Bay of Plenty Regional Council
Report From:
Ryder Consulting Limited
Paula Golsby
Associate Director / Planner
Date:
25 October 2012
File Reference:
1370 67131
Report to:
The Hearing Committee
Meeting of 20 November 2012
Limited Notified Resource Consent Application Number 67131
AFFCO New Zealand Limited
Discharge Combustion and Odorous Gases
State Highway 2, Rangiuru, Te Puke
1
Introduction
My name is Paula Golsby. I am an Associate Director and Planner at Ryder Consulting
Limited. I hold a Bachelor of Arts (Geography) and a Post-Graduate Diploma in Arts
(Geography) from the University of Otago. I also have a Diploma in Business from the
Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia.
I have over eleven years planning experience and have worked in both local government
and consultancy planning roles. I have been employed by Ryder Consulting since June
2010.
I have processed, overseen the processing of, and prepared a variety of district and
regional resource consent applications. Examples of regional council consents that I have
been involved with include: the reconsenting project for the Okere Gates and Ohau
Channel Weir, which I processed on behalf of the Bay of Plenty Regional in 2010; the
proposed Puketoi Wind Farm located in Manawatu-Wanganui Region; and the Tauranga
Waterfront Project for which I was the lead author of the Assessment of Environmental
Effects Reports and project co-ordinator. I am also currently involved in Environment
Court processes associated with consents to take and use of water for irrigation in the
Mackenzie Basin.
Ryder Consulting was retained to assist the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (‘BOPRC’) in
processing the application made by AFFCO New Zealand Limited (‘AFFCO’) in June
2012.
2
Purpose
This report has been prepared in accordance with section 42A of the Resource
Management Act 1991 (‘RMA’). The report provides an analysis of the resource
management issues in respect of the proposal. The assessment and recommendations
contained in this report are not binding on the Regional Council or the Hearing Committee.
This report has been prepared without knowledge of the content of any evidence or
submissions that will be made at the hearing; consequently it cannot be assumed that the
Hearing Committee will reach the same conclusions as those provided in this report.
3
Background
AFFCO currently operates a meat processing plant (‘processing plant’) on State
Highway 2, Rangiuru, near Te Puke. The processing plant currently operates under a
number of resource consents that enable the discharge of contaminants to ground, water
and air associated with its operations. Consents are also in place enabling structures
within the Kaituna River.
Resource consent 30096 was granted by the BOPRC on 29 November 2002 and enables
the discharge of combustion and odorous gases to air from the meat processing plant,
subject to a number of conditions. The resource consent is due to expire on 30 November
2012. A copy of resource consent 30096 is attached as Appendix 1.
This application is for a replacement resource consent to enable the continuation of
existing discharges of combustion and odorous gases to air.
4
The Application
4.1
Site Description
The site is located on the south side of State Highway 2 in Rangiuru, approximately 6
kilometres (km) east of Te Puke, and is occupied by a meat processing plant owned and
operated by AFFCO. The site includes a number of buildings used for the holding,
slaughtering and processing of animals. The site includes a rendering plant and a
wastewater treatment system. The wastewater treatment system includes pits, wetlands,
anaerobic ponds and oxidation ponds. The site operates seven (7) days per week, for
approximately 48 weeks of the year and the wastewater system operates continuously.
The surrounding area is generally rural in land use and character. The area is used
predominantly for horticultural and agricultural activities, and associated dwellings and
activities, such as fruit packing facilities and cool stores. The Assessment of
Environmental Effects report (‘AEE’) lodged with the application identifies that there are
twenty-two dwellings located within a 1km radius of the rendering plant, and of these
seven are within a 500 metre (m) radius.
Other notable land use activities within close proximity to the site include;
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The KIWI360 visitor and function centre, located north-east of the site on Young
Road;
A visitor accommodation facility located on Young Road (east of KIWI360);
The Te Puke A&P Showgrounds, located southeast of the site on Showgrounds
Road;
A church and Marae are also located on Rangiuru Road, approximately 1km
southwest of the site boundary.
Wind patterns at the site are described within section 3.1 of the AEE (page 16). The
prevailing winds are described as southerly and westerly.
4.2
Description of the Proposal
The application seeks to replace an existing resource consent allowing for the discharge
of combustion and odorous gases from the Processing Plant to air. The application and
AEE provides a detailed description of the site processes and odour sources on the site.
In summary, there are three sources of discharges to air from the processing plant.
These are:
(a)
The two gas fired boilers, which provide heating to various components of the
processing plant;
(b)
The rendering plant, which involves the rendering of meat, bones and offal to
produce dried meat meal and tallow. It also includes the processing of animal blood;
and
(c)
The wastewater treatment facility located to the southwest of the site.
Figure 3 within the AEE (page 4) shows the overall layout of the site, including the location
of the boiler stacks, the rendering plant, and the wastewater treatment facility. The
following sections provide a description of the sources of discharges to air.
4.2.1
Gas Fired Boilers
The gas fired boilers use natural gas and have the capacity to generate 5.25 megawatts
(‘MW’) and 5.67MW of heat. The 5.25MW boiler is used predominantly, with the 5.67MW
boiler used only when the other is unavailable (due to maintenance, for example).
There are two stacks for discharges from the boilers, and these are 32m and 20m in
height. Contaminants, including smoke and vapour, from the boilers are discharged via
the stacks.
Conditions 5.11 to 5.13 of the existing resource consent relate to the gas fired boilers and
place requirements on the height of the boiler stacks, the operation of the boilers to limit
smoke emissions, and restrictions on burning waste materials that could produce toxic
products of combustion.
4.2.2
Rendering Plant
Material processed in the rendering plant is sourced from the livestock processing
operation on the site, or is brought in from other processing sites.
The material to be processed in the rendering plant is loaded into a ‘load-bin’ located
outside the rendering plant. The load-in bin includes a lid, which is designed to contain
material and prevent odour emissions. The lid opens automatically when the gate to the
bin is opened for the unloading of material to it, and closes automatically when the gate
closes following the completion of unloading.
The quality of material sourced from off-site is controlled by ensuring the pH of the
material is kept at less than 6.5, and the temperature is maintained at less than 20
degrees prior to processing. This is currently a requirement of the existing resource
consent (30096 – Condition 5.3).
The rendering plant processes meat, bone and offal in a cooker and separation equipment
to produce dry meat meal and tallow, which is stored on site in heated tanks. Blood
collected from on-site slaughtering is heat-coagulated and dewatered in the rendering
plant, before being transported to another off-site facility for further processing.
Vapours from the rendering process are cooled by a heat exchanger and then discharged
through a biofilter, which treats the odours. Condensates from the heat exchanger are
discharged to the effluent treatment system, along with blood liquid from the blood
processing operation.
4.2.3
Waste Treatment Facility
The processing plant includes its own waste treatment facility which uses a combination of
methods to remove solids and treat effluent before it is discharged to the Kaituna River in
accordance with a separate Bay of Plenty Regional Council consent (Resource Consent
24932). The waste treatment process is described in detail within Section 2.4 of the AEE
(from page 9) and is depicted in Figures 4 and 8 of the AEE (pages 5 and 10,
respectively).
In summary, effluent from the processing plant receives primary treatment by screening,
dissolved air flotation or sedimentation (or combinations of these methods). The
recovered solids may be rendered in the rendering plant, or stabilised and detwatered in a
stabilisation area. Wastewater is then biologically treated in anaerobic ponds, oxidation
ponds and wetlands prior to being discharged to the Kaituna River.
The solids pits are used for storage and treatment of animal waste as part of the primary
treatment process. The pits form thick floating crusts, which act to reduce the quantity of
solids and produce gases that keep the crust afloat. Excess solids are removed and
deposited in the ‘stabilisation area’ when the pits become full.
Stockyard pits are generally emptied once a year in summer, however, the frequency can
increase to four times a year when the site is more productive than it is currently. The
‘save-all’ solids pits are usually emptied at the same time as the stockyard pits, however,
they are not emptied as frequently.
The dry solids pit receives floatable fats and beef paunch. The application states that due
to the relatively low volume of material deposited in this pit, there is no effluent discharge
from this pit. Lime is applied to material in the pit to control odour. Solids are removed
from this pit periodically, and again this is usually at the same time as the removal of
solids from the stock pits.
The solids stabilisation area is located to the north of the anaerobic ponds (as shown in
Figure 3 in the AEE). Solids are deposited in this area from the solids pits and allowed to
dry out. Stockpiles of older material are kept nearby and spread over the new solids to
control odour, if required.
The ‘save-all’ is a sedimentation tank which pre-treats all of the site’s wastewater (except
backwash water) before it is discharged into the anaerobic ponds. Solids are removed
from the tank and either rendered or deposited in the dry solids pit.
Effluent from the ‘save-all’ sedimentation tank discharges to three anaerobic ponds
operated in a series. Anaerobic Pond 1 is the first in the series receives the highest
organic loading and has the highest potential to generate odour. Anaerobic Ponds 1 and 2
have crusts of approximately 1m and 0.3m thick, respectively. The AEE states that
organic loading in Anaerobic Pond 3 is insufficient to sustain a complete crust.
Following treatment in the anaerobic ponds, effluent is discharged to the oxidation ponds,
which were constructed in 2004. The final step in the treatment process is the treatment of
effluent in the wetlands, which act to reduce contaminants levels in the wastewater before
being discharged to the Kaituna River.
4.3
Consent Conditions
The applicant proposes that the majority of the conditions within the existing resource
consent be retained. Some changes are proposed by the Applicant, however, and these
include:
4.4
(a)
Amending condition 5.3 of 30096 to allow for an alternative preservative, such as
chlorine dioxide;
(b)
Deleting condition 5.4 of 30096, as the applicant states no stickwater is stored onsite and therefore the condition is not necessary;
(c)
Amending condition 5.10 of 30096 to include reference to the 5.67MW boiler as 20m
in height as it exists on site;
(d)
Deleting condition 6.5, of 30096 which relates to the commissioning of a report into
the efficiency of the bio-filter process that existed at the time the consent was
assessed in 2002. This condition is no longer considered relevant as a new bio-filter
was installed in 2007.
Reasons for Resource Consent
The following activities require consent:
(a)
Under section 15(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 and Rule 19(b) of the
Bay of Plenty Regional Air Plan being a discretionary activity to discharge
contaminants to air from an animal rendering and by-product processing plant;
(b)
Under section 15(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 and Rule 19(w)(ii) of
the Bay of Plenty Regional Air Plan being a discretionary activity to discharge
contaminants to air from commercial treatment and disposal of waste.
It is noted, for completeness, that the discharge of contaminants to air from the gas fired
boilers is a permitted activity in accordance with Rule 4(2) of the Bay of Plenty Regional
Air Plan. In accordance the ‘bundling’ principle, however, the application has been
assessed under the most restrictive activity status, being a ‘discretionary’ activity.
Section 104B of the RMA allows a consent authority to grant or refuse applications for
discretionary activities. If resource consent is granted, conditions may be imposed under
section 108 of the Resource Management Act (RMA).
4.5
Other Consents and Approvals Required
I am not aware of any other approvals required for the discharges to air. As identified
earlier, however, the processing plant operates under a number of resource consents
which enable various discharges to land and water associated with the plant.
4.6
Timeframes
Application Received:
20 June 2012
Section 95 Letter Issued:
3 July 2012
Limited Notification:
12 July 2012
4.7
Period for Submissions Closed:
10 August 2012
Timeframes extended (s37)1:
16 August 2012
Draft Conditions Sent to Applicant for
Comment:
27 August 2012 & 17 September 2012
Timeframes extended (s37)2:
3 October 2012
Hearing Commencement:
20 November 2012
Technical Review
To assist in the assessment of the application, the application was reviewed by Mr Shane
Iremonger, an Environmental Scientist at the Regional Council who specialises in air
quality matters. The primary purpose of this process was to undertake a technical audit of
the application for completeness and scientific robustness, to assess the environmental
effects of the discharges to air, and to provide expert advice on specific aspects of the
proposal.
Input has also been sought from Mr Iremonger and Mr David Ede (Pollution Prevention
Officer at the Regional Council) regarding recommended conditions of consent.
Mr Iremonger’s assessment is attached as Appendix 2 to this report. In summary, his
key conclusions can be summarised as follows:
1
(a)
Complaints have been made with regard to odour from the site, with a peak in
complaints occurring in January 2006 and June 2007;
(b)
AFFCO have implemented a range of measures to improve odour effects. The most
successful measure being the installation of a point source extraction system and
pine bark biofilter installed in 2007 at the rendering and blood processing plant.
(c)
The meteorological information provided with the application is representative of the
area. Light wind conditions (less than 2.1 metres per second (m/s)) and calms are
important, as it is under these conditions that poor mixing and dispersion of any
emitted odorous compounds will occur and therefore a higher potential for off-site
effects.
(d)
Complaints have reduced significantly over the last several years and it is important
to ensure best operating practices are maintained. An overall odour management
plan is recommended, and the biofilter plan, as well as a contingency plan, would be
part of the overarching document for the site.
(e)
To ensure the successful operation of the site, in relation to odour emissions and
minimising off-site odour nuisance, it is concluded an odour management plan for
the whole site should be developed and used as a day to day tool by site staff.
The timeframe for the commencement of a hearing was extended from 14 September 2012 to 26 October
2012 to enable consultation between the Applicant and Tapuika Iwi Authority
2 The timeframe for the commencement of a hearing was extended again to 20 November 2012 due to
hearing scheduling requirements
(f)
4.8
Adverse effects are considered to be minor within a 1km radius of the site, and less
than minor beyond the 1km radius.
Notification
The Applicant did not request that the application be publicly notified and, as a
consequence, an assessment was undertaken under section 95 of the RMA. It was
concluded that the environmental effects associated with the discharges to air would be
no more than minor and full public notification was not necessary. It was determined that
potentially adversely affected persons are those within a 1km radius of the boundaries of
the site and these people have been notified of the application.
In addition, the application did not identify any adverse effects on cultural values and there
was no record of consultation with tangata whenua. In determining affected persons for
the purposes of notification, it was recognised that only tangata whenua can identify their
relationship with their culture, traditions and sites of significance. In the absence of any
consultation or cultural impact assessment, tangata whenua were also identified as
potentially affected parties. As a consequence, notice was given to Tapuika Iwi Authority,
Waitaha Iwi and Ngati Whakaue ki Maketu.
In addition, the Applicant identified Mr Graham Crossman (Director KIWI 360 Limited), Mr
Kevin Gordon (Facility Manager, KKP Limited), and Mr Brendon Lee (Facility Manager,
Transpack & Transcool Limited) as affected persons. They were also directly notified of
the application.
4.9
Submissions
Two submissions were received as set out in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of Submitters
Number
Name
Oppose / Support
Wish to be Heard
1.
Tapuika Iwi Authority
Oppose
Yes
2.
New Zealand Transport Agency
Neutral
No
The following provides a brief summary of the matters raised in the submissions:
Tapuika Iwi Authority
Tapuika Iwi Authority raise concerns in their submission regarding health effects
associated with air discharges and with leaching and discharges associated with the
waste treatment facility to the Kaituna River. With regard to health effects associated with
discharges to air, it is understood that the particular concern is associated with potential
effects of the discharges from the rendering plant and biofilter treatment process on
people suffering from asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory conditions.
In their submission, Tapuika Iwi Authority also requested a copy of the application and
that further consultation be undertaken with them.
New Zealand Transport Agency
The submission received from the New Zealand Transport Agency (‘NZTA’) did not
provide any detail regarding its ‘neutral’ submission. The submission does identify,
however, that is the application is amended or placed on hold for any length of time it may
need to review its comments.
5
Assessment of Environmental Effects
The key adverse effects associated with the discharges to air are associated with odour
and health.
5.1
Odour
The AEE identifies that the discharges to air from the rendering plant and wastewater
treatment facility can contain odorous gases, including volatile organic compounds (such
as amines, fatty acids and sulphides) which can result in adverse environmental effects
through odour nuisance.
The effects of odour are difficult to quantify and are subjective. As identified in the AEE,
factors that influence odour nuisance are; the frequency of the odour emission, the
intensity of the odour, the duration of the odour event, and the offensiveness of the odour.
These factors also depend on the location of the odour source with respect to the people
that are impacted. There are also different odour nuisance scenarios, such as short
duration, high intensity odour that occurs frequently, or an odour that has a medium
intensity but occurs for long periods with a medium frequency.
Given the activity is existing, a review of the Regional Council’s files has been undertaken
and discussions have been held with Mr Ede (Pollution Prevention Officer at the Regional
Council) to gain an understanding of the nature, frequency and cause of any complaints
made regarding odour from the site.
A summary of complaints made with respect to odour nuisance (to the Council and to
AFFCO directly) is provided with Section 3.5 of the AEE (page 19). The information shows
that the number and frequency of complaints has reduced significantly since the new biofilter was installed at the rendering plant in August 2007. Ten complaints have been
recorded between August 2007 and May 2012. The majority of all complaints (2002 to
2012) have been received from KIWI 360 (approximately 80%), with the remaining
complaints received from Aerius Helicopters (located at KIWI 360), nearby kiwifruit
packing facilities and residents of Young Road. The Applicant notes that nearly all
complaints were due to (or suspected to be due to) rendering and blood processing
activities. A review of Council files also shows record of complaints as a consequence of
renderable material being transferred from off-site to the Rangiuru processing plant, and
the excavation of waste pits.
Having regard to the information provided within the application and the nature of
complaints received, the following are considered to be the key activities most likely to
generate odour with off-site adverse effects:
(a)
(b)
(c)
The rendering and blood processing plant;
The loading of animal material to the load-in bin associated with the rendering and
blood processing plant; and
Excavation of material in the waste treatment facility.
The application includes a range of measures to avoid odour generation, which the
Applicant considers to be the ‘Best Practicable Option’. These measures are described in
section 5.3 of this report.
5.2
Health Effects
Tapuika Iwi Authority raise concern in their submission regarding health effects associated
with the discharges of bacterial and toxic emissions from the rendering activity and
associated treatment processes.
The Applicant has provided a supplementary report which was prepared (following a
meeting with Tapuika Iwi Authority) to provide additional information regarding:
(a)
(b)
The chemical and bacterial processes of filtration occurring in the biolfilter; and
Airborne contaminants potentially arising from the use of the biofilter.
In summary, the report identifies that steps are taken at the processing plant to ensure
that material is rendered as fresh as possible and, as a consequence, emissions from the
rendering plant generally contain low concentrations of the gases ammonia and hydrogen
sulphide. Any residual ammonia and hydrogen sulphide is expected to be easily and
safely removed through biofiltration. In addition, the report states that emissions from the
plant contain low concentrations of volatile organics because the non-condensable gases
from the cooking process are substantially diluted within the building before entering the
biofilter.
The report also concludes that there is no evidence that biofilters emit bacteria or
particulate matter in quantities that would have harmful effects on people, including elderly
and young people suffering asthma, bronchitis, or related respiratory conditions.
The report identifies that the following factors minimise emissions and risk:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The airstream passing through the biofilter is very low;
Cooking and drying methods adopted at Rangiuru do not emit smoke or combustion
products to the atmosphere;
The biofilter is maintained in a moist state, which prevents significant dust emissions
from the biofilter;
The biofilter has not been seeded with special bacteria.
Overall, the health risks associated with the rendering and biofilter treatment process have
been assessed as negligible. The Biofilter Process Report has been reviewed by Mr
Iremonger who advises he concurs with the assessment provided with respect to health
effects associated with the rendering and biofilter treatment process.
5.3
Mitigation Measures
This section provides detail on the methods used, and recommended conditions, to avoid
or mitigate adverse effects associated with the discharges to air. Recommended
conditions are attached as Appendix 3 to this report.
5.3.1
Rendering
Renderable materials are sourced from other on-site processes, or from other processing
facilities. Raw material sourced on-site is usually processed as it comes, so is generally
of good quality. Materials sourced from off-site needs to be maintained in a fresh state to
avoid generation of malodorous compounds from anaerobic decomposition.
Recommended conditions 5.1 and 5.6 control the discharges from spills and transported
materials.
The rendering process can liberate odours from individual sources and the rendering
room. The primary odour control mechanism used to treat these gases is the pine bark
biofilter, which was installed in 2007. Recommended conditions 5.3, 5.4, 5.7, 5.8 relate to
the collection of off-gases and treatment of odours by the biofilter. Recommended
condition 5.9 requires rendering activities to cease in the event that the biofilter fails.
5.3.2
Gas Fired Boilers
With regard to discharges from the gas fired boilers, recommended condition 5.11 controls
the height of the boiler stacks to ensure adequate dispersion of flue gases and to reduce
the effects of down draft. Recommended conditions 5.12 and 5.13 control smoke
emissions and the nature of material burned to ensure adverse effects associated smoke
and toxic gases are avoided.
5.3.3
Site Dust
The application identifies that there is a low level of particulate matter being discharged
from the site as a result of dust. Conditions 5.21 and 11 are recommended, however, to
ensure that the site is operated in a manner that avoids dust nuisance from occurring.
5.3.4
Waste Treatment
Effluent treated at the waste treatment facility comes from many different operations on
the site. Odours can occur at the primary treatment process if decomposition occurs
before it is transferred to a solids pit or for rendering. Screenings are disposed of
regularly, however, to ensure potential odour effects from this source are reduced.
Recommended conditions 5.14 and 5.15 ensure that this is implemented.
Aeration of the amenities wastewater package plant and oxidation ponds is required to
maintain aerobic conditions and minimise odour generation. Recommended condition
5.16 ensures that the oxygen levels will be sufficient to maintain an aerobic state such that
odour generation is minimised.
Removal of sludge from the pits and ponds can also generate odour. The application
states that odour generation is not expected to be significant due to the aged nature of the
material. As noted earlier, however, there have been complaints as a result of the
emptying of ponds and pits. It is considered, however, that with appropriate site
management the effects of this activity can be minimised to ensure that any adverse
effects are within acceptable limits. Recommended conditions 5.16 to 5.19 seek to ensure
that activities associated with desludging and the maintenance of pits are appropriately
managed to avoid adverse effects associated with offensive and objectionable odours
occurring beyond the site boundaries.
5.3.5
Odour Management Plan
In addition to the specific measures associated with discrete activities on the site, it is
recommended that an overall odour management plan be prepared for the site to ensure
that the site to ensure that the best operating practices are maintained. This
recommendation is reflected in recommended conditions 6.1 to 6.4. In this regard, it is
recommended that the odour management plan be developed in accordance with
Appendix 3 of the Ministry for the Environment ‘Good Practice Guide for Assessing and
Managing Odour in New Zealand (June 2003). It is envisaged that the odour management
plan will include the odour complaints process currently implemented by AFFCO, as
described within section 4.8 of the AEE (page 25). In addition, it will address such matters
as methods of mitigation and operating procedures (including contingency procedures),
monitoring requirements, staff training, and review and reporting procedures.
5.3.6
Summary
In summary, it is considered that the key adverse effect associated with the discharges to
air is the potential for odour nuisance. It is considered that adverse effects associated with
odour can be adequately avoided or mitigated through implementation of good site
operation and management. With the recommended conditions in place, it is considered
that any adverse effects associated with odour will be within acceptable environmental
limits.
Based on the information provided within Biofilter Process Report, and advice received
from Mr Iremonger, I am satisfied that the proposal will not result in adverse health effects.
6
Matters for consideration
This section sets out the framework that has been used to assess the application.
6.1
Statutory criteria
Section 104 of the RMA is of particular relevance to the consideration of the application.
This section states:
When considering an application for resource consent and any submissions received, the
consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to –
(a)
any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and
(b)
any relevant provisions of –
(c)
(i)
a national policy statement,
(ii)
a New Zealand coastal policy statement,
(iii)
a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement; and
(iv)
a plan or proposed plan; and
any other matters the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably
necessary to determine the application.
These matters are addressed in the following sections of this report, along with an
analysis of Part 2 of the RMA.
6.2
Part 2 Matters
Part 2 matters set out the purpose and principles of the Act, with Section 5 stating that the
purpose of the Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical
resources.
Of the matters of national importance listed in section 6, only sections 6(e) is considered
relevant to this application. In accordance with section 6(e), the relationship of Maori and
their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other
taonga is to be recognised and provided for. In the processing of this application it was
recognised that only tangata whenua can identify their relationship with their culture,
traditions and sites of significance, and as such tangata whenua were identified as
potentially affected people and given the opportunity to submit on, and be involved in the
consent process. It is considered that the proposal does not offend section 6(e) and it is
noted that no specific cultural values or sites have been identified with respect to the air
discharge proposal.
Section 7 of the RMA requires that particular regard be given to a number of matters. Of
these, the following are considered to be most relevant to the proposal:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Kaitikaitanga;
The ethic of stewardship;
The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values;
The maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment;
With regard to the above, it is considered that the principle of Kaitiakitanga has been
observed to the extent that tangata whenua have been notified of the application and
given the opportunity to provide input into the application. In addition, it is understood the
Applicant has endeavoured to understand the concerns expressed by Tapuika Iwi
Authority and has provided them with additional information to aid their understanding of
the potential for adverse health effects.
The Applicant is acting as a steward for the environment by advancing the proposal in a
manner that will not result in unacceptable adverse effects. The recommended odour
management plan for the site (recommended condition 6), along with other conditions, will
also ensure that the Applicant continues to act as a steward for the environment, should
consent be granted.
With regard to sections 7(c) and 7(e), it is considered that the recommended conditions of
consent will ensure that amenity values and the quality of the environment are maintained
and that any adverse effects will not be unacceptable.
Section 8 of the Act states that the Council shall take account of the principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi when deciding this application. Although the Applicant did not consult
with tangata whenua prior to lodgement of the application, consultation has occurred
through the notification process. In addition, the Applicant has consulted further with
Tapuika Iwi Authority following receipt of their submission. It is considered that this
consultation, along with the Applicant’s proposal to minimise adverse effects to an
acceptable level, appropriately responds to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi .
Overall, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the purpose of the Act.
6.3
Section 104(1)(a) – Assessment of Effects on the Environment
An assessment of environmental effects associated with the discharges to air is provided
in section 5 of this report.
It is noted, for completeness, that section 104(2) of the RMA enables the consent
authority to disregard an effect of an activity on the environment if a rule in a plan (or
National Environment Standard) permits an activity with that effect.
As identified earlier in this report, the Rule 4 of the Bay of Plenty Regional Air Plan permits
the discharge of contaminants to air from fuel burning equipment, subject to compliance
with the relevant conditions. The gas fired boilers are a permitted activity in accordance
with Rule 4(2) and, as such, air quality effects of discharges from the boilers can be
disregarded in accordance with Section 104(2).
6.4
Section 104(1)(b)(i) – National Environmental Standards
The National Environmental Standard for Air Quality (‘NES’) set limits for carbon
monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, PM10, and sulphur dioxide. The application states
that the discharges to air from meat processing plant do not exceed the limits imposed by
the NES.
6.5
Section 104(1)(b)(v) – Operative and Proposed Bay of Plenty Regional Policy
Statement
6.5.1
Operative Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement
The Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement became operative on 1 December 1999.
The following identifies the objectives and policies of most relevance to the proposal and
provides a brief assessment against these.
Objective 5.3.1(a):
The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)
are recognised and taken into account in the practice of
resource management.
Policy 5.3.1(b)(iv):
To recognise that the tangata whenua, as indigenous
peoples, have rights protected by the Treaty and that
consequently the Act accords iwi authorities, tribal runanga
and hapu a status distinct from that of interest groups and
members of the public.
Policy 5.3.1(b)(v):
To recognise the right of each iwi to define their own
preferences for the sustainable management of natural and
physical resources, where this is not inconsistent with the
Act.
The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have been taken into consideration in the
assessment of this application and this matter is discussed within section 6.2 of this
report.
Objective 5.3.3(a):
The timely exchange, consideration of and response to,
relevant information by all parties with an interest in the
resolution of a resource management issue.
Policy 5.3.3(b)(iii):
To encourage all parties undertaking resource use,
development and protection activities to consult others who
may be affected.
All potentially affected parties were identified and notified of the application. In addition,
the Applicant consulted with parties they considered to be most affected by the discharges
to air prior to lodging the application. Following notification, the Applicant has also
consulted with Tapuika Iwi Authority and provided additional information to assist with
their understanding of the discharges to air and the biofilter process.
Objective 7.3.2(a):
No significant adverse effects on people and communities
result from discharges of chemical, odorous and particulate
contaminants into the air.
Policy 7.3.2(b)(i):
To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects on air
quality of discharges of contaminants into air.
Policy 7.3.2(b)(iii):
To provide for the discharge of contaminants to air with no
significant adverse effects on air quality.
Effects associated with the discharges to air are discussed within section 5 of this report.
In summary, no significant adverse effects have been identified and it is considered that
the measures recommended in the conditions of consent, along with those described
within the application will ensure that adverse effects are within acceptable limits.
Overall, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the direction provided by the
operative Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement.
6.5.2
Proposed Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement
The proposed Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement was publicly notified in November
2010. Decisions on the provisions relating to the Coastal Environment and Water Quality
and Land Use were publicly notified on 27 March 2012, and decisions on the remaining
chapters were notified on 14 August 2012.
The following sets out the objectives and policies of most relevance to the proposal and
provides a brief assessment against these.3
Objective 1:
People and the environment are protected from the adverse
effects of odours, chemical emissions and particulates.
Policy AQ 2A:
Managing adverse effects from the discharge of odours,
chemicals, and particulates
Protect people’s health and the amenity values of
neighbouring areas from discharges of offensive and
objectionable odours, chemical emissions and particulates.
Policy AQ 3A:
Managing adverse effects of fine particulate contamination
Manage
activities
that
generate
contamination within airsheds.
fine
particulate
Effects associated with the discharges to air are discussed within section 5 of this report.
As discussed previously, the measures recommended in the conditions of consent, along
with the mitigation measures described within the application will ensure that adverse
effects are within acceptable limits. With regard to potential effects on health, this is also
a matter discussed within section 5.
Objective 12:
The timely exchange, consideration of and response to,
relevant information by all parties with an interest in the
resolution of a resource management issue.
Policy IR 4B:
Using consultation in the identification and resolution of
resource management. issues
Encourage the timely exchange, consideration of, and
response to, relevant information by all parties with an
interest in the resolution of a resource management issue
by:
(c)
3
Encouraging all parties undertaking resource use,
development and protection activities to consult with
others who may be affected.
Note: the objectives and policies listed are from the Decisions Version of the proposed Bay of Plenty
Regional Policy Statement. Underlining and strikethrough shows changes made to the notified version by
the decisions
These matters have been addressed previously in this report, with regard to Objective
5.3.3(a) and Policy 5.3.3(b)(iii) of the operative Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement.
Objective 13:
Kaitiakitanga is recognised and the principles of the Treaty of
Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) are and systematically taken
into account in the practice of resource management.
Policy IW 3B:
Recognising the Treaty in the exercise of functions and
powers under the Act
Exercise the functions and powers of local authorities in a
manner that:
Policy IW 5B:
(a)
Takes into account the principles of the Treaty of
Waitangi;
(b)
Recognises that the principles of the Treaty will
continue to evolve and be defined;
(c)
Promotes awareness and understanding of councils’
obligations under the Act regarding the principles of the
Treaty, tikanga Maori and kaupapa Maori, among
council decision makers, staff and the community;
(d)
Recognises that tangata whenua, as indigenous
peoples, have rights protected by the Treaty and that
consequently the Act accords iwi a status distinct from
that of interest groups and members of the public; and
(e)
Recognises the right of each iwi to define their own
preferences for the sustainable management of natural
and physical resources, where this is not inconsistent
with the Act.
Adverse effects on matters on significance to Maori
When considering proposals that may adversely affect any
matter of significance to Maori recognise and provide for
avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse affects on:
(a)
The exercise of kaitiakitanga;
(b)
Mauri, particularly in relation to fresh, geothermal and
coastal waters, land and air;
(c)
Mahinga kai and areas of natural resources used for
customary purposes;
(d)
Places sites and areas with significant spiritual or
cultural historic heritage value to tangata whenua; and
(e)
Existing and zoned marae or papakainga land.
The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have been taken into consideration in the
assessment of this application and this matter is discussed within section 6.2 of this
report.
Overall it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction provided by
the proposed Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement.
6.6
Section 104(1)(b)(v)
The Bay of Plenty Regional Air Plan is relevant to this application. The relevant rules have
been discussed in section 4.3 of this report.
The objectives and policies most relevant to this application are:
Objective 1:
Maintain and protect high air quality in the Bay of Plenty
region and in instances or areas where air quality is
degraded, to enhance it by specifically addressing
discharges into air of gases, particulates, chemicals,
agrichemicals, combustion and odour.
Objective 2:
Avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of all
discharges of contaminants into air on the environment
which includes the effects on: ecosystems, human health
and safety, crops and livestock, amenity values, cultural
values, the mauri of natural and physical resources and the
global environment.
Policy 1(a):
Significant adverse effects of discharges of contaminants
into air should be avoided.
Policy 1(b):
Adverse effects of discharges into air of contaminants that
cannot be practicably avoided should be remedied or
mitigated.
Policy 4:
Promotion of the use of the best practicable option approach
including the efficient use of resources e.g. raw materials
and energy, whenever it is the most efficient and effective
means of preventing or minimising adverse effects on air
quality.
Policy 6:
Disposal and storage of waste should be undertaken in a
manner that avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects
on air quality.
Policy 12:
Provide for the involvement of tangata whenua as kaitiaki
(guardians) in the management of the mauri of air.
As discussed earlier in this report, the effects associated with the discharges to air are not
considered to be significant. The recommended conditions, along with existing on-site
management practices will ensure that adverse effects are avoided where practicable.
Where this is not practicable, the effects are minimised through treatment through the
biofilter process, and management of the waste treatment process in a way that minimises
odour generation. The proposal is considered to consistent with the approach promoted
by the Bay of Plenty Regional Air Plan.
6.7
Section 104(2A) – Value of Investment
The existing consent (30096) expires on 30 November 2011, the applicant applied on 20
June 2012 for a replacement consent. Having applied six months prior to the expiry of the
consent, the application was deemed to be under section 124 of the Resource
Management Act 1991
When considering an application to replace an existing resource consent under section
124, regard must be paid to the value of the investment made by the consent holder.
Although no specific information has been provided by the Applicant with respect to the
value of investment in the processing plant, it is clear that there is significant investment in
the site and that substantial investment has been made with respect to the installation of
the new biofilter in 2007.
6.8
Section 105 – Matters relevant to certain applications
Where an application is for a discharge permit to undertake an activity that would
otherwise contravene section 15 of the RMA, the consent authority must, in addition to the
matters in section 104(1), have regard to:
(a)
The nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to
advere effects;
(b)
The Applicant’s reasons for making the proposed choice; and
(c)
Any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge to any other
receiving environment.
The nature of the discharge and the receiving environment have been discussed in
sections 4.1 and 4.2 of this report. Having regard to the rural nature of the surrounding
area, the environment is not considered to highly sensitive to air discharges associated
with the processing plant. It is noted, however, that there are some sensitive land use
activities that exist within relatively close proximity to the site that will be more sensitive to
the discharges than traditional rural land use activities.
The Applicant’s reasons for the choice is that the layout and location of the site represents
the Best Practicable Option in respect of the discharges to air (AEE, page 26). In
addition, this is an existing site that has been operating as a meat processing plant for a
substantial period of time.
With respect to alternatives, the AEE identifies that AFFCO’s operational layout provides
no real option for alternative discharge locations. The Company’s approach is, however,
to avoid and reduce odour generation to the extent that odours from the facility do not
generate potential for significant adverse effects.
Due regard has been given to the matters listed in section 105. It is considered that the
receiving environment does not present an obstacle to the grant of consent, and the
Applicant’s reasons for the proposed choice are reasonable, having particular regard to
the level of investment in the site and the methods established to avoid and reduce
adverse effects. In terms of alternative methods of discharge, the applicant’s approach to
avoiding and reducing adverse effects is accepted.
6.9
Summary of Statutory Considerations
Due consideration has been given to the relevant statutory considerations, including the
Part 2 of the RMA, the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality, the operative and
proposed Regional Policy Statements, the Bay of Plenty Regional Air Plan, and the effects
of the activity.
7
Conclusion
The AFFCO meat processing plant at Rangiuru has been operating for a significant
amount of time and provides social and economic benefits for the local community,
particularly in terms of the employment opportunities it provides. Since the time that the
existing resource consent was granted, the new biofilter has been established and
appears to have been operating successfully, with a noticable decrease in complaints
being received regarding odour issues from the rendering plant operations.
Based on information provided with the application, an inspection of the site at the time
the rendering plant was operational, a review of the complaints received by the Bay of
Plenty Regional Council, and advice received from Council staff, it is evident that adverse
off-site effects associated with odour nuisance that are unacceptable to the surrounding
properties occur in atypical or unusual circumstances. In the past, for example, complaints
have been made when material has been brought to the site for rendering which was not
sufficiently fresh, and when ponds and/or pits waste facilities have been emptied. I also
understand that such odour nuisance effects only in certain weather and wind conditions.
Conditions of consent seek to ensure that adverse effects associated with these, less
regular occurrences, are avoided to the greatest extent possible.
In general terms, it is considered that the site and discharges can be managed through
the measures in the recommended conditions of consent to ensure that any adverse offsite effects are within acceptable limits. Mitigation of effects is, however, reliant on good
management of the site, and this is sought to be addressed through the development and
implementation of an odour management plan for the site (refer to recommended
condition 6).
In summary, I consider that the proposal is generally consistent with the planning policy
framework, and the adverse effects can be appropriately managed, subject to compliance
with the recommended conditions of consent.
8
Term of Consent
The Applicant has requested a 35 year duration for this consent. This is the maximum
consent term that can be granted in accordance with section 123 of the RMA.
In determining the term that is to apply to any resource consent granted, the Committee is
again required to consider the purpose of the Act. In this regard, the Hearing Committee
must be satisfied that the term imposed is in accordance with section 5 of the Act.
In this instance, it is considered that there is no impediment to the grant of consent for a
term of 35 years given:
(a)
The significant level of investment in the processing plant;
(b)
The effects of the discharges to air are well understood;
(c)
The Best Practicable Option is to be adopted for avoiding and mitigating adverse
effects; and
(d)
Recommended conditions enable a review of the conditions of consent in the event
of adverse effects associated with the discharges to air.
Report prepared by Paula Golsby, Associate Director / Planner – Ryder Consulting
Limited
Recommendation
That the Regional Council:
1
Grants Resource Consent 67131 to AFFCO New Zealand Limited, subject to
the proposed consent conditions
Ryder Consulting Limited
Paula Golsby
Associate Director / Planner