RMA requirement that a discharge shall not cause the water temperature downstream to exceed 25°C. Huntly Power Station, for example, has operated with this requirement for many years, and the plant actively reduces the amount of heat discharged to the river when upstream water temperatures approach 25°C. I don’t understand what the AEE means when it refers to “a balance between the effect of exceeding a river temperature of 25°C and the effect of raising the temperature of the river by more than 3°C”. In my mind it’s not a case of choosing which of these requirements will apply; on the contrary the RMA requires that both apply, so an upper limit of 25°C is in fact an environmental “bottom line”. 14. Section 17.5, “At peak discharges with low river flows, the lowest diurnal DO concentration is predicted to be around 5.2 mg/L.” I don’t agree that a discharge of heat that produces DO concentrations as low as this can be described as having “minor effects” on the river. On the contrary, I consider concentrations like this to be disturbing. Having said that, I’m not sure whether the relationship between low cooling water flow and high DO (and vice versa) in Figure 20 is necessarily causal? Mightn’t the elevated DO in the early afternoon simply be due to increased photosynthesis by in-

149

Doc # 3121699 146

stream plants at that time of day? I suggest more thought needs to be given to teasing apart background ecosystem processes like this from the effects of the cooling water discharge. Other—mostly minor—matters 15. Section 1.4, proposed wastewater flow rate “1000 L/s in winter months” I became confused as to whether this is the same as in the current consent or whether it is a new proposal? I thought I’d seen mention that, apart from certain “emergency” situations, the current consent prohibited discharges when the river flow was less than 2000 L/s at all times of the year? Furthermore, I don’t think I saw any clear justification as to why the ecosystem would necessarily be better able to cope with adverse effects at the lower dilution levels that would occur during the winter? 16. Table 24, flow-dependent contaminant loads proposed for the new consent. While I understand the desire for flow-dependent conditions (and notwithstanding my comments in #1 and #5 above), the proposal is clearly complex. One question that arises is what will this complexity mean for (i) demonstrating (by the applicant) and (ii) assessing (by WRC) compliance with the proposed consent? 17. Table 25, Justification for the proposed limits I’m somewhat concerned that throughout this table the emphasis is on what “WCL has been able to achieve” and “what is considered achievable”. There seems to be little or no recognition here about the need to avoid or minimise the adverse environmental effects of the discharge of the various contaminants. 18. Section 13.3.1, “Contaminant assimilation ... particular contaminants of concern in the Waitoa River catchment are nutrients” I’m not sure I agree with this. I consider that the reduction in dilution in the near-field caused by abstracting water from the river is probably more likely to be relevant to the effects of temperature, BOD, ammonia and chromium. By contrast I consider the effects of the discharged nutrients are likely to occur further downstream where the effects of reduced dilution will probably be less important. 19. Section 14.3, Stormwater discharge Table 39 presents results for nitrogen and phosphorus, suggesting that these were the only contaminants where modelling suggested adverse effects were possible. What other contaminants were modelled? For completeness I’d prefer to see the results for all the modelled contaminants shown in Table 39.

150

Doc # 3589777

Appendix 8A

Further comments WRC water scientist Bill Vant regarding proposed N & P load limits My 18 August memo reports my calculations of the effects of 55 kg/d on total P concentrations downstream of the proposed discharge at a range of river flows (see my Table 2). I can easily recalculate the effects on downstream concentrations of loads of 20 kg/d and 2 kg/d. But I’m unable to comment on the effects of these changes on the ecosystem in the river in this area. What info has the applicant provided on this matter? thanks, Bill

151

Doc # 3589777 Page 148

Appendix 8B: Additional technical advice from Bill Vant, regarding ammonia limits.

Memo

File No: 47 03 10

Date: 20 October 2015

To: Barry Campbell

From: Bill Vant

Subject: Revision of ANZECC guidelines for ammoniacal nitrogen

This follows my memo of 13 August 2014 where I discussed the water quality effects of the proposed discharge of wastewater from the Waitoa meatworks to the Waitoa River. In that memo I referred to guideline values that aim to protect aquatic ecosystems from the toxic effects of ammoniacal nitrogen (often called “total ammonia”)—for example the water quality standard in the Waikato Regional Plan that limits in-stream ammoniacal-N concentrations to no more than 0.88 g N/m3. Similarly, the ANZECC guidelines that were published in 2000 included a range of pH-dependent guideline values for ammonia (e.g. 0.9 g N/m3 at pH 8 is the guideline value to protect 95% of species from adverse effects). Note that the concentration unit g/m3 is the same as mg/L. Later in 2014, the National Policy Statement-Freshwater (NPS-FW) was released. It included information on different “attribute states” for rivers, based on the concentrations of ammoniacal-N present in them. It also included “national bottom lines” for ammoniacal-N concentrations (e.g. 1.30 mg N/L for annual median values). Recently. I looked into this information more closely, and prepared a commentary for the Ministry for the Environment which included the material below (see my statement at DM #3506290):

I realised I wasn’t sure just where the values used in [the NPS-FW] came from (e.g. 0.03, 0.24 and 1.30 mg/L for median NH4-N). So I downloaded and read “Hickey (2014)”, and now understand what has happened. In essence, Chris has produced an interim update of the ANZECC (2000) trigger values, and these have been incorporated into the NPS-FM. He described the update as “indicative”, and stated that he had simply added new information on three sensitive North American mussel species to the ANZECC dataset, but had not reviewed and updated the existing ANZECC information (on 16 other species). This suggests to me that the numbers in [the MfE Guide]—and in Appendix 2 of the NPS—should be regarded as being “provisional”. In particular, people need to appreciate that the information underpinning this part of the NPS-FM may well change when the ANZECC guidelines are formally and comprehensively revised in due course. I suggest it would be helpful to be clear about this in the Guide. As an aside, I note that there seems to be some confusion amongst consent applicants, their consultants, council scientists and consent officers about just which ammonia guidelines to use when processing consents (e.g. ANZECC 2000, USEPA 2013, NPS-FM 2014). I suspect that the fact that Chris has (“indicative[ly]”) revised the ANZECC trigger values markedly downwards (e.g. from 0.90 to 0.24 mg/L for 95% protection) is probably not yet widely appreciated.

The report from Dr Hickey (NIWA) to the Ministry for the Environment is available on this MfE webpage.

152

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Fresh%20water/derivation-of-indicative-ammoniacal.pdf

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Fresh%20water/derivation-of-indicative-ammoniacal.pdf

Doc # 3589777 Page 149

The ammonia attribute table in the NPS-FW says that “state B” ensures that 95% of species will be protected from the adverse effects of ammoniacal-N. This is to be achieved by ensuring that at pH 8, (1) annual median concentrations of ammoniacal-N are less than 0.24 mg N/L, and (2) annual maximum concentrations are less than 0.40 mg N/L. The equivalent protection state in the ANZECC 2000 guidelines (95% of species protected) corresponded to a concentration of 0.9 mg N/L at pH 8. That is, the NPS-FW is based on a 2014 “indicative” update of the toxicity assessment which has produced guideline values that are considerably more stringent than the original ANZECC 2000 assessment. I consider that this update of the information on ammonia toxicity should be borne in mind when assessing the effects of the proposed discharge of meatworks wastewater to the Waitoa River. It is now clear that the adverse effects of ammoniacal-N begin to occur at substantially lower concentrations than those I mention in my August 2014 memo. In particular, most of the calculated “worst case” downstream concentrations of ammoniacal-N in my Table 1 exceed the maximum concentration for “state B (95% species protection level)” in the NPS-FW (namely 0.40 mg N/L). Achieving the revised, lower guideline values for ammoniacal-N in the Waitoa River would require a substantial reduction in the loads of ammoniacal-N that are proposed to be discharged—often at least a halving of the proposed load (e.g. from 110 kg/day to 50 kg/day for a river flow of 1.5 m3/s).

153

Doc # 3589777 Page 150

Appendix 9 Technical advice from WRC ecologists Dr Bruno David & Dr Hannah Jones.

File No: 60 93 77A

Date: 26 June 2014 (updated 21 August 2014)

To: Barry Campbell, Mark Row

From: Bruno David and Hannah Jones

Subject: AEE wallace corp waitoa June 2014 AEE_BD

You have asked for comment on the effects on the aquatic ecology of the Waitoa River of discharges from the meatworks/rendering plant/tannery at Waitoa. This operation currently has consents to discharge wastewater, stormwater and cooling water to the Waitoa River, and an application to renew these, allowing for an expected increase in production at the plant is proposed.

In general, there is insufficient information in the report (EWDOCS#2916722) to undertake an assessment. Although the document appears to be extensive, the assessment of environmental effects for treated wastewater discharge to the Waitoa River does not contain detail on how the applicants have arrived at their conclusions, rather it presents only an overview of the “likely resultant maximum downstream concentrations” (Section 16.5) for various parameters. These are summarised in Table 52 – “Expected water quality effects for proposed discharge” (Page 174). Without detail on how these “likely” concentrations have been calculated it is impossible for us to evaluate whether the proposed discharge will be “unlikely to significantly affect” fish or macroinvertebrates in the Waitoa River, as stated by the consent applicants in Section 16.17.

As a consequence we disagree with the general conclusion of this report which states:

‘The discharge limits proposed in this report will ensure the maintenance of water quality in the Waitoa river’

Although assessment of this consent principally involves evaluating impacts on the aquatic system in the immediate receiving environment, consideration should be given to downstream receiving environments, which include two internationally recognised Ramsar sites, the Kopuatai peat dome and the Firth of Thames. The Kopuatai peat dome is listed as a high value wetland in the proposed Regional Policy Statement (2012), and as such there is a requirement that the values be protected and, where possible enhanced. The proposed RPS also requires WRC to manage the “adverse cumulative effects of land use activities on water in the coastal marine area”, and an objective of the Regional Coastal Plan is to maintain or enhance coastal water quality. It is our view that the assessment of environmental effects provided by the applicants should at least consider the influence of the proposed discharge on these receiving environments.

In addition to the general comments above, we agree with the comments made by Bill Vant (EWDOCS#3086869) on this report. We will not repeat those here in detail but wish to record that in particular, the use of ANZECC guidelines for protection of 90% of species is unjustified and, we believe, inappropriate. Furthermore, statements such as “The Waitoa River is nitrogen limited downstream of the wastewater discharge” (Section 16.7) should be justified with scientific evidence, especially as this appears to be used to support significant increases in downstream total phosphorus concentrations.

154

Doc # 3589777 Page 151

We also have some further comments on the expected effects on dissolved oxygen (Section 17.5) which we detail below, and around the suitability of using aquatic organisms to assess the impacts of proposed discharges in highly degraded streams. ‘At peak discharges with low river flows, the lowest diurnal dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration is predicted to be around 5.2 mg/L.’ – This DO level described is also associated with an increase in stream temperature from the discharge during summer which is pushing the lethal temperatures for a number of fish species. High temperatures, even over short periods can have severe effects on fish and invertebrate communities given that temperatures above 20 degrees C exceed the preferences for the majority of native fish species (Richardson et al. 1994) and constant temperatures above 22 degrees C are considered lethal for many stream invertebrates (Quinn et al. 1994). Some ad-hoc DO monitoring was undertaken in April to May 2013. In the report a graph (figure 20) is provided to illustrate cooling water discharge rate and its effect on diurnal DO. We have two main points to make about this figure:

1. If averages are calculated where are the error bars showing the variance on DO at each of those cooling water discharge rates? How many individual 24hr periods were used to produce these averages?

2. Averaging in this manner is not good practice for evaluating extreme worst case scenarios to evaluate potential for ecological impact. Furthermore we would consider diurnal DO fluctuations recorded in April-May to be less severe than in midsummer or even in March when water temperatures and day-length would both be greater so consider this figure to be conservative and not very informative for evaluating potential for ecological effects unless cooling water discharges never occur in summer. Do data for diurnal DO above and below the plant exist for extended periods in late summer? If not we would consider collection of this information to be imperative to support an application of the nature proposed, not only for cooling water discharges but also in relation to other proposed contaminant discharges.

In October 2013 the Waikato Regional Council undertook an investigation to assess ecosystem health for the wider Piako river system. To do this the Council deployed calibrated dissolved oxygen loggers at six sites in the system, which included one headwater reference site – the Piakonui. These data were later used by scientists at the Cawthron institute to calculate various measures of stream metabolism including ecosystem respiration (ER) and Gross Primary Productivity (GPP). These values were then considered in relation to guidelines for assessing ecosystem health. According to criteria recommended by Young et al. (2008), Ecosystem respiration rates calculated by Cawthron for October – September 2012-2013 at Mellon Rd on the Waitoa river are indicative of poor ecosystem health year round. This is an excerpt from that report: ‘At the Piako at Kiwitahi and Waitoa at Mellon rd sites, levels of ecosystem metabolism exceeded thresholds indicative of poor ecosystem health throughout the majority of the 12 month study period’. The only location out of the six that did not exceed rates of gross primary productivity (GPP) >7.0g O2m

-2d-1 in summer which is indicative of poor ecosystem health (Young et al 2008) was the Piakonui reference headwater site. Clearly this work highlights the current pressures already impacting and impairing ecosystem function in this catchment including conditions at the site where further discharges are proposed. The question that needs to be asked is how much ecosystem degradation are we willing to accept in this catchment? In this case we have two connected Ramsar sites (Kopuatai peat dome and Firth of Thames) located downstream, and a proposal to increase contributions over and above the existing poor conditions. Wallace Corp is already a significant contributor of nutrients and other contaminants to this catchment. A common argument proposed by applicants to an existing poor environment is that any additional contribution will be no more than minor because the existing environment is already under excessive stress and thus only supports taxa that are very tolerant of poor ecosystem conditions.

155

Doc # 3589777 Page 152

Consequently the ability to use aquatic organisms to illustrate compounding additional effects such as those proposed in this consent is virtually futile, as “indicator” species are typically already absent. It is important to recognise however that further contaminant contributions to an already degraded system does not mean that there is no impact. Furthermore, additional contributions serve to continually suppress any potential for the system to recover. The proposed Regional Policy Statement (2012) gives the direction that Regional Plans “shall provide for the improvement of degraded fresh water bodies where they have been degraded as a result of human activities”, and we note that a regional plan review starts at end of next year with a new plan expected to be proposed about 2019. As the proposed consent is for a duration of 25 years, we find it concerning that we could end up in a situation where we cannot act on future regulation that seeks to address issues in highly degraded water bodies due to consents to discharge into these environments having been granted for such extended periods of time. Experience from elsewhere indicates that the capacity for systems to improve in terms of ecological health exist if net pressures are reduced. For instance many of our native fish are migratory and recruitment into rivers and re-population is happening all the time. Whether fish are drawn into a stream or choose to stay or continue upstream largely depends on the environment presented before them. Adding another layer of pressure on top of existing poor water quality does not promote biodiversity recovery. Furthermore, despite requesting a 25 yr term for consent there is no consideration of climate change and potential for warmer future water temperatures in Table 54 for evaluating worst case scenario conditions. What is the rationale behind selecting 22 0C as the upper temperature limit for the Waitoa river at this locality? Is it supported by temperature logger data collected over summer and if so how often does the river upstream of the plant exceed 22 0C? What are the future projections for water temperature and rainfall in this catchment that may influence discharge rates/calculations? Updated memo 21 August 2014 Since preparing the above comments, it is our understanding that a meeting was held between Wallace Corp and Council staff on the 23 July 2014 to discuss information gaps and uncertainties with this application. We were not available to attend this meeting but understand that Bill Vant attended to discuss water quality issues on behalf of Council. It is our understanding that following this meeting that 4 out of 19 issues raised in Bill Vant’s original preliminary assessment docs #3086869 were clarified and these particular matters have been identified as ‘strike-out’ and appended to Bill’s revised assessment, now detailed in docs #3121699. Consequently the bulk of matters still appeared to be largely unresolved and the lack of sufficient information resulted in Mr Vant undertaking his own mass balance analysis to calculate the contaminant concentrations that can be expected to occur under each of the five proposed discharge regimes (namely river flows of 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500 and 3000 L/s). To do this he used data from WRC’s 20-year routine water quality monitoring site located about 25 km upstream of the meatworks (Waitoa @ Landsdowne Rd). We will not go into the details of these analyses except to note that the key issues of concern raised in our original memo in relation to maintaining or improving ecosystem health in this waterbody still stand. More specifically, these recent analyses reinforce our view that the proposed discharges from this proposal will have an additional negative impact on ecosystem health within the Waitoa and wider Piako system and will add additional levels of stress to an already highly stressed aquatic ecosystem. We agree with Mr Vant’s comments that the proposed discharge will exacerbate the potential for nuisance plant growth in the Waitoa River (due to substantial increases in ammoniacal-N, total nitrogen and total phosphorus) and add to the nutrient enrichment of the Firth of Thames. Notwithstanding the granting or otherwise of this consent, in our view realtime monitoring of key contaminants (TN, TP, DO, SS, Temp etc) via the deployment of datasondes both upstream and downstream of the discharge location and regular provision of these data to WRC should be a

156

Doc # 3589777 Page 153

mandatory requirement for consents of this nature. We note that despite WRC having a relatively long water quality record (20yrs) at Lansdowne rd, these data are point in time data and thus are unlikely to reflect the true extremes in water quality parameters that this river system experiences in any given year. The use of realtime datasondes are essential to not only enable more effective evaluation of point source contaminant contributions and establish compliance, they are also essential for accurately and robustly assessing trends in river health (e.g. metabolism) over time. Such an approach is for instance used by Genesis Energy to demonstrate their contribution of temperature as a contaminant to the Waikato River from generation at the Huntly Powerstation. A comment on nitrate toxicity values presented in the AEE. The ANZECC values quoted in the AEE appear to be out of date, i.e. from 2000. Hickey (2013) Envirolink report for MBIE has grading (Annual median) and surveillance (Annual 95th percentile) values for moderately disturbed ecosystems of 2.4 mg/l and 3.5 mg/l respectively. Further, the recently released NPS freshwater management sets out attributes for councils to use when setting limits/objectives for waterbodies. These are presented in bands A, B, C and D with a national bottom line generally set at the border between C and D. Objective A2 of the NPS further states that the overall quality of freshwater within region be maintained or enhanced. Putting aside the fact that ecosystem degradation will occur before toxicity values are reached, there appear to be flaws in how some of the toxicity data are presented/interpreted in the AEE. With regards to values reported in the AEE, these seem to be either means or maximums reported. With regard to ANZECC and NOF values the data presented should be medians or 95th percentiles. Based on the values presented on page 174 of the AEE and Mr Vant’s estimates, if the concentrations were median concentrations, then the discharge would reduce from a B band to a C band according to the NPS attribute table. The concentrations would similarly change from those for an ecosystem of a moderate to a highly disturbed ecosystem, using the protection bands in Hickey 2013. The same applies for ammonia. In short they represent a further decline in water quality for these parameters We have provided some plots graphically illustrating differences in water quality variables above and below the discharge, based on Mr Vant’s mass balance calculation (Figure 1). Labels indicate percentage change. It is apparent that the predicted additional contributions of TN,TP, BOD and TAN (ammoniacal –N), Chromium and nitrate/nitrite are clearly at odds with objective A2 of the NPS to maintain or enhance water quality in this system. Furthermore and as discussed earlier we strongly disagree with the general conclusion of the AEE which states:

‘The discharge limits proposed in this report will ensure the maintenance of water quality in the Waitoa river’

157

Doc # 3589777 Page 154

Figure 1: Difference in water quality variables upstream (Cu; blue bars) and downstream

(Cd; red bars) of the proposed discharge based on mass balance calculations made by Bill

Vant (DOCS#3121699)

References

Richardson J, Boubée JAT, West DW (1994). Thermal tolerance and preference of some native

New Zealand freshwater fish. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 28: 399-

407

158

Doc # 3589777 Page 155

Quinn, J., Steele, M., Hickely, G.L, Vickers, M.L.. (1994). Upper thermal tolerances of twelve New

Zealand stream invertebrate species. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 28:

399-407.

Young R.G., Matthaei C.D., Townsend, C.R. (2008). Organic matter breakdown and ecosystem

metabolism: functional indicators for assessing river ecosystem health. Journal of the North

American Benthological Society 27: 605-625.

159

Doc # 3589777 Page 156

Appendix 10 Technical advice of Dr Richard Storey, NIWA freshwater ecologist.

160

Doc # 3589777 Page 157

161

Doc # 3589777 Page 158

162

Doc # 3589777 Page 159

163

Doc # 3589777 Page 160

164

Doc # 3589777 Page 161

165

Doc # 3589777 Page 162

Appendix 11 Technical advice of Matthew Taylor, WRC soil scientist.

File No: 60 93 77A

Date: 22 August 2014

To: BC

From: Matthew Taylor

Subject: Comments on Wallace Corporation Wood Rd Waitoa site application of discharge of effluent

Soils Four soil types have been identified in the irrigation area by the applicant. The predominant soil is probably the Waitoa gley. This soil, along with the Ngarua gley (found in the stream bed and flood plain), have a naturally high water table, while the Waitoa also has a slowly permeable subsoil. The other soils are the Waihou and Te Puninga soils, both well drained Allophanic soils, suitable for year round effluent application (as long as this application is well managed).

Soil hydrological load There is a fairly minor increase in hydraulic load. A maximum discharge of 542000 m3/y effluent (peak 3440 m3/d) is proposed and maximum available land area is 277 ha. If all land is usable (277 ha);

542000 / 277 = 1957 m3/ha = an extra 200 mm per year

Soil chemistry The effluent is somewhat alkaline with high concentrations of N, P, Na and high E. Coli counts. The analysed soils had quite low total C compared to typical levels in these soils. it maybe the high pH is causing leaching of Dissolved Organic Carbon.

pH 8

189 mg/L N 189 g/m3 *542000 m3 = 102438000 g =102438 kg 102438 kg / 277 ha = 370 kg/ha

22 mg/L P 22 g/m3 *542000 m3 = 11924000 g = 11924 kg 11924 kg / 277 ha = 43 kg/ha

1265 mg/L Na 1265 g/m3 *542000 m3 = 685630000 g = 685630 kg 685630 kg / 277 ha = 2475 kg/ha

99 mg/L K 99 mg/L Mg 111 mg/L Ca Average SAR of wastewater is 26.5, which is high

E. Coli 31000 cfu/100 mL

The biosolids (186 t) had high concentrations of N, P and Cr.

6.3% N 6,3% * 186 t = 11.7 t

166

Doc # 3589777 Page 163

11.7 t / 277 ha = 0.042 t/ha = 42 kg/ha 14580 P mg/kg 14580 g/t * 186 t =2711880 g = 2712 kg 2712 kg / 277 ha = 9.8 kg/ha 1700 Cr mg/kg 1700 g/t * 186 t = 316200 g = 316 kg 316 kg / 277 ha = 1.1 kg/ha (top 10 cm of 1 ha = 7000 t ha) Which is the same as 160 mg/kg Nitrogen N remains a major issue. The groundwater monitoring shows very high nitrate-N concentrations, some bores in the range 40-50 mg/L. Although groundwater movement is slow, it is moving and the groundwater N concentrations predominantly reflect the existing N load. Applied is N likely to leach from the soil into the groundwater in a year or so as NO3 is very mobile. That the groundwater continues to be high in N at the same bores indicates the current applications of effluent are the source. Also, the C:N ratio of the soils suggests the soils are saturated with N so any applied will move straight through. Another possible issue is the high Cl- concentration is likely to lead to competition with nitrate for exchange sites, resulting in increased N leaching. Other contributing factors to the high groundwater N concentrations may be bypass flow caused by a reduction of the soil infiltration rate. Factors that may affect the infiltration rate include:

1. Soil type 2. The high ground water elevations in the Waitoa soil; 3. Adverse soil conditions such as very slowly permeable soil conditions as found in the

subsoil of the Waitoa soil at about 15 cm; 4. Structural damage to soils with high clay content by equipment or stock, especially if soil

moisture is high; 5. Damage by sodium to soil structure; 6. User abuse in the form of overloading (admitted by applicant), failure to perform

maintenance intervals, neglect of leaking or maladjusted plumbing fixtures, inordinate use of chemical additives or other deleterious material and physical damages to part of the system caused by digging, grading, filling, heavy traffic or other damaging actions;

7. Flooding by storm water or other surface water sources; 8. Inadequate design capacity for the actual loading;

The soil type is a controlling factor. The Waitoa soil has a slowly permeable subsoil and the Glenburn & Tulliebelton farms show results typical of this soil (subsoil infiltration rate of 5-6 mm/h). This often can result in a perched groundwater, just below or at the soil surface. The Waihou soil should have the best infiltration. However, infiltration measured on the Waihou subsoil was 4 mm/h showing this site must be damaged. The Ngarua soil was also very slow at 8 mm/h, while the Waitoa soil was excessively high, 17 – 80 mm/h, which is evidence of by-pass flow through cracks and old root channels (i.e. the effluent leaves the soil untreated). By pass flow can carry nitrogen deep in the soil below the rooting zone. Once nitrogen is below the rooting zone it will either leach to groundwater or be reduced to nitrous oxide or nitrogen gases. Soils are damaged by a complex interactive web of factors, as explained below, which can contribute to increased movement of nitrogen to groundwater by bypass flow. Common to all land-based wastewater systems, several physical, chemical and biological phenomena occur in the soil, progressively or jointly, to produce zones of gradually decreasing permeability receiving effluent. These processes are largely independent of the composition, constitution or texture of the soil at the system site. As a result, even the most carefully constructed systems installed in soils of optimum permeability can be subject to failure through clogging of pores or surface crusting. Where user abuse occurs, the risk of permeability failure is greatly increased e.g.

167

Doc # 3589777 Page 164

1. When large amounts of water are allowed to pass through soils composed of particles of different sizes, the rate of percolation is found to gradually decrease. The reason for this is that the flow of water causes smaller particles to become dislodged and to be swept into some of the larger soil pores where they become lodged in constricted areas, effectively blocking the pore. If application of effluent had been evenly spread over the whole 277 ha that would still be an extra 200 mm of hydraulic load. However, we have evidence of very high applications to individual paddocks (e.g. the apply until 300 kg N reached occurrence).

2. Smearing can occur if heavy machinery or animals are run over or used on wet soils. This compression effect can cause reduction in flow through the soil as it effectively seals off soil pores. Having cattle on soft wet paddocks can result in pugging, which I have observed at the Wallace Corp owned farms.

3. Effluent can contain significant amount of suspended particulate matter. The fine pores in the soil of the absorption field filter out these suspended particles very effectively, but become stopped up by them, reducing the rate of percolation.

4. Soil microorganisms present in the application field are provided with a constant supply of dissolved inorganic and organic nutrients contained in the effluent flowing onto the field. Consequently, these microorganisms multiply very rapidly in the soil and the resulting microbial biomass creates further barriers to the seepage of water through the soil capillaries.

5. Sodium (Na) is also a possible contributor to soil structure degradation and the effluent is very high in Na. Sodium has much less flocculating power to hold clays together than other exchangeable cations (calcium, magnesium and potassium, Table 1).

When looking at soil, not only must the absolute amount of sodium in the soil be considered, but also the proportion of sodium to all exchangeable cations. An exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) above 15% (w/w) is of concern as it can cause soil clays to deflocculate (Sparling 2005b). Calcium is the most common cation present in NZ soils and has a strong influent on the ESP (Lambert et al. 2000). Calcium (and magnesium) leaching can be increased by adding effluent with a high proportion of potassium and/or sodium because a soil has only a limited number of sites to store exchangeable cations and adding potassium and/or sodium increases competition for those sites. As the amount of calcium decreases over time, the ESP increases. When looking at solution being irrigated, soil structure stability depends on the amount of soluble salts (EC) as well as the balance between (calcium + magnesium) and sodium (called Sodium Absorption Ratio or SAR). Soil particles will disperse if concentrations of (calcium + magnesium) are decreased relative to the concentration of sodium (SAR is increased). Soil particles may also disperse if the amount of soluble salts in the soil is decreased, even if the SAR remains constant. If total EC in solution is less than 25mmol/L, soil aggregates can be dispersed, even at a low SAR (Mace & Amrhein 2001 ). Hydraulic conductivity decreased in similar soils to the ones at the proposed irrigation site at SAR >8.5 for Allophanic Soils (Menneer et al. 2001 ). Soil particles irrigated with solution with an EC of <4 mmol/L and a SAR of >13 mmol/L will disperse (Walworth 2006 ). If soils are close to the “tipping point” between stability and dispersion, the quality of applied water will influence soil structure stability. If irrigation effluent infiltrates, and rain water does not, this indicates that the soil is close to the “tipping point”. I recommend Exchangeable Sodium Percentage in the soil to be kept below 15%. The Sodium Absorption Ratio of the effluent should be below 8.5. Table 1: Relative flocculating power of exchangeable cations (adapted from Walworth 2006 ) Cation Relative flocculating power Sodium 1.0 Potassium 1.7 Magnesium 27 Calcium 43 The effects of Na on soil structure can be reduced or even overcome by adding calcium (and magnesium) in lime, dolomite or gypsum to the soil. As long as air continues to be drawn into the application field as the water soaks away, a mixed population of aerobic microorganisms will remain in the absorption field to effect biodegradation of

168

Doc # 3589777 Page 165

the soluble and insoluble organics. However, as more and more soil pores become plugged, the rate at which the water seeps away becomes slower and slower so that less and less air is drawn into the absorption field. Under these conditions, aerobic fermentation in the absorption field is gradually replaced by anaerobic fermentation. During microbial fermentations microorganisms digest organic materials, using part of them for energy maintenance and part for forming their cellular mass. In order to break down and utilise organic compounds, microorganisms must have other compounds available to be used as electron acceptors. The oxygen present in the air is the normal terminal electron acceptor used by all aerobic organisms in this process. The oxygen is reduced to water and used to produce carbon dioxide (CO2) from some organic compounds. If no air is available, microorganisms that can live in the absence of air (anaerobic bacteria) will use other inorganic (e.g., nitrate or sulphate) or organic compounds as electron acceptors. Reduction products associated with organic matter conversion under anaerobic conditions include nitrogen (from nitrate), sulphide (from sulphate) and methane (from organic matter), each again being accompanied by CO2 produced from organic matter decomposition. In application fields, when air is no longer drawn into the soil the range of electron acceptors available to microorganisms in the absorption field becomes very restricted because any air in the water has already been used up in fermentation. One significant electron acceptor available in ponded fields is sulphate. It is also present in the effluent in significant amounts. This is rapidly reduced to sulphide. Sulphides are toxic to most microorganisms. Only some microorganisms, which can reduce sulphides further to elemental sulphur, can survive in the presence of high sulphide concentrations. The presence of free sulphide in stagnant absorption fields may therefore kill off many of the bacteria, which would otherwise be degrading organics. Some of the free sulphide may be converted to insoluble sulphur, causing further physical blockage of soil pores. However, very little of the sulphide produced in the application field remains in the free state. The bulk of it combines with ions of heavy or transition metals (e.g., iron, manganese, chromium, cadmium, nickel, copper, magnesium, zinc, etc.) present in the soil or in the wastewater. This causes the deposit of insoluble, inorganic sulphides in the soil pores but this may not be their most deleterious effect. Many elements tied up in insoluble form as sulphides are required by microorganisms for their redox enzymes, the organic catalysts needed for respiratory functions, including degradation of organic matter. Binding of trace elements by sulphides may therefore inhibit organisms otherwise capable of destroying organic materials in the application field. One last contributor to clogging is the action of the anaerobic bacteria themselves. Many microorganisms, especially anaerobic bacteria, produce polysaccharide slimes or gums, which they secrete into their surroundings. These seem to function as a protective sheath around the bacterial cell wall. When formed in situ in the application field, such polysaccharides help to form an impermeable layer in the bacterial zone. The Water balance modelling shows loss to groundwater of 396 mm/y with peak June-August. Leaching of N from grazed pasture was 87 kg/ha/y, according to the PDP model and 86 kg/ha/y, according to OVERSEER, while (the little) field data from lysimeters gives 139 kg N/ha/y. These numbers are all very high for leaching of N and the elevated N in groundwater show the current irrigation is too high. The Baseline Dairy farm in 2004 in the Waikato was modelled to leach 56 kg N/ha/y in an average year but an efficient dairy farm was modelled to leach 30 kg N/ha/y (Burkes et al 2013). Risks of bypass flow can be minimised by keeping the application rate below the infiltration rate of the soil. Keeping the infiltration rate of the soil optimum can be favoured by having a low amount of complex organic molecules (e.g. fats) in the effluent, low suspended solids, low S content, low application rates, maintaining soil moisture and conditions favourable for aerobic microorganisms to break down complex organic molecules. Once soil is damaged, irrigation should be reduced or stopped to allow the return of aerobic conditions, which will facilitate the remediation of the soil. Once the soil is remediated, irrigation can resume to a level that does not overload the soils capacity to treat the effluent.

169

Doc # 3589777 Page 166

On p47 of Appendix D1, the “net nitrogen” loads are reported as being about 350 kg N/ha/yr, not the consented 300. And this includes any crop removed via cut & carry. Net nitrogen Loads for Glenburn, Park and Auchenhaen and Tulliebelton farms exceed the 300 kg/ha/y of the existing consent in 2012/13 by at least 10%, therefore are non-compliant. These same farms received even higher net nitrogen loadings between 2008-2010, so have a history of non compliance. It is hard to see how N removal in produce + a little denitrification (in some soils) can keep leaching down to a level similar to that for the average dairy farm. PAN is not an acceptable measurement of nitrogen. There is no nationally accepted analytical soil measurement of PAN. There are different ways of estimating “PAN” and each method provides a different estimate. In addition, PAN is not consistent in soil but can change very rapidly depending on the soil conditions. A sustainable N load for animals on pasture could be 150 kg N. The Reporoa trial (EWTR 2003/15) showed to keep leaching below 50 kg/ha/y annual application should be below 230 kg N /ha. We know from consent monitoring on other dairy factories (e.g. Horotiu) that nitrogen loading above 200kg/ha/y on dairy farms causes difficulty in maintaining groundwater nitrate-N below acceptable limits, and this is on very effective filtering Allophanic soils. If application was 400 kg N/ha, leaching increased at a near 1:1 ratio (i.e. there was no attenuation of N). A cut and carry system could support a higher load of N. The highest crop yield from Taupo sewage irrigation is about 400 kg N/ha/yr. At a dairy company, elevated groundwater N can still occur at 300 kg N/ha with an apparently well managed cut and carry system (although the elevation is an order of magnitude smaller than the current one at Wairoa). Phosphorous P concentration is already high in the soil and is likely to continue to accumulate in soil with only a small amount transferred to water. I recommend regular testing of Olsen P and phosphorous levels be kept within the recommend range for production (20-30). Soils with high Olsen P are likely to leach phosphorus or have phosphorus transported to waterways in sediment Chromium Cr from the biosolids may also need watching if multiple applications of biosolids are proposed. The Canadian guideline for agricultural soils for the protection of environmental receptors is a much more appropriate guideline in the farming situation and is 64 mg/kg. The Glenburn farm has historic levels above 64 mg/kg and these look very odd (perhaps sampled by a CCA treated fencepost?). Total Cr has increased at the Tulliebelton farm to be at the Canadian Cr guideline value. Park & Auchenhaen farms are about twice the Canadian Cr guideline. This suggests some organisms are affected by the Cr concentrations in the soil. This Cr issue would be fixed if the tannery solids were removed to landfill. Sodium See comments on sodium contributing to bypass flow of N under the nitrogen heading above. Na applications are very high and already appear to be causing soil degradation. More importantly, the average SAR of wastewater is 26.5, which is high and seems to be increasing. Table 7 showed Waihou subsoil with an infiltration rate of 4 mm/h, way below what it should be (50+ mm/h). This damage could be caused by soil compaction and/or salinity breaking down soil structure. The average ESR of all irrigated soils was 6-7% (down from 7-10% prior to 2008) compared to a non-irrigated soil ESR of 2%. However this is improving (down from 7-10% prior to 2008). The applicant is likely to hold large volumes of hazardous sodium-based chemicals on site (e.g. sodium hydroxide). These chemicals can escape during disasters, such as the Christchurch earthquake.

I recommend Exchangeable Sodium Percentage in the soil to be kept below 15%. The Sodium Absorption Ratio of the effluent should be below 8.5 to avoid soil degradation.

170

Doc # 3589777 Page 167

Emergency plans should be prepared for the management of hazardous chemicals, the minimising of damage to land and minimising health risk to workers and public.

Infiltration See comments on reduced soil infiltration rate contributing to bypass flow of N under the nitrogen heading above. Key points are: The soil type is a controlling factor. The Waitoa has a slowly permeable subsoil and the Glenburn & Tulliebelton farms show results typical of this soil (subsoil infiltration rate of 5-6 mm/h). Table 7 shows Waihou subsoil 4 mm/h (this site must be compacted to be this slow), Ngarua 8 mm/h, Waitoa 17 – 80 mm/h (extremely high unless under trees Evidence of by-pass flow through cracks, or not allowing the infiltration to come to a steady state. Although some fields are noted as being in the floodplain of the Waitoa River, no major flood covering the whole area that could explain the damaged soils has been observed. The application rate must not exceed the soils ability to infiltrate the effluent. Therefore, a maximum application rate of 4 mm/h is recommended. No maximum daily volume limit suggested but the applicant proposes to manage application through application depth (25 mm) & return period controls. Return period varies between farms e.g.from 4-8 days (Brimmer), 14 days (P&A), while the rest are 7 days. If we assume 50 applications (based on a 7 day return) per year of 25 mm we end up with 1250 mm/y hydraulic loading. This loading potentially doubles rainfall. This hydraulic load would likely push nitrate through the soil to groundwater due to the piston effect. An alternative method is irrigating to soil conditions rather than application depth & return period. Potentially, a condition restricting irrigation on a soil moisture deficit basis and engineered around recording this data daily (can be automated) could offer more flexibility for the applicant and better environmental outcomes. A problem may be that in spring the ground tends to be saturated and the applicant has little storage. The applicant needs to address how they manage application during prolonged wet weather. Also, no muck spreading on saturated soil should occur as this can cause compaction. Applied wisely over the summer dry period, irrigation should enhance soil production without harming sustainability. Excessive drying of the soils (hydrophobicity) increases the risk of irrigated wastewater running off the soils into nearby watercourses and also means that plants are stressed through inadequate water. Therefore, more regular applications of lower amounts of effluent will better maintain soil moisture and enable more vigorous plant growth. I recommend application every 3-4 days during summer dry periods. The risk of flooding A flood would most likely deposit silt from upstream on the irrigation fields rather than eroding them (it’s too flat and energy would be too low to mobilise soil). Dissolved constituents (N, Cl, Na, Cr) could be mobilised but water volumes would be so great to dilute these to be indistinguishable from surrounding farmland. Harmful microorganisms should die off during the summer (UV light, competition from existing microorganisms) so would be unlikely to cause significant effects. Other elements to consider B is very mobile and any build up will be washed out over winter (along with nitrate, chloride and most if not all S). It is significantly depleted in NZ soils under fertilised land uses compared to background. B’s movement in soils follows the water flux but it is not redox-sensitive under typical environmental conditions. So B has a high potential to be leached downward in soil profiles by drainage water. Concern about movement of B into drinking water sources has lead to the US Environmental Protection Agency to consider regulating it in drinking water (Parks & Edwards 2005). B is likely to be transferred to groundwater aquifers and from groundwater springs to surface water e.g. agriculturally derived boron has been shown to contribute to surface water

171

Doc # 3589777 Page 168

concentrations. About 10% of the B discharge was agricultural-affected water for the highly urbanised Seine River, France (Chetelat & Gaillardet 2005). S is more mobile than P and is washed out of the soil during winter. K is an animal health issue for the farmer. It is not a sustainability issue for council.

I recommend, for the present, the sum total of nitrogen applied from all sources in the irrigation area (biosolids treated wastewater effluent, cattle stock effluent, dairy shed effluent, imported feed and fertiliser) not to exceed 150 kg N/ha/y (under animals) or up to 400 kg N/ha/y (under crop & carry) and a full nitrogen budget followed and presented to Waikato Regional Council. An Overseer output showing how much N is leached to be reported annually.

The applicant carries out studies to show there are no further significant effects from the application of rates of effluent and sludge up to 400 kg N/ha/y. If successful, nitrogen loading can be increased to the level demonstrated.

I recommend irrigating to soil conditions, restricting irrigation on a soil moisture deficit basis (irrigation not to exceed soil moisture capacity). Soil deficient data to be recorded daily.

I recommend application of effluent and sludge should be based on soil type.

Effluent and sludge may be applied to Waihou and Ngarua soils throughout the year as long as saturation of the soil does not occur (e.g. application not to occur if heavy rain forecast, or if the soil is already saturated) or effluent flows laterally at the surface of the compact subsoil layer into the drainage system.

Effluent and sludge may be applied to Waitoa and Ngarua soils only during dry conditions when the ground water level is below 30 cm.

Reference Beurkes P, Romera A, Gregorini P, Khaembah E, et al 2013. Strategies to reduce nitrogen leaching: What have we learned from modelling so far? DairyNZ Technical series 14: 12-16. Lambert MG, Clark DA, Mackay AD Costall DA. 2000 Effects of fertiliser application on nutrient status and organic content of hill soils. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 43:127-138. Mace, J. and C. Amrhein 2001. Leaching and reclamation of a soil irrigated with moderate SAR waters. Soil Science Society of America Journal 65: 199-204. Menneer, J., C. McLay, R Lee. 2001. Effects of sodium-contaminated wastewater on soil permeability of two New Zealand soils. Australian Journal of Soil Research 39: 877-891. Sparling G. 2005. Gley soils lose ability to absorb effluent. Soil Horizons 12: 11. Walworth J. 2006. Soil structure: the role of sodium and salts. The University of Arizona Cooperative Extention AZ1414, University of Arizona, Arizona, USA.

Addendum: Further comments Matthew Taylor, 30 October 2014, in response to proposed conditions. Wastewater and Biosolids discharge to Land Term of consent amended to 25 years

MT: I think there is no justification for this length. WCL need to show how they will continue to reduce environmental effects. Condition 1: A drop in leaching rate to 60 kg is significant from a nitrogen reduction point of view. It is possible that reallocation of nitrogen loading based on soil may achieve a reduction approaching this limit, however, WCL wish to have the opportunity to investigate what limit is achievable first and any cost implications of doing so. Maintaining a 200 kg N/ha/yr loading rate is not achievable on a farm wide basis.

MT: Soil already damaged and needs to be carefully managed to reduce off site environmental impacts. The Drop to 60 kg/ha/y is still very high compared to typical dairy farms. The greater the N loading rate the greater the N leaching.

172

Doc # 3589777 Page 169

Condition 2: Given that there is no current effect of operating a hydraulic loading rate of 25 mm/hr there is no justification for restricting loading rates to 10mm/hr. To amend the irrigation equipment to achieve this loading rate would require a significant capital investment.

MT: Strongly disagree. I have been standing in 2 cm of ponded effluent on the WCL farm. There are considerable on site and off site effects from the current irrigation. If your application rate exceeds the infiltration rate of the soil you will get ponding and the accompanying adverse effects. Condition 15. Removed in preference of controlling ESP. Controlling SAR is difficult and would require lime dosing in line which can have an adverse effect on irrigation equipment.

MT: SAR is a fence at the top of the cliff, ESP is an ambulance at the bottom. Keeping SAR <8.5 reduces the likelihood of adverse sodium impacts on the receiving soil. ESP >15% indicates the soil clays could be deflocculating. This will cause the soil infiltration rate to decrease, problems with bypass flow etc. Condition 20: PAN is 100% of TN for liquid biosolids with wastewater (due to its low fraction of the TN). For dewatered biosolids, the PAN ratios are now stated.

Mt: See comments in word file. Composition of different types of biosolids can vary considerably. Condition 24 No boron monitoring necessary as boric acid not used on site anymore

Mt: Fine

Get back to me if you have any questions. I’ll have my work mobile if you need me tomorrow

Cheers

Matthew Taylor Soil and Diffuse Contamination Scientist | Science and Strategy Waikato Regional Council

173

Doc # 3589777 Page 170

Appendix 12

Technical Report from WRC Consents Officer Rachael Taylor, regarding air discharge application

Waikato Regional Council - S42A Report

Applicant: Wallace Corporation Limited File No.: 60 93 77A

Address of Site: Wood Road - Waitoa Project Code: RC20434

Application Number: APP130915

1 Introduction

Wallace Corporation Limited (WCL) has applied for a resource consent to authorise the discharge of contaminants to air including odour from rendering and tannery operations, associated ancillary processes including combustion from gas fired boilers and biogas and from wastewater treatment plant processes and wastewater irrigation to land. The application seeks to replace an existing authorisation for the same activity, resource consent 930817, which expires on 30 June 2014. A consent duration of 25 years has been requested.

The application is supported by an assessment of environmental effects (AEE) prepared by Pattle Delamore Partners Limited (PDP), refer to WRC DM2916722 and further supporting information requested by the WRC, refer to WRC DM3145481.


There are numerous discharges to air from operations at the WCL site, refer to the AEE document (Section 9) to find details in full along with current air emission control measures. I have summarised below the main discharges to air from site operations that includes odour from the rendering and tannery operations and treatment of wastewater, products of combustion from the gas fired boilers and biogas flare. Odour associated with the irrigation of wastewater has been included as part of the assessment for the main hearings report.

For the rendering plant the main potential odour sources include:

Dead stock handling and raw material receiving areas;

Cooking process ie. meat and bone meal, feather meal, blood meal and tallow production;

Steam emission from dryers during the drying of cooked meat;

Load out of finished products including meal and tallow; and

Fugitive air discharges from building air ventilation, sumps and transfer screws.

Rendering plant biofiler (700 m3 in size).

Each type of raw material is delivered to its allocated area since there are separate lines in place for processing poultry feather, poultry offal and blood material. In the case of fallen stock it is temporarily stored outside on a dedicated hardstand area where it is skinned and offal transferred to a raw material bin prior to rendering. Other raw materials delivered to the site are transferred directly to dedicated raw material bins in the receivables area. Where practicable all raw materials are processed within 12 hours of arrival at the site and if offal cannot be processed within 6 hours it is stabilised using sodium metabisulphate until it can be rendered. In all cases rendering commences within 24 hours from the time the animal from which it was derived from was killed. These are the procedures outlined in the site management plan and these procedures are consistent with the current consent conditions for the site.

174

Doc # 3589777 Page 171

A large majority of the odour from the rendering process is treated in a dedicated bark/compost biofilter located to the north east of the rendering plant. This biofilter has an empty bed residence time (EBRT) of 3.6 minutes and a size of 700 m3. This includes discharges from the meat and bone meal (MBM) cooking process where all odorous liquor (stickwater) is passed through a waste heat evaporator (WHE). The steam generated by the WHE is condensed and the condensate is diverted to the wastewater treatment system. The residual air emissions from the WHE are condensed then passed through a cyclone before being ducted to the biofilter for treatment. During feather meal production the raw feathers are hydrolysed by steam then dried, the air emissions from the hydrolyser and dryer are captured at source and directed to the biofilter. For the production of blood meal the raw blood is coagulated with pressured steam. The liquid phase is discharged to the wastewater treatment plant and the solid phase is transferred to a dryer. Condensate from the blood dryer is passed to a scrubber prior to being discharged as wastewater. All odorous air emissions associated with the blood coagulator and dryer are captured and directed to the biofilter. Condensate from the condenser, blood drier scrubber and WHE is discharged via a sealed drain. Any building air that is not captured at source in the rendering process is vented through the roof. In addition I note that air vented from the enclosed meal mill room is exhausted through roof vents rather than through the biofilter, this is standard industry practice. For the tannery plant the main potential odour sources include:

Raw hides and calf skin handling;

Hide liming and dehairing;

De-liming process;

Pickling and wet blue tanning process;

Tannery plant biofilter (317 m3 in size); and

Fugitive odour from building air ventilation The raw hides are either processed immediately in the tanning process vessels or salted to preserve them to prevent emission of odour. Wastewater produced from liming and dehairing of the hide can emit an odour from hydrogen sulphide. This wastewater stream is therefore discharged to two 90m3 vessels which are aerated and dosed with manganese sulphate to oxide sulphides into less odorous compounds. High strength ammoniacal nitrogen wastewater with a strong odour is produced from the de-liming process; this is removed offsite by contractors for irrigation onto farm land (consented by RC 115167). This wastewater is stored in tanks for removal by tankers using an enclosed transfer line that prevents the emission of odours other than for the tanker vents that will discharge for a short period during loading. The pickling and wet blue tanning processes results in a wastewater that has a high chromium concentration. The AEE states that odour associated with this wastewater remains fairly localised. For the air emissions and exhaust gases generated from the tanning process vessels the air extracted is vented to a dedicated biofilter at the tannery. This tannery biofilter has an EBRT of 2.2 minutes and a size of 317 m3. The AEE refers to hydrogen sulphide meters being used in the tannery area to alert to any accidental release of hydrogen sulphide gas in respect to the protection of human health. The anaerobic treatment facility treats wastewater from the SFF meat processing and WCL rendering plants, the tannery wastewater is treated separately due to the high chromium concentration. Following treatment in the two stage anaerobic lagoon (Ponds 1 & 2) with Pond 1

175

Doc # 3589777 Page 172

as the prefermenter, the wastewater is then further treated in an aerobic biological treatment system before being discharge to the Waitoa River or to land. For the wastewater treatment system the main potential odour sources include:

Some localised odour from sumps and lift pumps;

Some localised odour from primary screening and DAF plant;

Biogas (including hydrogen sulphide and mercaptans) generated from the anaerobic lagoon; and

Pond solids removal.

Some of the sumps where the localised odour is high are covered to prevent odour. No additional controls are proposed localised odour in the area of the primary screening and DAF plant. The main source of odour in the wastewater treatment system has in the past been fugitive odour (biogas) generated from the anaerobic lagoon. A new covered lagoon was commissioned in August 2012 and the biogas is extracted under vacuum through a collection pipe to the flare unit for thermal destruction. WCL applied to change consent 930817 under S127 of the RMA in 2011 to authorise the operation of a new anaerobic treatment facility as a replacement of the existing anaerobic lagoons (Ponds 1 and 2). This consent change authorised emissions to air from the thermal combustion of biogas using the flare unit. It has been estimated that the production rate of biogas from the anaerobic lagoon will be 3,600 Nm3/day during normal production and up to 7,000 Nm3/day with the intended increased production. There is a 25 m3 biofilter that can be utilised for backup odour treatment in the event of flare breakdown or maintenance. The flare unit is 7 m high and is currently capable of burning 300 Nm3/hr and generally operates at a temperature of 700oC. The flare is an open candle design and is semi enclosed to ensure that complete combustion occurs and to act as a wind shield for the naked flame. A temperature sensor is installed at the flare tip to monitor the combustion temperature and a flame sensor to ensure that biogas to the flare stops when no flame is present. The purpose of the prefermenter lagoon is to enable sufficient hydrolysis of fats to free fatty acids prior to treatment in the main anaerobic lagoon. The change to consent application referred to above reported that that there will be a requirement to periodically remove the preferementer cover (every 3 years) if there is a large build up of non-hydrolysed fats that require mechanical removal. The cover removal would be a planned event and the odour emitted from the removal is expected to be low as long as wastewater is diverted for a period of time before the exercise is completed. I therefore recommend that the SMP is required to contain management and operational procedures for mechanical removal of fats from the prefermenter. The removal of pond sludge would have the potential to produce odour and the Air Discharge Management Plan (AMP) (DM3098021) provided with the application provides management and odour control procedures for desludging the treatment ponds if required. It is recognised that the relative strengths of odour would vary depending on the degree of treatment. The activated sludge ponds are generally not desludged because they are fully mixed, meaning that sludge is passed on to the following ponds where it is then removed. A small amount of sludge is removed from the tannery pond (Pond 5) via a permanent sludge dewatering decanter. Desludging of the other ponds occur on an as needed basis but is limited by factors such as the weather conditions and time of year. Boiler stack emissions are from a total of 6 natural gas fired boilers at the site. Three of these boilers provide steam to the rendering plant; this includes two each with a heat output of 10 MW and one with a heat output of 5 MW. Three boilers provide hot water to the tannery plant that have a combined heat output rating of around 1 MW. The discharges from the tannery boilers are likely to be small and therefore were no considered further in the AEE.

176

Doc # 3589777 Page 173


Permitted Activity Rule 6.1.9.1 of the WRP authorises the discharge of contaminants into air from animal processes that singly or together have a raw material capacity not exceeding 0.5 tonnes per hour and being processes for rendering or reduction drying through application of heat to animal matter. The raw material capacity exceeds the 0.5 tonnes per hour limit, therefore the discharge defaults to discretionary activity under General Rule 6.1.9.2. Permitted Activity Rule 6.1.12.1 of the WRP authorises the discharge of contaminants into air from the combustion of gas up to 10 MW. The total rate of heat release for the existing and proposed gas fired boilers and air heaters will exceed 10 MW, therefore the discharge defaults to a controlled activity under Controlled Activity Rule 6.1.12.3. Permitted Activity Rule 6.1.18.1 of the WRP authorises the discharges to air form the storage, transfer, treatment or disposal of liquid and solid waste provided that the activity was lawfully establish before the WRP was publicly notified (December 1998). Since the wastewater treatment and storage activities were all not established prior to December 1998 this activity defaults to discretionary activity under General Rule 6.1.9.2. The discharge of contaminants into air in connection with the flaring and combustion of hydrocarbons and biogas provided that the rate of biogas production and collection does not exceed 200 m3 per day is a permitted activity (PA Rule 6.1.14.1). At the proposed increased production rate the rate of biogas production and collection is estimated to exceed the 200 m3 per day limit, therefore the activity defaults to Discretionary Activity Rule 6.1.9.2. When an application has more than one activity status, as per the situation set out above, the most stringent statutory test applies. Accordingly, the discharge is a discretionary activity.


The activity is discretionary under Rule 5.2.8.4 of the Waikato Regional Plan, and therefore s104B of the RMA applies. As such the Council may grant or refuse the application, and if it grants the application, may impose conditions under s108 RMA. Under s104(1) RMA the Council must have regard to any actual or relevant effects on the environment of allowing the activity, and have regard to any relevant provisions of the regional policy Statement, the Regional Plan, or any other matter that the Council considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application. Under section 104B, as the air discharge is a Discretionary Activity, Waikato Regional Council may grant or refuse the application, and if it grants the application may impose conditions under section 108 of the RMA. Under section 105, as the discharge to air is an activity which would contravene section 15 if a consent was not granted, Waikato Regional Council must, in addition to the matters in section 104(1) have regard to –

The nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects;

The applicant’s reasons for the proposed choice; and Any possible alternative methods of discharge.

4.1 Assessment of Environmental Effect

4.2 Existing environment

Section 104(1)(a) provides that when considering a consent application, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to the actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity. Case law has determined that the "environment" must be read as the

177

Doc # 3589777 Page 174

environment which exists at the time of the assessment and as the environment may be in the future as modified by the utilisation of permitted activities under the plan and by the exercise of resource consents which are being exercised, or which are likely to be exercised in the future. It does not include the effects of resource consents which might be sought in the future nor any past reversible effects arising from the consent being considered. The WCL site is located within a rural setting and there are few residential dwellings in the immediate proximity of the site. The immediate receiving environment is highly modified by mainly dairy farms. The nearest sensitive receptor (dwelling) not on WCL owned land is located approximately 630 m north-west of the main processing site on Wood Road.

4.3 Permitted baseline

Section 104(2) provides that when forming an opinion about the actual or potential effects of the activity, the consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if the regional plan permits an activity with that effect. This is often referred to as the "permitted baseline" and calls for a discretionary decision to be exercised by the consent authority as to whether or not to discount such permitted effects. This provision requires consideration of:

"the existing environment overlaid with such relevant activity (not being a fanciful activity) as is permitted by the plan. Thus, if the activity permitted by the plan will create some adverse effect on the environment, that adverse effect does not count in the s104 or s105 assessments…it is deemed to be already affecting the environment…The consequence is that only other or further adverse effects emanating from the proposal under consideration are brought to account." (Arrigato v ARC)

The surrounding rural environment can produce odours typical to rural activities particularly from dairy shed effluent and silage. Given the smaller nature of these activities (the farm effluent spreading activity usually involves only a few paddocks on each farm and general public acceptance towards these odours, I consider that there is no “permitted baseline” which is relevant to this application.

4.4 Contaminants of concern

The AEE prepared by PDP indicates the main discharges from the site that can result in adverse effects includes odour, products of natural gas combustion including oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) discharged from the boilers. However PDP considers PM10 to be the main contaminant of concern and effects of oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide to be less than minor therefore have been excluded in the AEE. In addition any sulphur dioxide emissions from the boilers are considered to be insignificant due to the low sulphur content in natural gas and were also not considered in the AEE. Biogas generated from anaerobic lagoons consists predominantly of methane (50-60%) and carbon dioxide (40-50%) but also contains low levels of trace gases such as hydrogen sulphide. During combustion the methane is converted to carbon dioxide and the hydrogen sulphide is oxidised to sulphur dioxide (SO2). Small amounts of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide will be produced as by-products of combustion. Testing of the biogas has found that halogenated hydrocarbons are low, ie. less than 1%. The size of dust particles (often referred to as the aerodynamic diameter) determines how long a particle will remain suspended in the air. Larger particles will drop out of the air (and deposit on the ground or other surfaces) in a shorter time than smaller particles. Particulate matter can be characterised in a number of ways, as described below: a) Deposited dust - generally greater than 20 micron (μm) and refers to the size fraction that

falls out of the air and deposits on exposed surfaces b) Total suspended particulates (TSP) - refers to the particulate size fraction suspended in air at

the time of sampling and generally consists of particles smaller than 30μm.

178

Doc # 3589777 Page 175

c) PM10 (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10μm) will penetrate the nose ormouth under normal breathing conditions, and is the most commonly used indicator of thepotential for health effects.

SO2 is a colourless soluble gas with a characteristic pungent odour that forms sulphuric acid when combined with water. SO2 can cause respiratory problems and can irritate the notes, throat and lungs.

The odour generated from the site has potential to cause nuisance odour effects. Objectionable and offensive odours have the potential to cause significant adverse effects on people’s lives and wellbeing.

4.5 Dispersion Modelling

To determine the potential impacts to air quality PDP completed air dispersion modelling assessments from fugitive odour discharges originating from the rendering and tannery processing plants as well as discharges from the biogas flare and boilers stacks.

Actual boiler stack TSP emission results for the two 10 MW Boilers (Boilers 1 and 3) measured in 2013 while operating under typical operating conditions were used in the AEE. There was no measured emission data for Boiler 2 (5 MW) and therefore the emission rate was estimated based on 50% of the Boiler 1 and 2 test results. The efflux velocity for Boiler 2 was estimated using AERMOD. The total suspended particulate concentrations were conservatively estimated to be PM10 for the modelling assessment. The exact boiler stack heights were not known for PDP’s assessment, the stack height from boiler 1 was derived from design details supplied by the applicant. The stack heights for boilers 2 and 3 appear to be slightly shorter. Since the exact boiler stack heights were not known assumed stack heights were used in the modelling assessment with a sensitivity analysis applied later for a range of between 19 to 25 m above ground level. The emissions from the 3 boilers associated with the tannery are of such a small capacity and since they are unlikely to impact on particulate levels they were not considered further in the AEE.

PM10 was monitored in the rendering plant meal room and was found to be at a concentration of 0.3 mg/m3 and well below New Zealand workplace exposure limit of 3 mg/m3. Therefore particulate matter from the meal room has not been considered further in this assessment.

The flares open candle design means that it was not possible to take direct measurements for SO2 emissions. Therefore emissions for the current operation have been based on concentrations of hydrogen sulphide measured in the biogas feedstock to the flare with an assumed 100% conversion of hydrogen sulphide to SO2. As a result the concentration of SO2 currently emitted from the flare was conservatively estimated to be 15,000 ppm. Daily monitoring is currently being undertaken to verify hydrogen sulphide concentration of biogas being fed to the flare. The flow rate of 150 Nm3/hr has been used in the model.

The rendering and tannery plants were identified as the two main sources of odour to be included in the air dispersion modelling assessment. PDP completed an inventory for all potential sources of odour emissions from these two main areas. Odour concentrations were then measured using a point source sampling method at specific odour generating locations as follows:

Pre-cook area (where raw material is received);

Meal sieve room;

Meat store room; and

The tannery at 2 locations adjacent to the chemical batching baths and main tannery floor).

Odour volume sources are considered to be the most appropriate way to model diffuse emissions. To model the diffuse odour, emission volume sources were calculated based on the number of doorways for the plant buildings, as a result 6 volume sources from the rendering plant and one volume sources from the tannery has been used using a velocity of 1 m/s-1. It is noted that it is difficult to determine odour emission rates from fugitive sources particularly when the odour may be very high close to the source with a low flow rate means that the odour dissipates rapidly with

179

Doc # 3589777 Page 176

increasing distance from the source. I note that there are a number of limitations inherent in the modelling approach such the assumed rate of odour emission from each source is not constant and will vary over time. The steady state atmospheric dispersion model (AERMOD version 8.10) has been used to assess predicted ground level concentrations of PM10, SO2 and odour. The specific inputs to the AERMOD model includes meteorological data from Hamilton (Ruakura 2) and Toenepi Electric Weather Station (EWS), mass emission rates for the contaminants, averaging time, background concentrations, terrain and receptor positions. There are some occasional rural residences identified as flagpole receptors or sensitive receptors used for the dispersion modelling assessment. Sensitive receptor locations (dwellings) are located within the site area owned by WCL as well as on neighbouring land in the vicinity of the plant. In the absence of suitable meteorological data being available for the site, a meteorological data set for 2011-2012 was developed by AERMOD software developers (Lakes Environmental) using relevant satellite data. The windrose supplied in the AEE shows that the predominant wind direction is from between the west and south-west and in total makes up for approximately a third of the winds experienced at the site. Topography can also influence meteorological conditions and odour dispersion. The land around the WCL site is relatively flat and there are no significant terrain features that will have a significant impact on the dispersion of atmospheric pollutants near the site. Buildings on site were identified as having the potential to influence stack dispersion therefore the heights of buildings and downwash effect were able to be included in the PM10 and SO2 models with Plume Rise Model Enhancements (PRIME) being incorporated. To model a flare emission, AERMOD allows the flare to be modelled as a point source by incorporating a US EPA method that accounts for the enhanced buoyancy flux from a high temperature heat source.

The WCL site is located within WRC’s ‘rest of the region’ airshed, which is not a polluted airshed and the overall background ambient air quality is expected to be good. The background ambient air quality concentrations are based on the recommended ‘worst-case’ background concentrations contained in the MfE’s Good Practice Guide for a rural area. The MfE guide does not provide a background concentration for SO2, however given the rural nature of the environment it is reasonable to expect that background SO2 would be negligible.

4.5.1 Discussion of Modelling Results Odour

Under the Resource Management Act 1991, the main concern with odour is its ability to cause an effect that could be considered “objectionable or offensive”. It is not sufficient for an odour to simply be detected at or beyond the boundary of a site. The odour must be sufficient to cause an effect which could be considered “objectionable or offensive”. In this case I note that there is a history of odour nuisance complaints (these are discussed in more detail below) made against WCL. It is recognised that WCL has made efforts to reduce the release of odour and off-site effects and there has been a substantial reduction of odour complaints in more recent years. Whether an odour has an objectionable or offensive effect will depend on the Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness (or character) and Location of the odour event which is collectively referred to as the “FIDOL” factors. These are considered further as part of the assessment made below. The predicted maximum ground level (MGLC) odour concentrations (1 hour averages) are shown to be between 1 to 3 odour units beyond the WCL site owned land. The odour units predicted along Ngarua Road (WCL boundary) for sensitive receptor locations were found to range between 1.1 to 1.8 odour units or to account for modelling precision it would be more accurate to say between 1 to 3 odour units. Based on these predicted ground level concentrations PDP concludes that some properties on Ngarau Road, Whangahongi Road, Woods Road and Farmer Road may

180

Doc # 3589777 Page 177

detect odour. The MfE11, odour guidance document recommends maximum odour concentrations to determine whether objectionable or offensive effects are likely to occur. Different locations have different sensitivities to odour and can be classified as having high, moderate or low sensitivity. The degree of sensitivity in any particular location to odour is based on characteristics of the land use, including the time of day and the reason shy people are at the particular location. The surrounding area includes rural land use. The MfE odour guidance document assigns both a high and low level of sensitivity to rural properties with residential dwellings. The guide mentions that residences may not be sensitive to rural odours but may be highly sensitive to non-rural type odours such as from rendering plants. On this basis and considering that residents have complained in the past about odour from WCL’s operation I consider that it is appropriate to classify the location as having a high sensitivity to odour. Therefore the recommended concentration would be 2 odour units (0.1% and 0.5% percentile) during neutral to stable conditions. The modelled results rage from 1 to 3 odour units around the perimeter of the site including along Ngarua road where a number of residences are located. I then note that the modelling shows that odour concentrations and are likely to exceed 1 odour unit beyond the site boundary at a low frequency, only 0.1% of the time and 5 to 10 hours per year. This level of odour would be not/acceptable for highly sensitive residences. PDP state that the most likely conditions for elevated odour concentrations are during calm conditions or when a strong inversion layer exists. This is because under these conditions convective cells will not disperse the odour and the odour plume will remain trapped close to the ground. This has been validated by both the odour complaints and odour surveys conducted by WCL as discussed below. The closest dwellings located beyond WCL owned land are appropriately 1 km to 2 km from the rendering plant. In the past these separation distances have not proven to be sufficient to protect the residential properties from odours. However given the recent odour complaint history, this indicates that if the control equipment on site are well maintained and if the site is well managed, then any odour effects on the surrounding areas will be minimised. Complaints have been received in the past but have reduced greatly after 2005 when the site implemented odour control measures. The anaerobic wastewater treatment pond was covered in 2012 to capture the odorous biogas generated and to minimise the potential for odour emissions to have an adverse effect off site. The MfE guide also comments that for existing operations, atmospheric dispersion model predictions should generally be given less weight that community feedback on odour effects. Based on the reduction of odour complaints relating to the WCL operations in recent years, I consider that the associated discharges are unlikely to result in any adverse effects beyond the boundary. WCL have in the past carried out an onsite odour survey to get staff feedback on site odour. From 18 respondents the most prominent odour was recorded as being “dead animal” with an average intensity of 6.7 out of 10. The odour was most common on still days with mild temperatures and was also more likely to occur in the mornings rather than the afternoons for duration of no more than two hours. In addition four odour surveys were completed in 2012/13 and it was found that detectable odours were typically restricted to within the boundary of land owned by WCL. WCL propose to continue to undertake field surveys to ensure that its activities do not result in any odour incident, the procedures are provided in the Air Discharge Management Plan (AMP). I agree that this should be undertaken along with wind direction and speed monitoring since this would have a role in substantiating odour issues and complaints. In summary the modelling assessment finds that while on site odour is relatively high from the rendering and tannery plants the predicted concentrations beyond the land owned by WCL are relatively low. On balance, I consider that as long as the current and proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are implemented then the current WCL operations are not likely to cause objectionable odour effects beyond the boundary of WCL owned land.

11

Ministry for the Environment (MfE): Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing Odour in New Zealand, 2003.

181

Doc # 3589777 Page 178

4.5.2 Consideration of Cumulative Odour Effects

The Silver Fern Farms Ltd (SFF) meat processing plant is located directly adjacent to the WCL site within the land area owned by WCL. This activity is also expected at times to emit some odour of similar nature and character. I note there is no discharge to air consent required for the processes at the SFF site. The WCL site also has consented composting operations that takes place on approximately 2 hectares. Composting of raw material is carried out in accordance with the site’s compost management plan and with NZ Compost Guidelines and little odour is generally detected outside of the compost pad. In respect to overall cumulative site odour I consider that the consideration of the odour complaints history is sufficient to assess this. Based on the odour lack of odour complaints received over the recent years relating to the sources above, I do not consider that cumulative odour effects would be an issue. The applicant is also applying for the discharge of odour to air associated with the treated wastewater irrigation activity. It is recognised that complaints have been received in the past relating to irrigation activity; however the separate nature of this discharge I do not consider that the irrigation of wastewater would contribute to a cumulative odour effect.

4.5.3 Modelling Results for Particulates & Sulphur Dioxide

The New Zealand Ambient Air Quality Guideline (NZAAQG) and the Regional Ambient Air Quality Guideline (RAAQG) set out in the Waikato Regional Plan for PM10 is 50 µg/m3, expressed as a 24 hour average and 20 µg/m3 as an annual average. In addition to these guidelines, the Government has gazetted the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004 (NESAQ). The NESAQ for PM10 is also 50 µg/m3 as a 24 hour average with an allowance for one exceedance per year within an airshed. The MGLC predicted for 24 hour mean PM10 was 0.1 µg/m3, therefore it is evident that the PM10

peak contributions from the boilers are unlikely to cause any indistinguishable effect to background concentrations and will be well below the relevant guidelines. Based on the 24 hour mean modelling results showing a negligible impact PDP have not completed modelling for annual PM10

concentrations and I consider this to be reasonable. The NZAAQG for SO2 is 350 µg/m3, expressed as a 1 hour average which is only allowed 9 times in a 12 month period and a single maximum event of 570 µg/m3 (1 hour average). The NZAAQG and RAAQG for SO2 is 350 µg/m3, expressed as a 1 hour average. The SO2 dispersion modelling for emissions from the flare was conducted on five different modelling scenarios including the current operation referred to as Scenario 1 provided below:

Scenario 1: Current flare operation, approximately 150 Nm3/hr of biogas with a maximum hydrogen sulphide concentration of 15,000 pm.

For Scenario 1 the MGLC predicted for SO2 1 hour average (not the 99.9% percentile) was 333 µg /m3, and is below the relevant guideline of 350 µg /m3 . The most elevated concentration of SO2 is predicted to occur directly south of the site boundary in an unhabitated rural area. The AEE indicates that for any scenarios where the flow rates and hydrogen sulphide concentrations were higher than Scenario 1 then hydrogen sulphur removal measures will likely be required to meet the relevant guidelines. At flow rates higher than 150 m3/hr, then between 25% to 50% removal of hydrogen sulphide would be required to ensure that the NESAQ guidelines are met.

182

Doc # 3589777 Page 179

For a flow rate of 200 Nm3/hr and 25% hydrogen sulphide removal (11, 250ppm) or for a flow rate of 300 Nm3/hr and 50% hydrogen sulphide removal (7,500 ppm) then the dispersion model concentrations for SO2 1 hour averages are similar to those predicted for Scenario 1. Methods for sulphur removal are currently being trialled and/or investigated at the site and include reducing the amount of sulphuric acid used for various uses. The results for these trials were not available at the time of preparing this report. Based on the uncertainty around the hydrogen sulphur removal efficiency, modelled results being close to the NESAQ criteria and assumptions being used in the modelling assessment including variability for measured hydrogen sulphide emissions, I recommend that a condition of the consent requires continuous monitoring of the hydrogen sulphide concentration and flow rate being fed to the flare. This will ensure that the hydrogen sulphide concentrations and flow rates specified as a condition of the consent are complied with. In the event that the biofilter is used to treat the biogas then only a limited amount of methane will be reduced however it will significantly reduce the odorous hydrogen sulphide levels in the biogas. Methane gas is colourless and odourless asphyxiant and there is the risk of explosion when methane is mixed with air at concentrations between 5-15% by volume. I consider that based on only short periods of methane release for a maximum of up to 10 discrete days per year and the large separation distance to the closest resident it is not likely that there will be any adverse effects resulting from this discharge. Based on information in the application it would therefore be unlikely that odour would be noticeable 10 m beyond the biofilter even during flare malfunction. The empty bed residence time (EBRT) for the biofilter will meet 4 minutes that is recommended for more concentrated biogas sources. The application finds that the backup biofilter could cope with the proposed maximum flow rate of 7,200 m3/day. In summary the offsite contaminant concentrations of PM10 and SO2 are predicted to remain within the relevant assessment criteria and adverse effects are therefore considered to be no more than minor with no effected parties. However it is important to note that this is under the current flare operation (current biogas flow rates and sulphur dioxide concentrations). An increase in biogas generation due to production increases or anaerobic pond loading will likely require hydrogen sulphide reduction methods to ensure SO2 is within guidelines.

4.5.4 Future Mitigation

Future odour mitigation options include reducing the amount of point source and fugitive emissions from the rendering plant. Current emissions from the rendering DAF unit and the balance tank are sources where odour could potentially be reduced. WCL is investigating the benefits and feasibility of capture and diversion of these emissions to the rendering plant biofilter. I recommend that a condition of the consent requires additional mitigation measures to be implemented in the event that complaints are received regarding odour. Increased production resulting in increased anaerobic pond loading as discussed above will required hydrogen sulphide reduction methods to be implemented and this is something that is currently being investigated by the site. Current consent requires periodic technology review to be undertaken to ensure that the site adopts improved technologies over the life of the resource consent; I recommend that this condition is also included as a condition of the consent.

4.5.5 Air Discharge Management Plan

The main pieces of equipment used to treat odours are the three biofilters and the flare. They have been all designed to comply with standard industry design criteria. If all of these are operated correctly within the specified odour loads, temperatures and air flow rates then they are considered to be adequate to treat odours and would represent the best practicable options (BPOs) for the

183

Doc # 3589777 Page 180

operations. The Air Discharge Management Plan (AMP) 2013/14 (WRC ref DM3098021) includes monitoring procedures for rendering, tannery plant and flare backup biofilters. Biofilter monitoring includes the bed backup pressure (monitored electronically for the rendering biofilter and manually for the others) and moisture contents. I consider these to be appropriate based on recent historical performance.

4.5.6 Proposed & Recommended Monitoring

Discharge to air consent conditions have been provided in Section 20.7 of the AEE and are a basic form of the current conditions. I recommend that the conditions are based on the current conditions with the following amendments or new conditions: To help ensure sufficient biofilter capacity for effective odour removal I recommend that biofilter design parameters are specified including EBRTs and loading rates per cubic metre of media. Calculated loading rates of 16.5 and 27 m3/hr per m3 media for the rendering and tannery biofilter respectively are well below the Auckland Council TP152 recommended upper limits of 50 m3/hr per m3 media12. In addition I note that a technical review of the rendering biofilter by SKM in 201013 recommends a reduced loading rate of 30 m3/hr per m2 media. I consider it appropriate to adopt this limit recommended by SKM as a condition of the consent. The inlet gas flow rate can be measured on a weekly basis to confirm compliance with the set loading rate. I also consider it appropriate that a consent limit is set for the temperature of the biofilter inlet gases to less than 40 deg C. This is based on a recommendation from the SKM technical review document, at temperatures greater than this more heat labile bacteria may be adversely affected and increased condensation and thus flooding of the media. I also propose a consent condition for regular monitoring of the biofilter which will include ensuring that the media is maintained in moist conditions, that pH is maintained at moderately acidic to neutral conditions, the inlet gas temperature is below 40 deg C and that the bed pressure drop is maintained between 10 to 200 mmHg. The influent gas is likely to be relatively high in moisture content therefore it would not be necessary to monitor relative humidity of influent gas at this site. These maintenance parameters are consistent with other biofilter consent monitoring requirements. The applicant has recommended a limit for SO2 for the flare using the predicted air dispersion modelling result MGLCs. The proposed limit is 570 μg/m3 expressed as a 1-hour mean, with no more than 9 exceedances in a 12-month period of a limit of 350 μg/m3. The applicant also proposed a mass loading rate limit for sulphur being combusted through the biogas flare of 3.0 kg S/hr, as averaged over an hour period. These WCL-proposed limits are accepted by WRC. The application finds there is capacity to increase the flow rate to a flare biofilter to a maximum 7,200 m3/day. To ensure that the flare biofilter copes with any increased volumes being diverted to the flare I recommend that odour checks are undertaken when the biogas volume is increased to ensure that the biofilter performs well. I do not consider that stack emission testing for the gas fired boiler stacks is required based on the findings of the dispersion modelling assessment, extensive separation distance to sensitive receptors and natural gas being relatively clean burning. As the boilers are regularly maintained and serviced then combustion should be optimised. Therefore, regular maintenance and servicing should be required and procedures for ensuring optimum combustion should be provided in a management plan.

4.5.7 Mitigation of Submitter’s Concerns

No submissions were made in regards to discharges to air.

12

Auckland Council: Technical Publication 152 – Assessing Impact of Contaminants to Air (Draft – April 2002). 13

Wallace Corporation, Technology Report, ZP00637 – Rev B, prepared by SKM, dated 17 May 2010.

184

Doc # 3589777 Page 181

4.6 Policy Statements, Plans and Regulations

4.6.1 National environment standards

As noted previously, the NES for Air Quality provides for ambient air quality by specifying concentration limits and in some instances allowable exceedences of those limits. An assessment against the relevant NES for Air Quality regulations has already been made under section 4 of this report. In addition to this, the NES for Air Quality Amendment Regulations 2011 came into force on 1 June 2011. Regulation 17(1) of the NESAQ requires a decline of an application for resource consent to discharge PM10 by more than 2.5 µg/m3 (24 hr average) in any part of a polluted airshed other than the site on which the consent would be exercised. This regulation does not apply since the activity is not situated in a polluted airshed. Regulation 20 applies to activities that discharge CO and NOx (and VOCs, where applicable) and where the discharges are likely to be a principal source of the contaminant in the airshed or if the discharges are likely to result in a breach of the relevant NES criteria in the airshed. Regulation 20 does not apply as the WCL site is not considered to be a significant source of CO or NOx in the airshed. Regulation 21 applies to activities that discharge SO2 and the application must be declined if the discharge is likely to cause concentrations of SO2 in the airshed to exceed the specified limits. The discharge is not likely to cause the SO2 limit to be exceeded therefore the application cannot be declined on this basis.

4.6.2 Operative and proposed Regional Policy Statements

The Waikato Regional Policy Statement is a high-level broad-based document containing objectives and policies the purpose of which is to provide an overview of the resource management issues of the region and to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the Region. The key issues identified in the PRPS which relate to the proposed activities, include the ‘state of resources’ (Issue 1.1), ‘managing the built environment’ (Issue 1.4) and ‘relationship of tangata whenua with the environment’ (Issue 1.5). There are also a number of overlapping objectives under each of these issues which are relevant to the proposed activities. These include:

Decision making (Objective 3.2)

Efficient use of resources (Objective 3.9)

Air quality (Objective 3.10)

Amenity (Objective 3.20) Relevant policies include integrated management (Policy 4) and air (Policy 5). The AEE indicates that the effects of discharges from this site will not have any significant adverse effects. I do not consider that the activity will be contrary to the above PRPS provisions provided that the activity is carried out as per the proposed consent conditions.

4.6.3 Regional Plan

The Waikato Regional Plan (“WRP”) is operative and the purpose of the WRP is to help the Council carry out its functions under s30 of the RMA.

Objective 1: Significant characteristics of air quality as identified in Table 6-1 are: a) protected where they are high b) enhanced where they are degraded

185

Doc # 3589777 Page 182

c) otherwise maintained. Objective 2: No significant adverse effects from individual site sources on the characteristics of air quality beyond property boundary. Objective 3: Cumulative effects of discharges on ambient air quality do not: a) present more than a minor threat to the health of humans, flora and fauna b) cause odour that is objectionable to the extent that it causes an adverse effect c) result in levels of suspended or deposited particulate matter that are objectionable to the

extent that they cause an adverse effect d) have a significant effect on visibility e) cause accelerated corrosion of structures f) cause significant adverse effects on the relationship tangata whenua as Kaitiaki have

with their identified taonga such as air, ancestral lands, water and waahi tapu. Objective 2 and Objective 3(a) are the most relevant to the consideration of this application. These objectives assist in the interpretation of Policy 5 of the PRPS which notes that discharges to air are managed as to avoid, remedy or mitigate objectionable effects beyond the property boundary. The relevant Policies from the WRP are Policies 2, 3 and 4. These are shown below followed by an assessment of the application against each Policy.

Policy 2: Managing Effects of Other Discharges Manage other discharges of contaminants to air through controlled and discretionary activity rules having particular regard to the effects of the discharge on: a) ambient air quality compared to the Regional Ambient Air Quality Guideline (RAAQG)

levels provided in Chapter 6.3 b) ambient air quality compared to internationally accepted air quality guidelines or

standards for managing and understanding the effects of contaminants on human health, the health of flora and fauna and amenity values

c) ambient odour and particulate matter levels compared to the guidelines for assessment provided in Chapter 6.4 of the Plan for odour and particulate matter

d) any adverse effects from contaminants that are hazardous in ambient air, particularly with respect to human health

e) the significant characteristics of air quality within an area f) any significant adverse effects of the discharge on the identified values of tangata

whenua as Kaitiaki g) the sensitivity of the receiving environment h) existing ambient air quality and any cumulative effects as a result of the discharge on the

receiving environment i) any nationally accepted codes of practice for the relevant activity.

The matters referred to have been considered as part of the assessment of this application and are discussed elsewhere in this report.

Policy 3: Air Shed Management Adopt an air shed management approach that takes into account the relative contributions of all contaminant sources in the area in accordance with the Ministry for the Environment's Ambient Air Quality Guidelines (May 2002). Priority for development of air quality management plans is to be given to areas where air quality is degraded as defined in Table 6-2 or where such a plan is necessary to prevent air quality becoming further degraded.

Policy 3 promotes an airshed management approach. This essentially means that Council will focus on all sources of air pollution and not target one sector in isolation. To this end, Waikato Regional Council has identified that the largest contribution to PM10 emissions in towns during winter is domestic home heating with outdoor burning also included as a significant contributor.

186

Doc # 3589777 Page 183

Waikato Regional Council is in future is proposing to place controls on emissions from domestic home heating and replacing old woodburners with new cleaner woodburners.

Policy 4: Best Practicable Option* While having regard to the provisions in Policies 1, 2 and 3, and the likely effects of activities on ambient air quality, Environment Waikato will promote the best practicable option to prevent or minimise the discharge of contaminants to air where: a) numerical guidelines or standards establishing a level of protection for a receiving

environment are not available or cannot easily be established b) the maintenance or enhancement of the existing air quality is desirable or there is

uncertainty over existing air quality c) the known adverse effects and costs associated with adopting the best practicable option

for an operation are small and the costs of investigating the effect on air quality is large in comparison to the potential effects.

This Policy identifies the circumstances in which Waikato Regional Council will promote the use of the Best Practicable Option (BPO). The granting of this application would not, in my opinion, be inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the WRP.

4.7 Relevant Part 2 Considerations

WCL’s proposal for discharge to air is considered to be consistent with the relevant sub-parts of section 5: safeguarding the life supporting capacity of the air; and avoiding remedying or mitigating any adverse effects on the environment. Sections 6, 7 and 8 specify matters that the consent authority needs to recognise provide for and have particular regard for in achieving the purpose of the RMA. The site is well established and is appropriately located and as the applicant has demonstrated it has control measures in place to confine adverse effects within its boundaries, the proposal is considered to be an efficient use of the natural and physical resources. I consider that there are no other Part II matters raised by the proposed application that require specific consideration.

5 Discussion and Recommendation

WCL has applied for a resource consent to authorise the discharge of contaminants to air including odour from rendering and tannery operations, associated ancillary processes including combustion from gas fired boilers and biogas and from wastewater treatment plant processes. The activity has been evaluated as a discretionary activity in terms of section 104(B) of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2003. My assessment concludes that adverse effects of the proposal on air quality are expected to be minor with no affected parties, providing the process is properly monitored and managed at all times. The proposed activity is broadly consistent with the RMA, Regional Plan and Regional Policy Statement. The discharge of contaminants, namely PM10 and SO2 from the site have been assessed and compared with ambient air quality guidelines and the NESAQ using results from the air dispersion modelling. Even when considering background concentrations of the contaminants, the discharges are not likely to result in any offsite exceedance of the NESAQ or ambient air quality guidelines. The applicant has requested a term of 25 years In line with maintaining consistency in our approach with other consents granted of similar scale and intensity, I consider that duration of 25

187

Doc # 3589777 Page 184

years with a three-yearly review is appropriate. A consent duration of 25 years would be appropriate for addressing the potential technological, regulatory, policy and receiving environment changes that may occur over this period while still providing security to enable the activity to proceed. In addition I note the offensive nature of the odour associated with the site and historic odour complaints. This duration has been recommended in accordance with the Resource Group’s internal guidelines for setting consent duration (document No.1213609). This duration is also consistent with other industrial discharge consents granted by Waikato Regional Council in recent years.

6 Consent Conditions

In addition to the consent conditions recommended in the report above I recommend that the flare biofilter performance is monitored by completing an odour assessment on each occasion that the biogases are diverted from the flare to the biofilter. I also recommend that the biofilter performance is also monitored by monitoring parameters such as temperature, and velocity of the biofilter gas and bed pressure drop. Since the receipt and handling of raw material is identified as a main potential source for odour I recommend that a condition of the consent specifies handling and management procedures as outlined in the AMP. In addition I recommend a condition that requires the consent holder to carry out an investigation into technology improvements at the site in order to improve site processes and for reducing potential odour. This investigation should be undertaken at 5 yearly intervals that should be at regular intervals to capture potential advances in technology.

7 Recommended Decision

I recommend that in accordance with s104B resource consent application 130915 be granted in accordance with the duration and conditions prescribed in the attached Resource Consent Certificate for the following reasons:

The activity will have no more than minor actual or potential adverse effects on the environment

The activity is not contrary to any relevant plans or policies The activity is consistent with the purpose and principles of the Resource

Management Act 1991

Draft report prepared by Rachael O’Donnell, December 2014 Report completed by Barry Campbell, May 2015.

188

Doc # 3589777 Page 185

Appendix 13 Groundwater take, technical report by Cameron King

Consent Evaluation Report

Applicant: Wallace Corporation Limited File No.: 60 93 77A

Address of Site: Wood Rd, Waitoa Project Code: RC20434

Application Number: APP127279_01

1 Introduction

Wallace Corporation Limited (“applicant”) has applied for resource consent to take groundwater from the Southern Hauraki groundwater system via a production bore situated at the applicant’s Waitoa industrial site. This consent application is not seeking to renew a previously authorised activity.


The applicant proposes taking water to irrigate pasture, during an October though March the following year irrigation season, and augment the volume of cooling water discharged to the Waitoa River at any time of the year.

With respect to irrigation purposes, a maximum net take in any 24 hour period and maximum net take in any irrigation season of 2300 cubic metres and 276,000 cubic metres, respectively, are proposed.

Over the proposed 94 hectare irrigable area:

a maximum 2300 cubic metre 24 hour period volume equates to a spatially averaged gross depth of ca.

2.4 millimetres per 24 hour period;

a maximum 276,000 cubic metre irrigation season volume equates to a spatially averaged gross depthof ca. 294 millimetres per irrigation season.

With respect to augmentation purposes, a maximum net take in any 24 hour period and maximum net take in any year of 3440 cubic metres and 912,500 cubic metres, respectively, are proposed.

The augmentation of the volume of cooling water discharged to the Waitoa River will provide the applicant with the means to reduce the net take surface water allocation ‘footprint’ of its industrial site. This should be beneficial for the applicant in terms of managing site demand shortfall during periods of surface water shortage conditions and providing for an increased water requirement associated with growth at the site.

It is also proposed that the total combined net take volume for irrigation and augmentation purposes must not exceed 4800 cubic metres in any 24 hour period.


Under the Waikato Regional Plan (“WRP”):

the taking of groundwater is provided for as a discretionary activity pursuant to 3.3.4.24Discretionary Activity Rule – Groundwater Takes;

the use of water for irrigation purposes is provided for as a permitted activity pursuant to 3.4.5.6Permitted Activity Rule – Use of Water for Crop and Pasture Irrigation;

the use of water for augmentation purposes is provided for as a permitted activity pursuant to3.4.5.4 Permitted Activity Rule – Use of Water.

189

Doc # 3589777 Page 186

4 Process Maters

The application was:

lodged 12 June 2013;

assessed as requiring public notification pursuant to s95A(2) RMA 3 July 2014;

publicly notified 9 July 2014 with a 6 August 2014 closing date for submissions.

5 Written Approvals and Submissions

It is my understanding that no written approvals were provided with the application or forthcoming either prior to or subsequent to notification. One neutral submission was received from Mr B Steele on behalf of the BS & DA Steele Family Trust Partnership. The submitter stated it did not wish to be heard.


Section 104(1) of the RMA sets out matters that the consent authority must, subject to Part 2 RMA, have regard to when considering a resource consent application. In addition to any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activities, matters particularly relevant to this application include:

The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement (PWRPS);

The Waikato Regional Plan (WRP);

The Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007 (NESHDW);

The Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2010 (MRWT);

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPSFM);

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA).


It is my view that the following matters should be considered when assessing the actual and potential adverse environmental effect of the proposed groundwater take:

drawdown interference effects on neighbouring bores;

aquifer recharge regime;

surface water flow regime effects.

6.1.1 Drawdown Interference Effects On Neighbouring Bores

Hydrogeologist Ms C Houlbrooke of Golder Associates Ltd was engaged by the Waikato Regional Council to undertake a technical assessment of the proposed take. Ms Houlbrooke noted in her assessment that two bores operated by Silver Fern Farms Limited (SFFL) could potentially be significantly affected by drawdown interference resulting from the proposed take. To protect the integrity of the SFFL water requirement provided for via the potentially affected bores, Ms Houlbrooke and the applicant developed an approach that would require:

groundwater levels to be monitored by the applicant in an observation well; and

take cessation, ultimately, when groundwater levels in said observation well reduce to the ‘trigger’ level developed by Ms Houlbrooke and the applicant.

It is my understanding that SFFL are satisfied that the above approach will protect the integrity of its water requirement provided for via the potentially affected bores. A suite of consent conditions providing for the approach described above have been developed and ultimately proposed by the applicant. Notwithstanding that Ms Houlbrooke has not identified any other water supplies that would be significantly affected by drawdown interference resulting from the proposed take, the applicant has proposed consent conditions that require it to monitor water levels in the overlying relevant shallow aquifer system. It is my view that the information obtained from said monitoring should bolster the

190

Doc # 3589777 Page 187

current consideration that water supplies tapping the overlying shallow aquifer system will be not be significantly affected by drawdown interference resulting from the proposed take. Provided that the take is carried out as per the relevant consent conditions that have been proposed, I consider that adverse drawdown interference effects shall be less than minor.

6.1.2 Aquifer Recharge Regime

Recharge to the aquifer tested is ultimately from rainfall via leakage through shallower formations. The Management Level volume for the Southern Hauraki groundwater system has been set in the WRP at 335 million cubic metres per year, the application is seeking ca. 1.2 million cubic metres per year and at present ca. 317 million cubic metres per year is available for allocation. I consider that adverse effects on the aquifer recharge regime shall be less than minor.

6.1.3 Surface Water Effects

Having had regard to the WRP’s 3.3.3 – Policy 4: Establish Sustainable Yields from Groundwater and

3.3.3 – Policy 5: Determining sustainable yields, I have formed the view that adverse effects on surface

water flow regimes are less than minor.


6.2.1 PWRPS

The PWRPS 15 December 2014 is largely beyond challenge. Provisions that I consider relevant to the proposed activity are:

Issue 1.1 State of resources

Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao)

3.1 Integrated management

3.1A Resource use and development

3.2 Decision making

3.7 Ecosystem services

3.8 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment

3.9 Sustainable and efficient use of resources

3.13 Mauri and values of fresh water bodies

3.14 Allocation and use of fresh water

3.18 Ecological integrity and indigenous biodiversity

Policy 4.1 Integrated approach

Policy 4.3 Tāngata whenua

Policy 4.4 Regionally significant industry and primary production

Policy 8.1 Approach to identifying fresh water body values and managing fresh water bodies

Policy 8.3 All fresh water bodies

Policy 8.6 Allocating fresh water

Policy 8.7 Efficient use of fresh water I do not consider that the activity will be contrary to these provisions provided that it is carried out as per the consent conditions that have been proposed.

6.2.2 WRP

WRP provisions that I consider relevant to the proposed activity are as follows:

3.1.2 – Objective

3.2.3 – Policy 1: Management of Water Bodies

3.3.2 – Objective

3.3.3 – Policy 4: Establish Sustainable Yields from Groundwater

3.3.3 – Policy 4: Determining sustainable yields

3.3.3 – Policy 10: How Groundwater Takes Will Be Classified

3.3.3 – Policy 12: Consent Application Assessment Criteria – Groundwater

3.3.3 – Policy 15: Consent Duration for the Taking of Water

3.3.3 – Policy 16: Water Take Recording and Reporting

3.3.4.24 –Discretionary Activity Rule – Groundwater Takes

3.3.3.– Table 3-6: Sustainable Yields from Aquifers

191

Doc # 3589777 Page 188

3.4.3 – Policy 1: Manage the Use of Water

3.4.3 – Policy 2: Efficient Use of Water

3.4.5.4 – Permitted Activity Rule – Use of Water

3.4.5.4 – Permitted Activity Rule – Use of Water for Crop and Pasture Irrigation I do not consider that the activity will be contrary to these provisions provided that it is carried out as per the consent conditions that have been proposed.

6.2.3 NESHDW

The NESHDW commenced 20 June 2008. This standard is a regulation enacted by an Order in Council, under s43 of the Resource Management Act. The regulation requires that a regional council must not grant a water or discharge permit for an activity that will occur upstream of a drinking water abstraction point if specific criteria at the point of abstraction are exceeded. The matters to be considered as part of an assessment are dependent on the permit being sought and the level of effects on any drinking water supplier located downstream or down gradient of the activity. A search of the National Environmental Standards Drinking Water Supply data set yields one water treatment plant that sources surface water from the main stem Waitoa River downstream of the water take site and one water treatment plant that sources groundwater from within a 2 kilometer radius of the water take site. I observe from this search that regulation 12 is applicable to the application and note that I do not consider that a grant is likely to result in any of the events or outcomes set out in regulation 12.

6.2.4 MRWT

The MRWT came into force 10 November 2010. I consider that the applicant will be able to meet its MRWT obligations provided that it complies with the consent conditions that have been proposed.

6.2.5 NPSFM

The NPSFM sets out objectives and policies that direct local government to manage water in an integrated and sustainable way, while providing for economic growth within set water quantity and quality limits. Provisions that I consider relevant to the proposed activity are:

Objective B1;

Objective B2;

Objective B3;

Policy B5. I do not consider that the activity will be contrary to these provisions provided that it is carried out as per the consent conditions that have been proposed.

6.2.6 HGMPA

All resource consent applications within the Hauraki Gulf and its catchment area must be considered subject to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. I consider that a grant will not compromise the relevant aspects of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.

6.3 Part 2 RMA Considerations

All resource consent applications must be considered subject to Part 2 (sections 5 through 8) of the Resource Management Act 1991. I have done this and, provided that it is carried out as per the consent conditions proposed, consider overall that the proposed activity is generally consistent with Part 2 matters.

7 Conclusions

Provided the proposed activity is carried out in accordance with the attached recommended consent conditions, I consider that:

adverse drawdown interference effects shall be less than minor;

adverse effects on the aquifer recharge regime shall be less than minor;

adverse effects on surface water flow regimes shall be less than minor;

the proposed activity is consistent with the relevant provisions of the PWRPS; the WRP, the NES, the MRWT, the NPSFM and the HGMPA;

the proposed activity is consistent with Part 2 RMA matters.

192

Doc # 3589777 Page 189

Review conditions have been proposed that pertain to:

the effectiveness of the conditions of these resource consents 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 resource consent conditions;

the adequacy of and the necessity for monitoring undertaken under the resource consents;

the appropriateness of volumes specified within condition 3, condition 4 and condition 5 and, if necessary, to address any inappropriateness of the volumes by way of reducing the volumes.

To align with the expiry date required by the WRP for a surface water take application made by the applicant and currently under consideration by the Waikato Regional Council, I have provided for an expiry date of 31 December 2030.


I recommend that in accordance with s104B RMA the application be granted in accordance with the duration and conditions prescribed in the attached Resource Consent Certificate for the following reasons:

The activities will have less than minor actual or potential adverse effects on the environment

The activities are not contrary to any relevant plans or policies

The activities are consistent with the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991

Cameron King Date:

Resource Officer

Resource Use

9 Decision

That the resource consent applications are granted in accordance with the above recommendations.

Mark Davenport Date:

Team Leader

Resource Use

193

Doc # 3589777 Page 190

Appendix 14 Surface Water take, report to Hearing panel from Cameron King

Waikato Regional Council Staff Report

To : Hearing Committee

Date : 22 October 2015

From : Cameron King – Senior Resource Officer

Subject : Report on the resource consent application made by Wallace Corporation Limited to take water from the Waitoa River

Applicant : Wallace Corporation Limited File Number: 60 93 77A

Consent Type: water permit; surface water take Application: 130915.01.01

Waikato Regional Council Staff Report 190

1 Introduction 191

2 Background and Description of Proposal 191

3 Status of Activities 192

4 Submissions 194

5 Statutory Considerations 194

5.1 Assessment of Environmental Effect 194

5.1.1 Effect on Flow Regime 194

5.1.2 Effect on Aquatic Biota 195

5.2 Policy Statements, Plans and Regulations 195

5.2.1 PWRPS 195

5.2.2 WRP 196

5.2.3 NESHDW 197

5.2.4 NPSFM 197

5.2.5 HGMPA 197

5.3 Part 2 RMA 197

6 Conclusions 198

7 Recommended Decision 198

Schedule A – Recommended Conditions 199

Schedule B – Recommended Advice Notes 201

Appendix 1 – Location Map 84

Appendix 2 – Expired Resource Consent 930812 203

Appendix 3 –Resource Consent AUTH127279.01.01 207

194

Doc # 3589777 Page 191

1 Introduction

My name is Cameron King. I hold the degrees of Bachelor of Arts in Geography, Bachelor of Science in Earth Sciences and Resource and Environmental Planning and Master of Science in Earth Sciences with First Class Honours. I am a member of the New Zealand Hydrological Society. I commenced water resource management and asset management related employment in New Zealand in 1999 with Watercare Services Limited, the water supplier for the Auckland Region, where I was employed, sequentially, in the roles of hydrologist, water resource planner, and senior analyst. Since June 2006, I have been employed as senior resource officer in the Resource Use Directorate of the Waikato Regional Council. My qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience are particularly relevant to my present role’s focus on considering water take resource consent applications and providing water resource management technical advice to the Resource Use Directorate. I have been responsible for considering the resource consent application made by Wallace Corporation Limited (“applicant”) to take water from the Waitoa River in the vicinity of map reference NZTM 1832792 E 5832765 N. A location map is provided in Appendix 1.


The applicant is seeking a new resource consent that will effectively renew expired resource consent 930812 (expiry date 30 June 2014). A copy of the consent certificate is provided in Appendix 2. This application is one of a suite of applications lodged by the applicant in order to renew the various activities associated with its industrial operation. The water taken pursuant to the expired consent was used to provide the water requirements of the applicant’s tannery, rendering plant and meat plant. The expired consent provided for a maximum take rate and a maximum 24 hour net take volume that varied depending on the Waitoa River flow at State Highway 26. The maximum 24 hour net take volume assigned to the expired consent in the Waikato Regional Council’s consent database is 2300 cubic metres. Expressed as a rate over 24 hours, this is equivalent to 0.027 cubic metres per second. This application to replace the expired consent is affected by s124 RMA so, as per the definition of authorised water take in the glossary of the Waikato Regional Plan (“WRP”), the incumbent net take values – namely 2300 cubic metres or 0.027 cubic metres per second – are included in the current cumulative level of allocation for the relevant surface water catchments. The applicant proposes:

at all times a maximum instantaneous take rate of 115 litres per second;

during the months of January, February, March, April, May, November and December (hereinafter referred to as “summer”) a maximum 24 hour net take volume of 2300 cubic metres – this volume accords with the incumbent net take values – that progressively steps down to a zero net take during situations of water shortage;

during the months of June, July, August, September and October (hereinafter referred to as “winter”) a maximum 24 hour net take volume of 3440 cubic metres – this volume is an increase of 1140 cubic metres or 0.0132 cubic metres per second relative to the incumbent net take values – that steps down to a zero net take during situations of water shortage.

With respect to the 24 hour net take volume, I note that it is to be calculated as the gross take volume in any 24 hour period pursuant to this proposed water take less the discharge volume to the Waitoa River in any 24 hour period pursuant to the discharge proposed by the applicant via

195

Doc # 3589777 Page 192

application 130915.05.01; synchronous values must be used to calculate the net take volume. This aligns with the WRP’s requirement regarding net takes.

It is my understanding that the proposed water take in concert with resource consent AUTH127279.01.01 will be used to provide for both the current and future water requirements of the applicant’s tannery, rendering plant and meat plant.

AUTH127279.01.01 was granted 23 April 2015 – a copy of the consent certificate is provided in Appendix 3 – and provides for the applicant to take groundwater to augment the volume of cooling water discharged to the Waitoa River pursuant to the discharge proposed by the applicant via application 130915.05.01.

The ability to augment the volume of cooling water discharged to the Waitoa River provides the applicant with the means to reduce the net take surface water allocation ‘footprint’ of the site. This conjunctive take and use of groundwater and surface water sources should be beneficial for the applicant in terms of managing site demand shortfall during situations of surface water shortage conditions and providing for an increased water requirement associated with growth at the site.

3 Status of Activities

The WRP addresses water takes, section 3.3, and the efficient use of water, section 3.4, within the Waikato region.

Three river catchments are relevant to this application; Waitoa River at SH26, Waitoa River at Mellon Road and Piako River at mouth.

A description of water allocation as per the WRP for these catchments is set out below. The WRP’s primary relevant provisions are:

3.3.3 Policy 3: Determining the combined level of surface water allocation within a catchment;

3.3.3 Policy 7: How Surface Water Takes Will Be Classified in Catchments Where ExistingTakes Exceed the Table 3-5 Allocable Flows;

3.3.3 Policy 8: How Surface Water Takes Will Be Classified in Catchments that do not Exceedthe Table 3-5 Allocable Flows

It should be noted that the cumulative authorised water take values are calculated on a net take basis and, as noted at 2 above, include the incumbent 0.027 cubic metres per second net take.

Waitoa River at SH26 The WRC’s one in five year 7-day low flow (“Q5”) estimate is 0.430 cubic metres per second; the primary allocable flow is 0.043 m3/s (10% of Q5); the secondary allocable flow is 0.086 m3/s (20% of Q5).

The distribution of cumulative authorised water take across the year is:

0.173 cubic metres per second for January through May, November and December;

0.093 cubic metres per second for June;

0.083 cubic metres per second for July through October.

For January through May, November and December the combined primary and secondary allocable flow is exhausted (0.173 exceeds 0.129, the sum of 0.043 and 0.086).

On a net take basis, the proposed take is like for like during the summer period so, in the event of a grant, there will be no change to the cumulative authorised water take quantum. With this being the case, and also noting that it is a replacement, the proposed take is classified as a discretionary activity as per the WRP’s 3.3.3 Policy 7(e).

For June, 0.036 cubic metres per second (0.129 less 0.093) is available within the secondary allocable flow.

196

Doc # 3589777 Page 193

For July through October, 0.046 cubic metres per second (0.129 less 0.083) is available within the secondary allocable flow. On a net take basis, the proposed take is seeking an additional 0.0132 cubic metres per second during the winter period so, in the event of a grant, there will be an increase of the cumulative authorised water take quantum and water will remain available for allocation within the secondary allocable flow – for June 0.0228 cubic metres per second (0.036 less 0.0132); for July through October 0.0328 cubic metres per second (0.046 less 0.0132). With this being the case, the proposed take is classified as a discretionary activity as per the WRP’s 3.3.3 Policy 8(e)(iv). Waitoa River at Mellon Road The WRC’s Q5 estimate is 0.810 cubic metres per second; the primary allocable flow is 0.081 m3/s (10% of Q5); the secondary allocable flow is 0.162 m3/s (20% of Q5). The distribution of cumulative authorised water take across the year is:



0.191 cubic metres per second for July through October. For January through May, November and December the combined primary and secondary allocable flow is exhausted (0.281 exceeds 0.243, the sum of 0.081 and 0.162). On a net take basis, the proposed take is like for like during the summer period so, in the event of a grant, there will be no change to the cumulative authorised water take quantum. With this being the case, and also noting that it is a replacement, the proposed take is classified as a discretionary activity as per the WRP’s 3.3.3 Policy 7(e). For June, 0.042 cubic metres per second (0.243 less 0.201) is available within the secondary allocable flow. For July through October, 0.052 cubic metres per second (0.243 less 0.191) is available within the secondary allocable flow. On a net take basis, the proposed take is seeking an additional 0.0132 cubic metres per second during the winter period so, in the event of a grant, there will be an increase of the cumulative authorised water take quantum and water will remain available for allocation within the secondary allocable flow – for June 0.0288 cubic metres per second (0.042 less 0.0132); for July through October 0.0388 cubic metres per second (0.052 less 0.0132). With this being the case, the proposed take is classified as a discretionary activity as per the WRP’s 3.3.3 Policy 8(e)(iv). Piako River at mouth The WRC’s Q5 estimate is 1.950 cubic metres per second; the primary allocable flow is 0.585 m3/s; there is no secondary allocable flow. The distribution of cumulative authorised water take across the year is:



0.520 cubic metres per second for July through October. For January through May, November and December the primary allocable flow is exhausted (0.684 exceeds 0.585). On a net take basis, the proposed take is like for like during the summer period so, in the event of a grant, there will be no change to the cumulative authorised water take quantum. With this being the case, and also noting that it is a replacement, the proposed take is classified as a discretionary activity as per the WRP’s 3.3.3 Policy 7(e). For June, 0.055 cubic metres per second (0.585 less 0.530) is available within the primary allocable flow.

197

Doc # 3589777 Page 194

For July through October, 0.065 cubic metres per second (0. 585 less 0.520) is available within the secondary allocable flow.

On a net take basis, the proposed take is seeking an additional 0.0132 cubic metres per second during the winter period so, in the event of a grant, there will be an increase of the cumulative authorised water take quantum and water will remain available for allocation within the primary allocable flow – for June 0.0418 cubic metres per second (0.055 less 0.0132); for July through October 0.0518 cubic metres per second (0.065 less 0.0132). With this being the case, the proposed take is classified as a restricted discretionary activity as per the WRP’s Policy 3.3.3 8(e)(iii).

Based on this consideration of the three relevant catchments and the WRP requirement to assign the most onerous activity status, the proposed take is a discretionary activity and the WRP’s 3.3.4.23 Discretionary Activity Rule – Surface Water Takes applies.

With respect to the proposed use of the water, I consider that this is provided for via the WRP’s 3.4.5.4 Permitted Activity Rule – Use of Water.

4 Submissions

My colleague Mr Campbell has summarised submission matters at section 4.3 of his report to the committee.

I note that it is my understanding that no specific or significant issues related to the proposed water take were raised in submissions or during subsequent dialogue between Mr Campbell, submitters and the applicant.


Section 104(1) of the RMA sets out matters that the consent authority must, subject to Part 2 RMA, have regard to when considering a resource consent application. In addition to any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activities, matters particularly relevant to this application include:

The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement (PWRPS);

The Waikato Regional Plan (WRP);

The Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human DrinkingWater) Regulations 2007 (NESHDW);

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPSFM);

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA).


It is my view that the actual and potential adverse environmental effects that should be considered in respect of this application are effect on flow regime and aquatic biota. I note that no adverse effects have been discounted on the basis that those effects are allowed by permitted activities in a plan.

5.1.1 Effect on Flow Regime

It is my view that the WRP contemplates that cumulative allocation in excess of the combined primary and secondary allocable flow – apart from water allocation pursuant to the WRP water harvesting provisions – shall likely have an adverse effect on the flow regime – and consequently one or more of the matters that flow regime provides for as set out in the WRP’s 3.3.3 Policy 1: Establish Allocable and Minimum Flows for Surface Water – that is more than minor.

The reason for this is that the WRP provides a strong directive that non-complying activities, whose ‘domain’ begins once the combined primary and secondary allocable flow is exhausted, shall generally not be granted except under certain circumstances. Of course this application is not for a non-complying activity – as set out at section 3 it is a discretionary activity during the summer because it is a replacement – but in my view said directive bestows a clear message cum metric

198

Doc # 3589777 Page 195

about the likely adverse effect on flow regime of allocating to levels that exceed the prescribed allocable flows. As set out at section 3:

during the summer the cumulative authorised water take quanta exceed the combined primary and secondary allocable flow for all relevant catchments and if the application is granted, the cumulative authorised water take quanta will not change;

during the winter, water is available for allocation within the prescribed allocable flows for all relevant catchments and if the application is granted, the cumulative authorised water take quanta will increase but water will remain available for allocation within the prescribed allocable flows.

Given this, I consider that in the event of a grant of the application, the cumulative adverse effect on flow regime shall likely be:

more than minor during the summer;

less than minor during the winter.

5.1.2 Effect on Aquatic Biota

There is the potential for the intake structure to entrain juvenile fish and stream bed invertebrates when water is being taken. The application proposes to adhere with the 1.5 millimetre mesh aperture size and 0.3 metres per second intake velocity standards set out in the WRP for Significant Indigenous Fisheries and Fish Habitat. With this being the case, I consider that any adverse effects via entrainment shall be less than minor.


5.2.1 PWRPS

The PWRPS 15 December 2014 is largely beyond challenge. Provisions that I consider relevant to the proposed activity are:

Issue 1.1 State of resources

Issue 1.5 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment (te taiao)

3.1 Integrated management

3.1A Resource use and development

3.2 Decision making

3.7 Ecosystem services

3.8 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment

3.9 Sustainable and efficient use of resources

3.13 Mauri and values of fresh water bodies

3.14 Allocation and use of fresh water

3.18 Ecological integrity and indigenous biodiversity

Policy 4.1 Integrated approach

Policy 4.3 Tāngata whenua

Policy 4.4 Regionally significant industry and primary production

Policy 8.3 All fresh water bodies

Policy 8.6 Allocating fresh water

Policy 8.7 Efficient use of fresh water I consider that there is a clear direction from these PWRPS provisions, when considered holistically, that balancing the demands and requirements of instream and out of stream water use is complex, requires the consideration of many factors and may take time for change to occur. I do not consider that these provisions set out an approach that will unreasonably perpetuate over allocation and the resultant likely adverse effects on flow regime. Indeed, a ‘deadline’ has been specified, 31 December 2030, for the phasing out of over allocation. With this being the case, and looking at both the summer and winter allocation situation, I do not consider that granting the application will be contrary to these PWRPS provisions provided that any term is not in violation of the specified date for phasing out over allocation.

199

Doc # 3589777 Page 196

5.2.2 WRP

WRP provisions that I consider relevant to the proposed activity are as follows:

3.1.2 – Objective

3.2.3 – Policy 1: Management of Water Bodies

3.2.3 – Policy 7: Fishery Class

3.2.4.1 – Water Management Classes

3.2.4.5 – Fishery Class

3.3.2 – Objective

3.3.3 – Policy 1: Establish Allocable and Minimum Flows for Surface Water

3.3.3 – Policy 2: Determining the level of minimum flows, primary, secondary and waterharvesting allocable flows

3.3.3 – Policy 3: Determining the combined level of surface water allocation within a catchment

3.3.3 – Policy 7: How Surface Water Takes Will Be Classified in Catchments Where ExistingTakes Exceed the Table 3-5 Allocable Flows

3.3.3 – Policy 8: How Surface Water Takes Will Be Classified in Catchments That Do NotExceed the Table 3-5 Allocable Flows

3.3.3 – Policy 11: Consent Application Assessment Criteria – Surface Water

3.3.3 – Policy 15: Consent Duration for the Taking of Water

3.3.3 – Policy 16: Water Take Recording and Reporting

3.3.3 – Policy 17: Water Shortage Conditions

3.3.3 – Policy 18: Levels of Priority to Apply During Water Shortages

3.3.3 – Policy 19: Phasing Out Exceedences of the Table 3-5 Allocable Flows

3.3.4.10 – Phasing Out Exceedences of the Table 3-5 Allocable Flows

3.3.4.23 –Discretionary Activity Rule – Surface Water Takes

3.3.4.27 – Standard - How Water Shortage Restrictions Shall Apply

Table 3-5: Allocable Flows for Surface Water

3.4.3 – Policy 1: Manage the Use of Water

3.4.3 – Policy 2: Efficient Use of Water

3.4.5.4 – Permitted Activity Rule – Use of Water

I do not consider that granting the application will be contrary to these provisions provided that appropriate consent conditions and expiry date are imposed. Some particular matters to note.

water shortage conditions The requirement to have a minimum flow and water shortage conditions is a keystone component of the WRP. The following provisions provide clear advice in this regard.

3.3.3 – Policy 2: Determining the level of minimum flows, primary, secondary and waterharvesting allocable flows

3.3.3 – Policy 17: Water Shortage Conditions

3.3.3 – Policy 18: Levels of Priority to Apply During Water Shortages

3.3.4.27 – Standard - How Water Shortage Restrictions Shall Apply

I have drafted conditions (refer Schedule A, conditions 7 and 8) that give full effect to this WRP requirement with water shortage conditions ‘indexed’ to one of the WRC’s sentinel flow recording sites, Waitoa River at Mellon Road.

Riparian Vegetation Management Plan (RVMP) Section b) of 3.3.4.23 – Discretionary Activity Rule – Surface Water Takes clearly states that a RVMP is required. However, I do not consider that a specific provision is required in this circumstance because Mr Campbell has, in my view, given effect to this in his recommended condition 39 for the discharge application 130915.04.01.

phasing out allocable flow exceedence It is my view that 3.3.3 – Policy 19: Phasing Out Exceedences of the Table 3-5 Allocable Flows:

contemplates that managing over allocated catchments is complex, particularly when it comesto addressing incumbent water takes;

200

Doc # 3589777 Page 197

provides strong guidance, albeit with a degree of flexibility, regarding the determination ofapplications;

makes it clear that the WRP’s Methods 3.3.4.10 and 3.3.4.9 will be employed to phase out overallocation;

directs that management of over allocated catchments should occur at a pace that iscommensurate with the need to ensure that appropriate information is gathered and consideredand that allocation reduction is equitable;

provides a very strong inference that an expiry date should not be later than 31 December2030.

I consider that 3.3.3 – Policy 19: Phasing Out Exceedences of the Table 3-5 Allocable Flows provides a compelling policy basis to support a grant of the application.

consent duration In line with the WRP’s 3.3.3 – Policy 15: Consent Duration for the Taking of Water, which I note states that it is subject to 3.3.3 Policy 19, I consider a 31 December 2030 expiry date, which would provide for a term of marginally longer than 15 years, appropriate.

I also note that the proposed take is effectively linked to groundwater take AUTH127279.01.01 and that that consent has a 31 December 2030 expiry date.

5.2.3 NESHDW

The NESHDW commenced 20 June 2008. This standard is a regulation enacted by an Order in Council, under s43 of the Resource Management Act. The regulation requires that a regional council must not grant a water or discharge permit for an activity that will occur upstream of a drinking water abstraction point if specific criteria at the point of abstraction are exceeded. The matters to be considered as part of an assessment are dependent on the permit being sought and the level of effects on any drinking water supplier located downstream or down gradient of the activity.

A search of the National Environmental Standards Drinking Water Supply data set yields water treatment plants that source surface water from the main stem Waitoa River downstream of the water take site. I observe from this search that regulation 8 is applicable to the consent application and note that I do not consider that a grant is likely to result in any of the outcomes set out in regulation 8.

5.2.4 NPSFM

The NPSFM sets out objectives and policies that direct local government to manage water in an integrated and sustainable way, while providing for economic growth within set water quantity and quality limits. Provisions that I consider relevant to the proposed activities are:

Objective B1;

Objective B2;

Objective B3;

Objective B4;

Policy B5.

I do not consider that granting the application will be contrary to these provisions provided that appropriate consent conditions and expiry date are imposed.

5.2.5 HGMPA

All resource consent applications within the Hauraki Gulf and its catchment area must be considered subject to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. Each part has been considered in relation to this proposal and overall I consider that the proposed activity does not compromise the relevant aspects of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.

5.3 Part 2 RMA

All resource consent applications must be considered subject to Part 2 (sections 5 through 8) of the Resource Management Act 1991. I have done this and do not consider that granting the

201

Doc # 3589777 Page 198

application will be contrary to Part 2 matters provided that appropriate consent conditions and expiry date are imposed.

6 Conclusions

If the proposed activity is carried out in accordance with appropriate consent conditions and an appropriate expiry date is imposed, I consider that:

adverse effects on flow regime shall likely be more than minor during the summer and lessthan minor during the winter;

adverse effects on aquatic biota via entrainment shall likely be less than minor;

the proposed activity is consistent with the relevant provisions of the PWRPS;

the proposed activity is consistent with the relevant provisions of the WRP;

the proposed activity is consistent with the relevant provisions of the NES, NPSFM andHGMPA;

the proposed activity is consistent with Part 2 RMA.

I have prepared a set of conditions for consideration that reflect both the WRC’s standard approach with respect to surface water activities and the particular detail of the proposed activity (refer Schedule A). It is my view that these are appropriate for the circumstances. I also consider that a 31 December 2030 expiry date is appropriate.

A set of standard advice notes that I consider should be appended to the consent certificate in the event of a grant has been included in Schedule B.


Notwithstanding that I consider that granting the water take application shall likely have an effect on the flow regime during summer that is more than minor it is my recommendation that in accordance with s104B RMA resource consent application 130915.01.01 be granted in accordance with the conditions and expiry date prescribed in the attached Schedule A for the following reasons:

adverse effects on aquatic biota via entrainment shall be less than minor;

policy instruments provide a strong policy justification to grant;

the activity is consistent with the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act1991.

Cameron King Date Senior Resource Officer, Water Allocation

202

Doc # 3589777 Page 199

Schedule A – Recommended Conditions

Consent Type: Water permit

Consent Subtype: Surface water take

Activity authorised: Take water from the Waitoa River



Conditions:

1. The activity authorised by this resource consent must be undertaken:(1) in general accordance with the application for this resource consent and any

documentation supporting the application;(2) as specified in the resource consent conditions below.Where there is any disagreement between the application documentation and resourceconsent conditions the resource consent conditions below shall prevail.

2. The water taken pursuant to this resource consent may be used to provide the waterrequirements of a tannery, rendering plant and meat plant.

3. Any intake must be screened with a mesh aperture size not exceeding 1.5 millimetres by1.5 millimetres (or 1.5 millimetre diameter holes).

4. The consent holder must ensure that the velocity of water through any intake screen doesnot exceed 0.3 metres per second at all times. If requested by the Waikato RegionalCouncil in writing, the consent holder must provide information on how this velocityrequirement is achieved.

5. The instantaneous take rate must not exceed 115 litres per second.

6. For the purposes of this resource consent, the net take volume in any 24 hour period iscalculated as the gross take volume in any 24 hour period pursuant to this resourceconsent less the discharge volume to the Waitoa River in any 24 hour period pursuant toresource consent AUTH130915.05.01. Synchronous values must be used to calculate thenet take volume.

7. During the months of January, February, March, April, May, November and December thenet take volume in any 24 hour period must not exceed:(1) 2300 cubic metres when the Waitoa River 7–day rolling average flow at Mellon Road

(Waikato Regional Council Site Number 1249.18, Map Reference NZTM 1832321 E5843131 N) (hereinafter referred to as “1249.18”) is greater than 0.810 cubic metres persecond;

(2) 1560 cubic metres when the 7–day rolling average flow at 1249.18 is between 0.810cubic metres per second and 0.729 cubic metres per second;

(3) 0 cubic metres when the 7–day rolling average flow at 1249.18 is less than 0.729 cubicmetres per second.

8. During the months of June, July, August, September and October the net take volume inany 24 hour period must not exceed:(1) 3440 cubic metres when the Waitoa River 7–day rolling average flow at 1249.18 is

equal to or greater than 0.729 cubic metres per second;

203

Doc # 3589777 Page 200

(2) 0 cubic metres when the 7–day rolling average flow at 1249.18 is less than 0.729 cubic metres per second.

9. A water measuring system must quantify water taken on a cumulative basis. The system

must have a reliable calibration to flow and must be maintained to an accuracy of +/- 5%. Prior to first commencing to take water under this consent, evidence of the water measuring system’s calibration to an accuracy of +/- 5% must be provided to the Waikato Regional Council.

10. Additional calibration of the water measuring system must be undertaken by the consent

holder: (1) at the written request of the Waikato Regional Council; (2) at a frequency of no less than five yearly from the date of the first calibration required by

condition 9; (3) to the satisfaction of the Waikato Regional Council. Evidence documenting each respective additional calibration must be forwarded to the Waikato Regional Council within one month of the calibration being completed.

11. The consent holder must telemeter – via a telemetry system developed after liaison with

the Waikato Regional Council to ensure that the telemetry system is compatible with Waikato Regional Council telemetry system standards and data protocols – continuous 15 minute values of: (1) gross take volume (in units of cubic metres); (2) discharge volume to the Waitoa Stream pursuant to resource consent

AUTH130915.05.01 (in units of cubic metres); (3) calculated net take volume (in units of cubic metres). The data must be reported once daily to the Waikato Regional Council via the telemetry system. For data (1), (2) and (3) there must be 96 values, respectively, per daily report. When no water is being taken the data must specify the gross take volume as zero.

12. At any time during the years 2018, 2021, 2024 and 2027 the Waikato Regional Council

may, following service of notice on the consent holder, commence a review of the conditions of this resource consent pursuant to section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the following purposes: (1) to review the effectiveness of the conditions of this resource 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 resource consent conditions;


(3) to review the appropriateness of the rate specified within 5 and, if necessary, to address any inappropriateness of this rate by way of reducing this rate;

(4) to review the appropriateness of the volumes specified within conditions 7and 8 and, if necessary, to address any inappropriateness of these volumes by way of reducing these volumes.

13. The consent holder must pay to the Waikato Regional Council any administrative charge

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

204

Doc # 3589777 Page 201

Schedule B – Recommended Advice Notes

1. In accordance with s125 RMA, this consent shall lapse five 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.


4. The consent holder may apply to change the conditions of the resource consent under s127 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.


205

Doc # 3589777 Page 202

Appendix 1 – Location Map

206

Doc # 3077559/v6 Page 203

Appendix 2 – Expired Resource Consent 930812

207

Doc # 3077559/v6 Page 204

208

Doc # 3077559/v6 Page 205

209

Doc # 3077559/v6 Page 206

210

Doc # 3077559/v6 Page 207

Appendix 3 –Resource Consent AUTH127279.01.01

211

Doc # 3077559/v6 Page 208

212

Doc # 3077559/v6 Page 209

213

Doc # 3077559/v6

214

Doc # 3077559/v6 Page 211

215

wallace corporation ltd - waikato regional council . resource management act 1991 . schedule of...

Documents