Notified resource consent decision (without hearing) · The applicant administers the trunk...

Notified resource consent decision (without hearing)

Summary of decision Activity: Discharge permit to temporarily discharge wastewater

from the Seaview wastewater treatment plant to the Waiwhetu Stream during and/or immediately after heavy rain events when flows exceed the capacity of the main outfall pipeline and the storm tank system is fully utilised.

To temporarily discharge treated wastewater to the coastal marine area, and onto land where it may enter streams or the coastal marine area from planned/unplanned repairs, leaks associated with temporary repairs and minor leaks on the main outfall pipeline from the Seaview Wastewater Treatment Plant to Pencarrow Head. To temporarily discharge treated wastewater from the Seaview Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Waiwhetu Stream when the main outfall pipeline is being repaired.

To construct a temporary channel on the foreshore to direct treated wastewater discharged from scour valves on the main outfall pipeline into the sea to allow pipeline repairs to be undertaken.

File reference: WGN120142 Date granted 21 December 2012 Applicant: Hutt City Council, City Infrastructure Private Bag 31912 Lower Hutt 5040 For: Bruce Sherlock Address for service: Hutt City Council, City Infrastructure C/- MWH New Zealand Ltd Private Bag 9624 For: Alan Bannatyne

Decision made under: Sections 104B, 105, 107 and 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991

Consents applied for: [31523]: Discretionary activity Discharge permit to temporarily discharge wastewater to

the Waiwhetu Stream during and/or immediately after heavy rain events when flows exceed the capacity of the main outfall pipeline and the storm tank system is fully utilised.

[31524]: Discretionary activity Coastal permit and discharge permit to temporarily discharge treated wastewater to the coastal marine area, and onto land where it may enter streams or the coastal marine area from:

Planned repairs Unplanned repairs Leaks associated with temporary repairs; and Minor leaks

in relation to the main outfall pipeline from Seaview Wastewater Treatment Plant to Pencarrow Head.

[31528]: Discretionary activity Discharge permit to temporarily discharge treated wastewater from the Seaview Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Waiwhetu Stream when the main outfall pipeline is being repaired.

[31740]: Discretionary activity Coastal permit to construct a temporary channel on the foreshore to direct wastewater discharged from scour valves on the main outfall pipeline into the sea to allow pipeline repair to be undertaken.

Location: All discharges from the main outfall pipeline are via 15 existing scour valves and/or leaks from the pipeline to land located between Seaview and Pencarrow Head.

All discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream are via an existing outfall located at the end of Gough Street, Seaview.

Background: The application was publicly notified in the Dominion

Post on 14 January 2012 and in the Hutt News on 17 January 2012.

All submitters either did not wish to be heard or have

withdrawn their right to be herd. As a hearing is not required to be held, the Manager

Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council

has the delegated authority to grant or decline the application.

Decision: The Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington

Regional Council decided to grant the application subject to conditions

Reasons for decision: 1. The proposed activity is consistent with the Purpose

and Principles of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. The proposed activity is consistent with New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management the Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region, the Proposed Regional Policy Statement, the Regional Coastal Plan for the Wellington Region, the Regional Freshwater Plan for the Wellington Region and the Discharge to Land Plan for the Wellington Region.

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

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

Duration of Consents: [31523] and [31528]: 5 years [31524]: approximately 19 years (expire on 25 August 2031) [31740]: approximately 19 years (expire on 25 August 2031)

Subject to conditions: Attachments 1, 2, 3 and 4 Decision recommended by:

Jude Weggery Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation

21-12-12

Decision peer reviewed by:

Malory Osmond

Senior Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation

21-12-12

Decision peer reviewed by:

Jeremy Rusbatch

Team Leader, Environmental Regulation

21-12-12

Decision approved by:

Alistair Cross

Manager, Environmental Regulation

21-12-12

WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1 PAGE 1 OF 88

Reasons for decision: resource consent WGN120142 [31523], [31524], [31528] and [31740]

1. Purpose To report to the Manager, Environmental Regulation on resource consent application to the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) by the Hutt City Council (HCC) under the Resource Management Act, 1991 (the Act).

2. Application

2.1 Application HCC has applied for resource consent to temporarily discharge treated wastewater to the coastal marine are, land or streams adjacent to the main outfall pipeline, and to the Waiwhetu Stream when the main outfall pipeline is being repaired. The applicant has also applied to renew the consent to discharge treated wastewater to the Waiwhetu Stream during and/or immediately after wet weather events.

Consents applied for are described in section 4 of this report.

2.2 Location The applicant administers the trunk wastewater network for the Hutt Valley and Wainuiomata. The trunk system receives wastewater from Upper Hutt, Hutt City, Wainuiomata and the eastern bays of the Wellington harbour.

The wastewater receives secondary treatment and UV disinfection at Seaview wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) before being pumped 18 km through the main outfall pipeline (MOP) to the coastal marine area (CMA) via a short outfall at Bluff Point, approximately 500m south east of Pencarrow Head. The short outfall discharges just below the low water mark, approximately 50 to 75 metres below the high water mark.

There are 15 scour valves along the MOP. Scour valve 1 is located at the Seaview WWTP and discharges through the existing outlet structure into the Waiwhetu Stream, scour valves 2-15 discharge at separate locations (refer to Figure 1 of this report) between approximate map references NZTM: 1759804.5433065 and 1754999.5420657. Note scour valves 2, 3 and 9 are also stormwater outlets.

By 30 June 2013 the applicant will have installed a drain down facility from scour valve 2 to the trade waste sewer in Barnes Street. The intention of this facility is to pump as much treated wastewater as possible back to the Seaview WWTP rather than discharging treated wastewater into the eastern bays. However scour valves 2-9 will be maintained to drain low points in these areas if required.

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Figure 1: Location of the main outfall pipeline (red line) and scour valves 1-15 on the pipeline

Wet weather overflow storage tanks are located at Wainuiomata, Seaview and Silverstream and are used primarily to reduce the frequency of wet weather overflows. The location of Seaview WWTP and the Waiwhetu Stream outfall at the end of Gough Street are shown in Figure 2 below. The Waiwhetu Stream outfall is located at approximate map reference NZTM: 1759407.5433210. Note the Waiwhetu Stream outfall also conveys stormwater from Gough Street and a small part of Seaview Road (properties 30-42) in addition to the wastewater from the treatment plant site.


Figure 2: Location of the Waiwhetu Stream existing overflow (end of Gough Street)

3. Background The applicant owns the trunk wastewater network for the Hutt Valley and Wainuiomata, which receives wastewater from the communities in Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt Cities. The overall system comprises of 85 kilometres of sewers, including pressure mains from Wainuiomata and the eastern bays of Lower Hutt, the Seaview WWTP and a further 18 kilometre MOP to Bluff Point.

The applicant holds two relevant resource consents and they permit the discharge of secondary treated and disinfected wastewater to:

The CMA through an outfall at Bluff Point as the final step following treatment WGN050359 [24539] (expires 25 August 2031), and

The Waiwhetu Stream from the Seaview WWTP, up to a maximum flow rate of 1280 litres/second if the inflow to the WWTP exceeds 1720 litres/second (this caters for wet weather events) WGN030099 [22445] (expires 4 August 2013)

The MOP has been operational for 49 years and during this time there have been 47 rubber ring joint failures caused by a combination of factors such as pipe settlement, deteriorating rubber and a pressure surge which occurred in March 2009. The frequency of these failures is increasing as the system ages. The scale of the failures (i.e. the discharge volume) seems to vary from relatively minor to quite significant. When a failure is detected the applicant has previously commenced an unplanned discharge of treated wastewater to the

Waiwhetu Stream outfall

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Waiwhetu Stream from the Seaview WWTP and to the eastern bays of Wellington harbour from the MOP via scour valves located on the coastline. This drained the MOP so that internal repairs could be completed. The aforementioned resource consents do not permit these discharges. Rather, the applicant has relied on the emergency provisions in section 330 of the Act.

The emergency provisions are specifically for use when adverse environmental effects on the environment are present and need immediate attention. GWRC views the application of section 330 as necessarily fact specific and the facts of each joint failure will vary. Accordingly, it may not be the case that every joint failure (or even any joint failure) will fall within the provisions of section 330. Furthermore, if the adverse environmental effect of the emergency remedial works is going to be out of proportion to the effects of the discharge from the joint failure, it would be a stretch to invoke section 330, particularly where there are alternatives to the proposed emergency remedial works (alternative discharge options are discussed in Section 10 of this report).

Additionally, the applicant proposes to inspect the internal condition of the MOP and to do so will need to drain the pipeline. Given this, the applicant was advised to seek resource consent for discharges associated with maintenance of the MOP.

The applicant has therefore applied to GWRC for resource consent to authorise the discharges associated with leaks and repairs on the MOP. The applicant has also applied to renew consent WGN030099 [22445] to discharge treated wastewater to the Waiwhetu Stream during and/or immediately after heavy rain events when flows exceed the capacity of the MOP.

The applicant is undertaking an infiltration/inflow reduction programme to reduce the amount of stormwater entering the wastewater system. To date the testing and sewer renewals programme has reduced the number of wet weather overflows by over 90% during summer and 60% during winter.

4. Proposal The applicant has detailed their proposal to temporarily discharge treated wastewater to land, to land where it may enter streams, directly to the CMA and to the Waiwhetu Stream and to temporarily construct channels beneath the scour valves in section 4, 8 and 9 of the application received on 8 December 2011, and further information received on:

12 January 2012 - addendum letter including Form 9; 2 March 2012 – s92 response letter 7 May 2012 – response to issues raised at pre-hearing on 29 March 2012 25 June 2012 – response to issues raised at pre-hearing on 14 May 2012 27 July 2012 – s92 response following expert review 22 August 2012 – investigations timetable, and 14 September 2012 – further information on temporary channel

construction below scours during repairs


Under Section 42A(1B)(b) of the Act, I have adopted the Executive Summary and Section 4 of the application document ‘Temporary Discharges of Treated Wastewater to Waiwhetu Stream and Wellington harbour ’as it outlines the applicant’s proposed discharges.

The treated wastewater discharges can be defined into four types:

1. Planned pipeline repair works undertaken in winter (up to six weeks between 5 May and 5 July) requiring:

a) Seaview WWTP treated wastewater to be diverted and discharged to the Waiwhetu Stream outfall while the repair is made on the MOP, and

b) Treated wastewater within the MOP drained via scour valves and discharged to the CMA

2. Unplanned pipeline repair discharges whereby immediate repair work is required up to two weeks per event. Associated discharges are the same as (1) (a) and (b).

3. Temporary pipeline repair and associated leaks (i.e. until a permanent repair is made the following winter) and ongoing minor leaks (i.e. no temporary repair) to:

a) The CMA, and

b) To land adjacent to the MOP and to land where it may enter streams adjacent to the MOP or the CMA.

4. During and/or immediately after heavy rain events when flows exceed the capacity of the MOP and the storm tank is full, treated wastewater is discharged to the Waiwhetu Stream via the existing outfall.

When the MOP is being drained via the scour valves the applicant proposes to construct a temporary channel on the foreshore to direct the wastewater from the scour valve into the sea. The channels are to be constructed using a hydraulic excavator and will be approximately 2m wide with a depth of around 1m depending on the level of the beach relative to the pipeline. The length of the channel will also vary depending on the tide but could range from a few metres to approximately 50m. Scour valves 9-15 may require a trench to be temporarily constructed.

4.1 Wastewater quality The discharges proposed by the applicant are for secondary treated and UV disinfected wastewater. In summary, discharges to the CMA, to land where it may enter streams adjacent to the MOP or the CMA, and discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream when flows are diverted from Seaview WWTP will receive full secondary treatment and UV disinfection as described in Table 2-2 of the application document. At present the applicant monitors treated wastewater

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

quality and consistently meets the quality limits set out in consent WGN050359 [24539].

On each occasion a wet weather discharge occurs for more than one hour, a grab sample of the discharge is collected and analysed. The results of the monitoring are presented in Table 2-3 of the application document. GWRC queried whether the biological treatment process is compromised during higher flow conditions because the monitoring results indicate reduced wastewater quality. The applicant responded that detention time within the treatment process is less under higher flows; however, flows of 2200L/s receive a detention time of greater than two hours and they consider this is sufficient to provide a good level of treatment.

4.2 Discharge volume and frequency

4.2.1 Discharges to the CMA and to land or streams adjacent to the MOP Draining the entire length of the MOP would require a discharge of approximately 24,000m3 of treated wastewater through a number of scour valves. The maximum rate of discharge from each scour valve is estimated at 200L/s. The applicant states that a typical discharge scenario is a four or five separate discharge locations operated simultaneously over a period of up to three days. When the pipe is empty all discharges to the CMA cease. An integrity assessment of the MOP is programmed between May-July 2013 and the need for repair is to be reviewed annually thereafter these works will require draining of the entire length of the MOP.

Any number of the scour valves will be used to drain the MOP to undertake a repair during the planned repair period (5 May and 5 July each year) if required. Unplanned repair work will require discharges via the scour valves outside this timeframe and will be undertaken as required. The applicant has stated that the number of leaks requiring immediate attention have historically been between zero and four per year and averaging three every two years.

In the event that a temporary leak repair is made to defer a permanent repair to the planned repair period then the discharge flow rate from the pipeline will vary depending on the size of the leak. Up to 10L/s was estimated by the applicant for a duration of up to 10 months. Only minor leaks will receive a temporary repair. Minor leaks are considered small leaks resulting in damp ground, a small puddle adjacent to the main outfall pipeline or low rate discharge to a nearby stormwater drain or stream. Minor leaks exclude direct discharges to the CMA. Temporary repairs do not result in discharges from scour valves

4.2.2 Discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream During the planned repair period (up to six weeks per year) and on occasion when an unplanned repair is required (up to two weeks per event) the MOP will be taken out of service and the entire flow from the Seaview WWTP will discharge to the Waiwhetu Stream. The average daily wastewater flow is 54,470m3 or 630L/s.


When flows exceed the capacity of the MOP during a wet weather event treated wastewater is diverted to the storm tank at the Seaview WWTP. When the storm tank is full excess flows are discharged to the Waiwhetu Stream. On average there have been 4.4 discharges of this nature per year. However, the frequency and duration of these discharges is expected to increase because the applicant is proposing to reduce operating pressure of the MOP to better manage pipeline integrity and reduce the number of joint failures. The applicant has estimated that the number of joint leaks will halve as a result of the new pipeline management strategy. The average annual discharge of treated wastewater to the Waiwhetu Stream during dry weather would reduce from 600,000m3 to around 300,000m3 per year, with wet weather discharges increasing from 102,000m3/year to 138,000m3/year.

5. Resource consents required

5.1 Resource Management Act 1991 Under section 15 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act no person may discharge any:

(a) Contaminant or water into water; or

(b) 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;

Unless the discharge is expressly allowed by a national environmental standard or other regulation, a rule in a regional plan as well as a rule in a proposed regional plan for the same region (if there is one) or a resource consent.

Section 2 of the Act defines contaminant as:

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

(b) when discharge into water, changes or is likely to change the physical, chemical, or biological condition of water;

Treated wastewater discharges from the Seaview WWTP will change the physical, chemical and biological condition of water, and can therefore be classed as contaminants under the Act.

The discharge of contaminants to water associated with repair work on the MOP and wet weather overflow events is not expressly allowed by a national environmental standard or other regulations, a rule in a regional plan (as well as a rule in a proposed regional plan) or an existing resource consent. Therefore, resource consent is required for wastewater discharges to the CMA, to land and streams adjacent to the MOP and to the Waiwhetu Stream.

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Under section 12(1)(c) of the Act no person may, in the CMA:

disturb any foreshore or seabed (including by excavating, drilling, or tunnelling) in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the foreshore or seabed (other than for the purpose of lawfully harvesting any plant or animal);

Unless expressly allowed by a national environmental standard, a rule in a regional coastal plan as well as a rule in a proposed regional coastal plan for the same region (if there is one), or a resource consent.

The construction of temporary channels on the foreshore to drain the MOP via the scour valves into the sea is not permitted as of right under these sections of the Act, a national environmental standard or by the regional plans; therefore, resource consent is required.

5.2 Regional plan rules

5.2.1 Discharge to the CMA The discharge of treated wastewater into the CMA is governed by the rules in the Regional Coastal Plan for the Wellington Region (RCP). Rule 58 of the RCP classifies the discharge of human sewage to the CMA (outside of an Area of Significant Conservation Value) as a discretionary activity.

5.2.2 Discharge to land and land where it may enter water adjacent to the MOP Pipeline repair will result in the discharge of treated wastewater to land and/or to stormwater or stream drainage points from leaks on the main outfall pipeline. Discharges to land are governed by rules in the Discharge to Land Plan for the Wellington Region (RDLP).

The discharge of treated wastewater onto land falls for consideration under Rule 2 of the (RDLP) as a discretionary activity. The discharge of treated wastewater onto land that may enter streams falls for consideration under Rule 8 of the RDLP as a discretionary activity.

5.2.3 Construction of temporary channels on the foreshore The construction of temporary channels on the foreshore beneath the scour valves falls for consideration under Rule 85 of the RCP which provides for other activities on foreshore or seabed outside any Area of Significant Conservation Value as a discretionary activity.

5.2.4 Discharge to the Waiwhetu Stream

The discharge of treated wastewater into the Waiwhetu Stream during extreme wet weather events or when flows are diverted from the MOP while repair is being undertaken are governed by rules in the Regional Freshwater Plan for the Wellington region (RFP).


Rule 1 of the RFP permits the discharge of minor contaminants to water provided the discharge does not contain any contaminants other than those contaminants at concentrations specified in the listed conditions. The discharge of treated wastewater may result in a discharge of contaminants that exceeds the limits listed in Rule 1 so the activity falls for consideration under Rule 5 of the RFP and is considered a discretionary activity.

6. Consultation

6.1 Pre-application consultation In October 2011 the applicant wrote to various stakeholders informing them of the proposal and inviting them to a consultation meeting. The organisations that attended this meeting and the issues raised are outlined in section 11 of the application document (dated December 2011). No written approvals were obtained prior to consent lodgement.

6.2 Technical and internal review Paul Barter (Senior Marine Scientist, Cawthron) was engaged by GWRC to evaluate the proposed discharges to the Wellington harbour and Waiwhetu Stream and review the conclusions reached by the applicant in assessing the environmental effects. I also consulted and sought advice from Ms Milne, Dr Oliver and Mrs Greenfield (GWRC, Environmental Science Department).

In particular, the above scientists commented on the appropriateness of the proposed mixing zones, the risk of shellfish contamination and the effect on water quality. I have incorporated their comments into my assessment and they are discussed in Section 10 of this report.

7. Notification and submissions

7.1 Notification Section 95 to 95F of the Act set out the requirements for notification of consent applications.

The application was publicly notified in the Dominion Post on 14 January 2012 and in the Hutt News on 17 January 2012. In addition notification signs were placed at the mouth of the Waiwhetu Stream at the Port Road Bridge in Seaview and on Burdens Gate at the start of Coast Road in Eastbourne.

Notice of the application was served on 24 affected/interested persons:

Te Runanganui o Taranaki Whanui ki te Upoko o te Ika Maui Wellington Tenths Trust Port Nicolson Block Settlement Trust Healthcare Aotearoa Inc Petone Community Board & Petone Planning Action Group Regional Public Health (RPH) Hutt City Council Fish & Game New Zealand

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Forest & Bird New Zealand Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand Inc (ECO

Inc) New Zealand Historic Places Trust The District Conservator (Wellington) (DOC) Eastbourne Community Board East Harbour Environmental Association Eastbourne Community Board Blue Wellington Seaview Marina Ltd Lowry Bay Yacht Club Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers Wellington Coastal Users Association The Eastbourne Herald Limited Heretaunga Boating Club Petone Rowing Club Keep Petone Beautiful

7.2 Submissions At the close of submissions ten submissions had been received. Two submissions were received in support, one submission of conditional support, one neutral, and six in opposition of the application.

A summary of all submissions received and the issues raised is attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

7.2.1 Issues raised by submissions in support Two submissions were received in support of the application. Roy Hewson and Gerald Davidson supported the application stating that maintenance work was a necessary task that had to be done. Mr Hewson noted that it was important to ensure the public were well informed of the activity.

7.2.2 Issues raised by submissions of conditional support or neutral submissions One submission of conditional support was received from East Harbour Environmental Association Incorporated (EHEA; represented by Roger Lawrence and Alan Hart). EHEA noted the importance of maintaining the integrity of the MOP however raised concern about a 25 consent term. They recommended consent conditions require notification signs to be placed at locations known to be frequented by shellfish gatherers and sign location to be determined in consultation with relevant resident associations. EHEA also requested conditions require the consent holder to meet particular milestones to avoid and mitigate wet weather overflows to the Waiwhetu Stream.

One neutral submission was received from Regional Public Health (RPH; represented by Dr Jill Mckenzie and Chris Edmonds) and was restricted to the potential effects on public health. Although the proposed discharges are intermittent, RPH consider that potential health risks associated with the


discharges need to be adequately managed. RPH recommended that if the discharge permits are granted, appropriate conditions of consent are required that minimise health risks to potentially exposed persons. RPH supported many of the applicant’s proposed conditions as outlined in their Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE; Section 12.2 of the application). RPH recommended:

Limiting planned maintenance to winter months Development of Public Notification Strategies Direct notification to RPH and GWRC of planned and unplanned

discharges Overflow Contingency Plan for wet weather flows Public health warning signage, and ensuring temporary signage remains in

place for 48 hour period following cessation of discharge Consultation with RPH and GWRC about steps to minimise or avoid

human contact with treated wastewater Annual reporting on steps taken to reduce infiltration and inflow, and Conditions to require appropriate steps to be undertaken to minimise

human contact with treated wastewater and are consistent across consents

RPH also noted that it is important to consider “health” as being broader than merely the physical effects on people. In particular, effects on Maori health can be described in terms of physical and mental aspects as well as whanau and spiritual aspects.

7.2.3 Issues raised by submissions in opposition There were six submissions received in opposition to the application. These were from Brock Beyer, Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers’ Association (represented by Jim Mikoz), Henry Steele, Friends of the Waiwhetu Stream (represented by Merilyn Merrett, Grant Webby and Michael Ellis), Blue Wellington - Forest and Bird Wellington Branch (represented by Claire Graeme) and Te Runanganui o Taranaki Whanui ki te Upoko o te Ika Maui (represented by Teri Puketapu).

Most submitters opposed the 20 year consent duration sought by the applicant. Two submitters stated that consent for discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream should only be granted for five years. Mr Puketapu stated in his original submission that a 15 year consent duration with bi-annual reviews was appropriate.

Two submitters opposed the application due to the lack of or mis-information in the application documents on the full extent of actual and potential environmental effects associated with the discharges.

Five submitters opposed discharging wastewater into the Waiwhetu Stream given the recent investment made to remediate and restore the stream.

Five submitters also opposed discharging wastewater into the Waiwhetu Stream and Wellington harbour because of the likely adverse effect on water quality, flora and fauna. Many submitters were opposed to the application as

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

the discharge locations are food gathering and recreational areas and there is a risk to public health.

Two submitters made recommendations on alternative discharge locations.

One submitter opposed the application because of the lack of discussion on actual and potential effects on cultural values.

8. Further information and meetings

8.1 Pre-hearing meetings Three a pre-hearing meetings were held on 29 March 2012, 14 May 2012 and 20 September 2012 and the following submitters/representatives were present at some or all of these meetings:

Te Runanganui o Taranaki Whanui ki te Upoko o te Ika Maui EHEA RPH Friends of the Waiwhetu Stream Henry Steele Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers Association Blue Wellington

At the first pre-hearing meeting issues identified by submitters for discussion were:

Term of consent Review ‘windows’ Emergency discharge points Waiwhetu Stream as a receiving environment Signage location and the length of time it stays in place Milestones in the consent – what HCC will do to reduce the frequency and

volume of discharges Consistency of conditions across all HCC wastewater consents Contingency plans and updating of these Physical location of discharge point to Waiwhetu Stream Volumes of discharge versus volume of water in the stream during dry

weather flows Monitoring conditions during a discharge Scour valve locations and the effects on marine life Mixing zones and volumes and the mixing of wastewater with seawater Effects of discharge to Waiwhetu Stream on Petone Beach at the Settlers

Museum Effect on shellfish Visual effects on the beaches (brown sludge) from scour valves around

eastern bays Lack of consultation with environmental groups Adequacy of the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE)


The above issues were discussed at the pre-hearing meetings on 29 March 2012 and 14 May 2012. The pre-hearing meeting reports (minutes) are attached in Appendix 2. The applicant responded to the issues raised at these pre-hearing meetings and these reports are also attached in Appendix 2.

A key decision made following the first pre-hearing meeting was the applicant reduced the consent term sought for all Waiwhetu Stream discharge permits from 20 years to five years. The five year consent was sought to allow time for the applicant to progress investigations into the structural condition of the MOP and plan for alternative discharge points or other options such as additional storage at the Seaview WWTP. The consent sought to discharge to the CMA and land or streams adjacent to the MOP was not changed (i.e. 20 years). The submitters were happy with this approach as long as the information gaps were addressed by the applicant in the new consent application in five years time.

The third pre-hearing meeting was held on 20 September 2012 and GWRC presented the draft conditions for all four consents. The conditions were discussed in depth with the submitters. At the end of the meeting all submitters were generally happy with the proposed conditions plus amendments discussed during the meeting. GWRC stated that if the submitters who indicated they wanted to be heard at a hearing withdrew their wish to be heard, the application would not need to proceed to a formal hearing and a decision would be made by the Manager, Environmental Regulation.

Following the third pre-hearing meeting many submitters provided further comment on draft conditions to GWRC and the applicant directly. The draft conditions were subsequently amended. Six submitters withdrew their wish to be heard at a hearing, the last was received by GWRC on 21 November 2012.

Roy Hewson, Brock Beyer and Gerald Davidson chose not to attend the pre-hearing meetings or comment on draft conditions. None of these submitters had requested to be heard at a hearing. Mr Steele had not requested to be heard at a hearing in his submission but gave his approval of the conditions on 8 November 2012.

9. Matters for consideration This section sets out the framework that has been used to assess the application.

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

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

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

When considering an application for resource consent and any submissions received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to –

(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and

(b) any relevant provisions of –

i. a national policy statement,

ii. a New Zealand coastal policy statement,

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

iv. a plan or proposed plan; and

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

The provisions of Section 104 are all "subject" to Part II, which means that the purpose and principles of the Act are paramount. An assessment of the application against Part 2 of the Act is provided in Section 13 of this report.

9.2 Planning instruments and other matters In terms of section 104(1)(b) the following planning instruments and documents are relevant to this application:

National

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 The Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whânui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika)

Claims Settlement Act 2009 Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

Regional

The Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region 1995 The Proposed Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region

(notified 21 March 2009) The Regional Coastal Plan 2000 The Regional Freshwater Plan 1999 The Regional Discharges to Land Plan 1999

The actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activities are addressed in Section 10 of this report.

The relevant provisions of the above-mentioned planning instruments are discussed in Section 12 of this report.


9.3 Matters relating to the grant of discharge permits Section 105 of the Act lists additional matters that a consent authority must have regard to when considering applications for discharge or coastal permits to do something that would contravene section 15 of the Act. These matters are addressed in section 11 of this report.

Section 107(1) of the Act places restrictions on the grant of resource consents for the discharge of contaminants into water if they cause certain adverse effects in receiving waters after reasonable mixing. The effects listed in section 107(1) of the Act are discussed in section 11 of this report.

10. Environmental effects assessment and recommendations

10.1 Existing environment The receiving environment of the applicant’s proposed discharges encompass the CMA along the eastern bays of Wellington harbour, land and streams adjacent to the MOP, and the lower reaches of the Waiwhetu Stream.

10.1.1 Eastern bays, Wellington Harbour The eastern bays along the Wellington harbour span nearly 18 kilometres from Seaview to Pencarrow Head. The narrow coastal strip under the Orongoronga foot hills supports a variety of land uses ranging from industrial/commercial at Seaview through the residential/recreational area to Point Arthur to the relatively undeveloped coastline at the harbour entrance.

The water circulation and tidal patterns within the Wellington harbour used in my assessment has been based on assumptions from the GWRC sediment quality investigation (20081), namely:

The tides are semi-diurnal and of small amplitude (0.7–1.3 m), flowing clockwise around the harbour during the flood phase, and anticlockwise during the ebb phase

Tidal currents on the eastern side of the inner harbour can reach 0.26 m/s, while those on the western side rarely exceed 0.13 m/s

The residence time is at least 10 days and this relatively slow turnover means that changes in water quality may persist for some time

Section 8.2.5 of the applicant’s document describes the nature of the coastal receiving environment. Mr Barter noted that this assessment was based on a desktop exercise and draws heavily on generic descriptions from previous investigations with little or no site specific data on the intertidal habitats except information presented in Table 8-2 describing the location shellfish beds in relation to scour valves. I have assessed the potential effects of the proposal based on the information presented by the applicant and local knowledge provided by submitters during the consent process.

1 Greater Wellington Regional Council (June 2008) ‘Wellington Harbour marine sediment quality investigation’

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

The scour valves used to drain the MOP are located at low points along the pipeline between Seaview and Pencarrow Head (refer to Figure 1 of this report). The scour valves are typically situated at or near the high tide line and in many cases a concrete culvert carries the treated wastewater into the intertidal zone. Scour valves 9 to 15 are located on a sand or gravel beach and at low tide there are several metres of beach below the discharge point.

10.1.2 Land adjacent to the MOP Discharges associated with temporary repairs will be to land and/or through stormwater or stream drainage points from leaks on the MOP. The land adjacent to the MOP is typically road reserve owned by the applicant.

10.1.3 Waiwhetu Stream The Waiwhetu Stream originates in the bush covered Eastern Hutt Hills and has an approximate catchment area of 19 square kilometres and a main channel length of approximately nine kilometres. It is a relatively small, slow flowing watercourse with a mean annual flow of 0.3m3/s (300 litres per second). The Waiwhetu Stream has a history of flooding and a flood in Feburary 2004 had a maximum flow of approximately 40m3/s (estimated return period of 40 years).

The catchment is initially steep but after passing through residential/light industrial land use areas in Naenae, the stream emerges onto the floor of the Hutt Valley via a concrete lined channel with a much reduced gradient. The Waiwhetu Stream then runs south for approximately six kilometres through the suburbs of Epuni, Waterloo, Waiwhetu and Gracefield before it discharges into Hutt River estuary at Port Road, Seaview. The only major tributary is the Awamutu Stream, which meets the main channel of the Waiwhetu Stream at Hutt Park. The stream is highly influenced by the tide and previous monitoring by GWRC suggests saline conditions extend 2 kilometres upstream.

The lower reaches of the stream flows through one of the main industrial areas in Lower Hutt, and due to historical contamination from industrial and municipal discharges, became known as the most polluted streams in the Wellington region.

The Waiwhetu Stream is listed in Appendix 7 of the RFP as being a water body with water quality identified as needing enhancement for aquatic ecosystem purposes. A joint clean up project between GWRC and the applicant was undertaken from November 2009 to May 2010 to remove contaminated sediments from the stream and widen/deepen the channel to provide flood protection.

In February 2012 the Waiwhetu Stream was re-surveyed to assess the state of the stream environment following the remediation project. Preliminary results suggest the stream is still in a state of recovery following excavation and sites of contaminated material have been identified. I note that the applicant has based their assessment of environmental effects on the information available at the time the application was prepared. Given the results of the re-survey were not available at this time, and findings of the study show no significant change


in ecological quality, I consider the applicant’s description of the Waiwhetu Stream (the receiving environment) appropriate.

Although polluted, native fish have been recorded in the catchment, including short-finned and long-finned eels and the introduced Brown Trout.

The local iwi, Te Runanganui O Taranaki Whanui Ki Te Upoko o te Ika a Maui Inc have maintained mana whenua over the Waiwhetu area since the 1830s and have an active role in kaitiakitanga. The Waiwhetu Stream has been an important source of Eels, Inanga and watercress to the iwi in the past, and the current state of the stream is of concern to iwi.

The Seaview WWTP discharge outlet structure is located on the true left bank of the Waiwhetu Stream approximately 100m upstream from its confluence with the Hutt River (refer to Figure 2 of this report). This section of the stream was widened and concrete lined in the aforementioned project to improve the hydraulic performance and flood protection. In this area the stream abuts commercial/industrial businesses and is not generally accessible to the public.

10.2 Mixing zone Mixing of the discharges and the receiving waters does not occur instantaneously at the point of discharge. This results in an area of elevated contaminant concentrations around the point of discharge. Section 107 of the Act requires that particular water quality criteria are met after “reasonable mixing”. The Act does not determine what reasonable mixing is, as this is an assessment that has to be made on a case by case basis.

No tracer dye studies have been undertaken to determine the mixing and dispersion characteristics of discharges into the Wellington harbour or the Waiwhetu Stream. For scour valve discharges, the applicant relied upon faecal coliform monitoring and has estimated 11 fold dilution 30m from a scour valve discharge into the sea. Mr Barter suggested that the use of faecal coliforms as a tracer for determination of dilution and dispersion is not best practice given the variable and log-order concentrations of the indicators. Mr Mikoz raised concern about the buoyancy of treated wastewater plumes in coastal and estuarine environments and the lack of mixing in certain weather/tidal conditions.

Given the scour valve discharges are for a short duration and into a dynamic receiving environment I consider a 30m reasonable mixing zone appropriate. I have recommended conditions of consent requiring visual assessments (photographs) of scour valve discharge to monitor the mixing of discharges.

For discharges associated with temporary repairs or minor leaks the applicant has estimated a mixing zone of 10m from the point of discharge into the sea. Given these are low rate discharges are not directly into the Wellington harbour I consider 10m an appropriate reasonable mixing zone.

Reasonable mixing of discharges in the Waiwhetu Stream has been based to date on observations of the outfall and stream and the applicant stated reasonable mixing during dry or wet weather events will be achieved 100m

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

downstream of the outfall. It is also appropriate to identify a reasonable mixing zone boundary upstream of the outfall as the plume may move upstream if discharged into the stream during the flood tide. The applicant has noted that the treated wastewater plume could move as far upstream as Bell Road Bridge (>1km) at the top each tidal cycle. The applicant has proposed a 100m reasonable mixing zone upstream of the outfall and given most of the wastewater will be discharged during an ebb tide I consider a 100m mixing zone upstream and downstream is appropriate.

It is evident however, that there is limited data available on dilution and plume dispersion within the Waiwhetu Stream and beyond, so I have recommended a condition of consent that requires a plume dispersion study to be undertaken and validated by field data (e.g. using drogues, dyes, and metres) during the term of the consent (five years). This assessment should form the basis of an assessment of environmental effects for the next resource consent application. I have recommended consent conditions for water quality monitoring at the boundary of reasonable mixing zones and adopted Mr Mikoz recommended sampling protocol to ensure buoyant treated wastewater plumes is considered in the monitoring. This water column profiling will be important to validate the dispersion and dilution model.

I consider these specified mixing zones to be “reasonable” and the applicant and submitters have accepted the defined reasonable mixing zone boundaries.

10.3 Water quality and ecological effects Possibly the most direct effect of discharging treated wastewater to freshwater and marine environments is the reduction in water quality. The reduction in water quality is caused by an increase in biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and the corresponding decrease in dissolved oxygen (DO), the increase in nitrogen levels and the addition of pathogens and other bacteria. Contaminants in sewage may have adverse effect on freshwater and marine environments by reducing the DO necessary for aquatic life. In addition, nitrogen in high concentrations is toxic to aquatic life. It can kill fish and speed up weed growth and increase the likelihood of algal blooms.

10.3.1 Discharges to the CMA The treated wastewater to be discharged to the CMA will be the same quality (secondary treated and UV disinfected) as that currently discharged via the main outfall at Pencarrow Head, consented under WGN050359 [24539]. The treated wastewater has consistently met water quality requirements defined in that consent.

The predicted effect of discharges on coastal water quality was provided by the applicant and based on an 11 fold dilution ratio of median to worst case scenario wastewater quality (95th percentile). Results were compared with the Australia and New Zealand Environment Council (2000) Guideline (ANZECC) trigger values (refer to Table 1 below).


Table 1: Predicted effects of scour valve discharge on coastal water quality (for median and 95th percentile wastewater quality)

The applicant’s assessment shows that a scour valve discharge could cause the 95% protection trigger level for ammoniacal nitrogen copper and zinc to be exceeded. The risk in terms of potential toxicity will be most significant in the first three to four hours of a discharge (i.e. when flows are up to 200L/s) and will reduce as the pipe is emptied, when any toxic effect has been assessed by the applicant as negligible.

It is important to note that ANZECC guidelines are based on protecting ecosystems from sustained exposures to toxicants. Therefore, it is difficult to apply the trigger levels proposed to intermittent discharges such as those from scour valves. The discharge will impact on nutrient and metal levels for the duration of the discharge. Mr Barter commented that given the discharge is highly treated and an intermittent discharge into a dynamic receiving environment adverse effect on marine ecology is not likely to be significant. I agree with Mr Barter and consider that as the discharge will not cause a sustained exposure to these contaminants and therefore the effect on the ecosystem is not likely to be significant.

The risk of petroleum/chemicals passing through the treatment process and discharging into the coastal environment was a concern raised by Mr Mikoz in his submission. The applicant confirmed they monitor volatile organic compounds and semi volatile organic compounds including hydrocarbon based contaminants, pesticides, halogenated aromatics, plastercisers and a variety of other compounds on an annual basis. Most annual surveys have failed to detect any of the above compounds and the few that have been detected have not exceeded ANZECC guidelines (for compounds where limits are provided). I have therefore not recommended the applicant monitor these types of contaminants as a condition of consent as they are already part of routine monitoring at the Seaview WWTP. I have noted the New Zealand Municipal Wastewater Monitoring Guidelines (2002) in the sampling/testing consent condition as a reference the applicant should consider to ensure appropriate parameters are tested to monitor the environmental effect of the discharge.

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

10.3.2 Discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream Only secondary treated and UV disinfected wastewater will be discharged in to the Waiwhetu Stream under this consent.

The applicant has predicted the effects of dry weather and wet weather discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream (refer to Table 2 and 3 below) and compares results with ANZECC trigger levels for 90% protection, which it is noted Mr Barter considered acceptable given the highly modified nature of the receiving environment.

Full mixing is expected 100m downstream of the outfall in either discharge scenario; however, given the size of the stream it seems unlikely that full mixing will be achieved by this point in any combination of flow or tide. The applicant has accepted that full mixing may not always be achieved before the confluence with the Hutt River; however, they have stated that contaminant concentrations presented in Table 2 and 3 do not change significantly even if dilution is halved.

(a) Dry weather discharges When full flows from the Seaview WWTP are to be diverted to the Waiwhetu Stream during MOP repairs the treated wastewater average flow rate will be around twice that of the Waiwhetu Stream flow, and at low tide dilution is estimated at 1.5.

Table 2: Predicted effects of dry weather discharges on Waiwhetu Stream quality (for median and 95th percentile wastewater quality).

Table 2 shows that the dry weather discharges could cause the 90% protection trigger level for ammoniacal nitrogen copper and zinc to be exceeded. Ammonia is the most significant toxicant in the discharge and may act as a barrier to migrating fish. The main migration period for juvenile shortfin eel and inanga runs from the beginning of August to the end of November and to mitigate potential effects the applicant proposes to avoid planned discharges during these periods of fish migration and use storage to minimise discharges on the incoming tide. In addition the applicant states that reducing the


operating pressure of the MOP will reduce the frequency of unplanned discharges by 50% and thus reduce potential disruption of fish migration and benthic ecology compared with the current situation.

Mr Barter raised concern about the effect on aquatic ecology of discharging low DO treated wastewater into a stream that is already compromised in terms of DO levels. The applicant presented results from monitoring undertaken during MOP repairs in April 2011 and determined the wastewater DO concentration ranged from 3.5-6.1g/m3 (median 3.8g/m3) and stream DO levels ranged from 5.7-10.5g/m3 indicating that the stream remained moderately oxygenated during the discharge event.

(b) Wet weather discharges When wet weather wastewater flows are discharged into the Waiwhetu Stream, the stream is invariably at high flow and a much larger dilution is available typically – 14-fold dilution and rarely less than 7-fold. The impact of the BOD of the discharge is expected to be minor because DO levels tend to be higher during times of high stream flow and at lower temperatures. These are the types of conditions that are generally experienced during a wet weather event.

Table 3: Predicted effects of wet weather discharges on Waiwhetu Stream quality (for median and 95th percentile wastewater quality).

The predicted effects shown in Table 3 have been assessed by the applicant as minor and not expected to exceed ANZECC trigger levels .

(c) Summary of water quality effects in Waiwhetu Stream Given the extensive efforts undertaken to rehabilitate the stream, it is not seen as ideal by the Waiwhetu community to be discharging contaminants of any sort into the stream. In addition the exceedance in ANZECC trigger levels during dry weather discharges and the uncertainty around dilution and dispersion warrants the need for additional investigation into the effect of the discharge. I have recommended conditions of consent requiring discharge and water quality monitoring (including DO and ammonia) during and after each dry and wet weather discharge to the Waiwhetu Stream to better understand the effect the discharge is having on the stream. Sampling locations include sites on the Hutt River upstream and downstream of the confluence of the Waiwhetu Stream to monitor the effect of the discharge. Note the applicant will be required to note wind direction/strength and tidal conditions at the stream mouth when samples are collected. Continuously flow monitoring is also recommended as a condition of consent. Records of the above monitoring will be provided to GWRC on an annual basis.

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

The applicant has agreed to investigate alternative discharge locations and/or increase storage capacity at the Seaview WWTP. A number of submitters suggested the applicant achieve “milestones” for reducing the impact or eliminating discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream. I have recommended conditions of consent that require alternative discharge options and/or increased storage capacity to be investigated and reported to GWRC and submitters six months prior to the expiry of the consent (i.e. within the next 4.5 years).

I have also recommended a condition of consent that requires discharges associated with maintenance of the MOP to be discharged to the Waiwhetu Stream on the ebb tide as far as practical.

The above mitigation measures will assist in reducing the effects on water quality to an acceptable level. The above monitoring will provide meaningful information to inform the consent application and future decisions on alternative options for treated wastewater disposal in this area.

10.4 Health effects

10.4.1 Potential effects Wastewater contains pathogenic microorganisms including viruses, protozoa and bacteria such as Salmonella and Campylobacter that can cause people coming into contact with them to become ill. The microbial risk assessment conducted in 2003 and submitted to GWRC for consent WGN050359 showed that secondary treatment and UV disinfection, such as the process in place at Seaview, can achieve up to 99.99% removal of pathogens. However, there is still a potential risk that pathogens reaching the receiving waters could impact on the health of the users of those waters.

Pathogens present in the treated wastewater discharge may impact water quality and contaminate shellfish. Appendix 7 of the RCP (Planning Map 8D) identifies the receiving waters along the eastern bays as being managed for contact recreation and shellfish gathering purposes and a 200m wide coastal strip from Camp Bay to Inconstant Point is managed for shellfish gathering purposes. Discharges from scour valves and the Waiwhetu Stream have the potential to contaminant shellfish along the coastline of the Wellington harbour and render the water unsafe for recreational use.

The known shellfish beds in close proximity to scour valves were provided by the applicant in section 8.3.4 of the application documents. Scallop beds are known to inhabit offshore waters of 5 to 15m deep and submitters also alerted to seafood collected along the coastline including paua, cockles, pipis, paddle crabs, and numerous fish species such as snapper and tarakihi.

The eastern bays are also known for their bathing beaches, surfing and recreational diving/snorkling areas. The coastline is a very popular walking area and discharges from temporary/minor leaks from the MOP pose a potential health risk.


Whitebaiting is known to occur in the shallows downstream of the Waiwhetu Stream confluence in the Hutt River (15 August to 30 November). People often fish from the Waione Street Bridge over the Hutt River. It is uncommon for people to fish directly from Waiwhetu Stream.

10.4.2 Microbiological effects Appendix 6 of the RCP provides minimum water quality standards after reasonable mixing for contact recreation and shellfish gathering, and the applicant states that water quality will exceed these guidelines following scour valve discharges. To mitigate risk to public health the applicant proposes:

To install a drain down facility from scour valve 2 to significantly reduce the use of scour valves 3-9 (i.e. the most populated areas along the eastern bays)

To conduct the planned maintenance work outside of the bathing season

To construct temporary channels beneath the scour valves to direct the discharge into the sea (therefore limiting the affected area)

To erect signage at the discharge location to notify the public that the immediate area has been contaminated with wastewater

An important part of minimising health risk is minimising the risk of human contact with the discharges. Notification of when the discharges occur was of particular concern to some of the submitters. To ensure the public is effectively notified of the discharge events I have recommended a condition of consent requiring a Public Notification Strategy to be drafted in consultation with the submitters including RPH.

As a minimum, notification signage is to be maintained for 48 hours after the cessation of the discharge into the Waiwhetu Stream. To address concerns raised by submitters about the extent of the treated wastewater plume during dry weather, I have recommended a condition of consent requiring signage (in addition that required upstream/downstream of the Waiwhetu Stream outfall) to be installed by the beach track off Marine Parade and at the small beach beside the marina and Port Road (refer to Figure 3 below).

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Figure 3: Location of signage during dry weather discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream (red spots)

As recommended by Mr Barter signage associated with scour valve discharges is to be maintained for 10 days after the cease of a discharge to allow a depuration period for shellfish.

Mrs Greenfield and Ms Milne requested that water quality monitoring is undertaken when there are discharges to the CMA outside the planned repair period to inform public enquiries during the summer bathing season. I have therefore recommended condition of consent requiring daily water quality monitoring during the summer bathing season (1 November to 30 April) when there are unplanned scour valve discharges to the CMA. The results are to be submitted to GWRC and RPH within 36 hours of the sample being taken. Mr Mikoz recommended that water samples be collected on the surface to not miss the layer of pollutants that are on the surface and this methodology has been incorporated into the above condition.

Ms Milne, Dr Oliver and Mrs Greenfield recommended the risk of shellfish contamination around at the start of the eastern bays is greatest when the full flows from Seaview WWTP are diverted to the Waiwhetu Stream during the planned repair period. Several submitters also raised concern about the effect on shellfish around the Petone foreshore.

Ms Milne, Dr Oliver and Mrs Greenfield were concerned that the treated wastewater plume may not disperse quickly into the harbour from the Waiwhetu Stream in particular weather conditions, and there is a greater risk of microbiological contamination around the Hutt River mouth. To assess the effect of these discharges, the GWRC scientists recommended a shellfish quality survey be conducted during the first year of the consent when the pipeline integrity assessment is being undertaken and full flows are diverted to the Waiwhetu Stream. I agree that further monitoring is required to determine


the effect of the planned repair discharges and have recommended a condition of consent requiring the above shellfish survey. I have also recommended a condition of consent that requires the results of the survey to inform the public notification strategy (i.e. trigger a review of signage requirements) in the second year of the consent.

Given scour valve discharges are of a short duration the risk of shellfish contamination does not warrant an additional shellfish survey in these areas.

RPH have expressed concern about the provision of a consistent message that shellfish collection is not recommended at any time around urban areas and this consent deals only with notifications during a discharge event. However RPH is comfortable that their involvement in the development of the public notification strategy will ensure messages are consistent with current recommendations.

Given the high level of treatment and the mitigation measures proposed as conditions of consent I consider the microbial risk will be appropriately managed to an acceptable level. The shellfish quality survey will provide meaningful information to inform public notification strategy and future decisions on alternative options for treated wastewater disposal in this area.

10.5 Contact recreation I note that the granting of the consent will result in the effective exclusion of the public from accessing the waters of the eastern bays and the Waiwhetu Stream for recreation purposes through signs warning them not to because of the health risks. However, given the timing of the planned discharge and low frequency of unplanned discharges, I consider the effect on public access should be minimal.

10.6 Odour and amenity effects As defined in the Act, ‘amenity values’ are those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes.

10.6.1 CMA discharges The treatment process at Seaview WWTP will ensure that wastewater will be substantially free of oil and grease. However until it has mixed, treated wastewater discharged from the scour valves will float over the denser seawater, and may result in a slightly visible plume. I have recommended a condition of consent which requires that there be no conspicuous visual effects outside of a designated 30 metre radius mixing zone.

Ms Milne and Mr Barter expressed concern about the pulse of nutrients discharged causing nuisance algal growth and die-off around scour valves. As the effects are unknown I have recommended a condition of consent requiring the applicant to take photographs of obvious undesirable biological growth during each scour valve discharge and to provide these to GWRC annually.

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

The applicant has stated that odour is discernible around some scour valves for up to five minutes after opening. I have recommended a condition of consent which requires no objectionable odour shall be emitted beyond 30m of each scour valve. The applicant has stated that no objectionable odour is expected from temporary repairs or minor leaks from the MOP.

10.6.2 Waiwhetu Stream discharges Mr Mikoz stated in his submission that wastewater discharged to the Waiwhetu Stream can be smelt and seen west of the Settlers Museum on Petone beach. I have recommended conditions of consent that there shall be no conspicuous visual effects or objectionable odour outside of a designated 100 metre mixing zone both upstream and downstream of the outfall for dry weather and wet weather discharges.

10.7 Flooding effects The Waiwhetu Stream has a history of flooding due to the flat grade, tidal influence, channel modifications, bridges and in stream constrictions. The lower reaches of the stream was designed for a 50 year return period flood (around 46m3/s). In an event such as this, the Hutt River would be flowing at 1484m3/s and a high (1.5m) tide. The applicant has stated that the maximum flow from the Waiwhetu overflow with the MOP operating would be around 1.5m3/second so approximately 3% and so should be within the capacity of the stream at this point.

A 100 year return event would flood areas outside the Waiwhetu Stream and contamination risk from treated and untreated wastewater in the wastewater network would be a concern. However the applicant has stated that the probability of the MOP being offline and a greater than 50 year return flood event occurring at the same time is highly unlikely.

The applicant consulted with GWRC Flood Protection Department prior to lodging the consent application and I provided them with a copy of the application documents and the draft consent conditions for the proposed discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream. GWRC Flood Protection Department were in agreement with the applicant that flood risks associated with the proposed discharges are no more than minor for the proposed consent term. I consider the flooding effects of the proposed to the Waiwhetu Stream to be no more than minor.

10.8 Cultural effects

10.8.1 Background Part II of the Act requires GWRC to consider matters of national importance, which include the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga.

In the past, the Waiwhetu Stream was used for harvesting eels and watercress, but food is no longer gathered from the stream due to pollution levels. The Waiwhetu Stream flows past the urupa (cemetery) at Owhiti.


Tangata whenua consider that the discharge of treated or untreated human waste to freshwater is culturally inappropriate as it has an adverse effect on the mauri of freshwater. The applicant acknowledges the importance of the Waiwhetu Stream to Te Runanganui o Taranaki Whanui ki te Upoko o te Ika Maui and the sensitivity of cultural interests in the ongoing health and use of the stream.

Mr Puketapu submitted in opposition to the application on behalf of Te Runanganui o Taranaki Whanui Ki Te Upoko O Te Ika a Maui Inc, who has their marae adjacent to the banks of the Waiwhetu Stream. It was noted that Mr Puketapu has opposed the discharges of untreated wastewater in the Waiwhetu Stream in previous consent applications. Given the proposed discharge is of treated wastewater Mr Puketapu requested the term of consent of no greater than 15 years with bi-annual reviews and that special provisions be made should a major plant breakdown occur at the Seaview WWTP resulting in any form of untreated discharge to the Waiwhetu Stream or Wellington harbour.

The Treaty Settlement signed in 2009 with Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui) Settlement Trust (PNBST) requires notification of applications for resource consents that are likely to affect the bed of the Waiwhetu Stream, Hutt River and Wellington harbour. The applicant undertook pre-application with PNBST and noted in the application documents that they were generally supportive of the need for maintenance works on the MOP. PNBST chose not to submit on this application.

10.8.2 Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring Programme The applicant currently holds resource consent WGN090321 [27564] and [27565] to discharge untreated wastewater following heavy rainfall events into the Waiwhetu Stream at two locations upstream of the reach subject to this application. The conditions on these consents require the implementation of ‘cultural health monitoring’ but to date this has not been carried out as the question “what does this actually mean or require” has not been answered. A group has been established with the purpose to answer this question and provide some certainty on the implementation and compliance with these conditions and for those placed on future consents. The group includes representatives from GWRC, the applicant, PNBST and Te Runanganui o Taranaki Whanui ki te Upoko o te Ika Maui.

Monitoring of tangata whenua values begins with the establishment of what specific values (species, sites and practices) hapū and Iwi define as important. A cultural assessment of these seeks to determine the overall health of the water body (often referred to by tangata whenua as “mauri”) based on both historic usage and the ability of the water to support a cultural relationship. The group described above has decided the first stage in the process is to undertake a cultural impact assessment on the Waiwhetu Stream, followed by an assessment of other sites where discharges are proposed including the Wellington harbour and the Wainuiomata River.

Following completion of this first stage, it is intended that the indicator species, monitoring and measuring requirements will be discussed and defined by the

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

group over the next few years. As a result, I have recommended tangata whenu value monitoring conditions of consent that are worded to have some flexibility and allow detail to be defined during the consent process with the agreement of all parties within the group. However I am satisfied that the group will define suitable monitoring requirements that reflect the scale and nature of the discharges. The group were comfortable with this approach and Mr Puketapu approved the proposed consent conditions.

I consider the establishment of the tangata whenua value monitoring will ensure the cultural effects of these discharges are appropriately monitor and mitigated over time.

10.9 Consultation group condition During the consent process several submitters requested they are kept informed during the term of the consent on the following matters:

The condition of the MOP following the integrity assessment in the first year of the consent

The development of the public notification strategy and contingency plans to ensure all potentially affected persons are made aware of discharge events, and

The findings from investigations into alternative discharge locations and treatment plant upgrades.

I consider these requests are reasonable and have therefore recommended a condition of consent (on all discharge permits) that requires the applicant to establish a consultation group made up of individuals/groups that submitted on the consent and interested persons put forward by those submitters who wish to participate. The consultation group is not intended to be a decision making group but a forum for the dissemination of information from the applicant and will provide the opportunity for the group to comment on consent compliance and the development of specific plans.

10.10 Positive effects The proposal has a number of positive effects that must be considered and weighed up against the actual and potential adverse effects. The applicant has the responsibility to collect, treat and dispose of wastewater from residential, commercial and industrial properties in the Hutt Valley.

The discharges also performs an important public health function by taking the treated wastewater away from places where people are likely to come into contact with it. Such as in the case for wet weather discharges and preventing discharges from sewer manholes and for pipeline repairs that prevent uncontrolled discharge from leaks on the MOP. The wastewater system is an essential service that requires maintenance and continual improvement to meet the demands of the Hutt Valley whilst protecting the environment.


I acknowledge the significant investment the applicant has already made to reduce infiltration and inflow into the wastewater system, the provision of a new pipeline and pumping facility in 2013 to drain the Seaview to eastern section of the MOP, and to install a the vortex bypass valve to ensure maximum flow is achieved through the MOP (to mitigate the effect of reducing the operating pressure of the MOP). In addition, considerable investment is made to ensure the Seaview WWTP consistently achieves high quality treated wastewater in accordance with consent WGN050359 [24539].

10.11 Summary of effects assessment Overall, while it is acknowledged that there are a number of adverse effects associated with the proposed discharges, the effects are short term and can be mitigated to an acceptable level. I consider the adverse environmental effects of the discharges are of an acceptable level for the following reasons:

CMA discharges:

Scour valve discharges will be of short duration and typically outside the summer bathing season, and the open scallop season

The development of the public notification strategy (including the location of signs) in consultation with the submitters will ensure the methods to inform the public of the discharges are adequate and effective. Effective notification will reduce the public health risk

The public will only be excluded from sections of the CMA along the eastern bays for a short duration

Odour and amenity effects will not be observable beyond 30m of a scour valve

Waiwhetu Stream discharges:

The consent term sought is for five years only and the applicant proposes to investigate alternative discharge locations and monitor the effect on the receiving environment during this time

Dry weather discharges will occur outside the summer bathing season, the open scallop season and the white-baiting season

Dry weather discharges will be timed to discharge on the ebb tide as far as practicable

Flood flows (50 year rain event) and wet weather discharges can be contained within the stream channel

The results from the shellfish quality will inform the public notification strategy in year two of the consent

Odour and amenity effects will not be observable beyond 100m of the Waiwhetu Stream outfall

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

11. Statutory evaluation

11.1 Resource Management Act 1991 Part 2 (section 5) the Act defines the purpose and principles of the Act. Sections 6, 7 and 8 of Part 2 define the matters a consent authority shall consider when achieving this purpose.

11.1.1 Sections 104 and 108 Section 104 of the Act outlines the matters a consent authority must have regard to when considering an application for resource consent, and are all subject to Part II of the Act. These matters include any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity which are outlined in Section 10 of this report, and any relevant provisions of:

A national environmental standard

Other regulations

A national policy statement

A New Zealand coastal policy statement

A regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement

A plan or proposed plan, and

Any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application

The relevant national planning instruments and the relevant provisions of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS), the Proposed RPS and Regional Plans are discussed below in Section 12.

Section 108 of the Act outlines the types of conditions that may be included in resource consents.

11.1.2 Section 105 Section 105(1) of the Act states that when considering an application for a resource consent which would contravene section 15 or section 15B, a consent authority must, in addition to the matters in section 104(1), have regard to –

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

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

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

As outlined above the nature of the discharge will be treated wastewater.


The receiving environment for the discharges will be to the Waiwhetu Stream and the Wellington harbour/CMA. Further discussion of the receiving environment is provided in Section 10 of this report.

The reason the applicant proposes to discharge in these locations as it is the only practicable option at the present time. The MOP leaks and requires ongoing repair, and to reduce the number of pipeline leaks the applicant needs to reduce the operating pressure. This will in turn increase the number wet weather overflows from the Seaview WWTP. Without managing the pipeline operation and repairing the leaks wastewater will discharge in an uncontrolled manner into eastern bays coastline and this is a considerable health and environmental risk. It is not possible to completely eliminate discharges during wet weather events.

The alternative methods to the discharge include:

Dewatering modifications to avoid scour valve discharges – while it is technically possible to construct connections to pump the pipeline back to Seaview it will add several days to the length of time the pipeline is out of service and therefore add and the duration of discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream. The preferred discharge location for full flows from the Seaview WWTP is Pencarrow Head

Replace the MOP to avoid scour valve and Waiwhetu Stream discharges – the pipeline has a useful remaining economic life of 25 years, therefore the high cost of renovating or replacing this pipeline means that early replacement is unattractive and inefficient. This option is to be investigated further over the consent term

Seaview outfall extension to Hutt River or harbour to avoid discharges in the Waiwhetu Stream – this option would only shift the discharge location and there is a high cost involved with both these options. These options are to be investigated further over the consent term

11.1.3 Section 107 Section 107 of the Act places restrictions on the grant of certain discharge permits. Section 107 (1)(a) states that, except as provided in Subsection (2), a consent authority shall not grant a discharge permit allowing the discharge of a contaminant or water into water, if, after reasonable mixing, the contaminant or water discharged 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 colour or visual clarity;

(e) any emission of objectionable odour;

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

(f) the rendering of the water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals; and

(g) any adverse effects on aquatic life.

I consider that after reasonable mixing the discharge of treated wastewater from scour valves to the CMA will not have the effects described in section 107(1)(c)-(g). In this case I consider ‘reasonable mixing’ to be an area within 30 metres of the discharge point.

There has been a lot of discussion during the resource consent process around whether discharges via the Seaview outfall into the Waiwhetu Stream will be fully mixed prior to confluence with Hutt River (Port Road Bridge, approximately 100m downstream). Both Mr Barter and Ms Milne have concluded that it seems unlikely complete mixing will occur within this section of the stream under any combination of flow or tide. The applicant has proposed reasonable mixing 100m downstream and upstream of the discharge point based on visual observations and a dilution assessment, however, this assessment has not been confirmed by tracer studies.

As wet weather discharges will only occur during times of heavy rain when the stream is in flood and already turbid, the discharge will be highly dilute, I am satisfied that on these occasions reasonable mixing will be achieved within 100m of the discharge point. However when full flows from Seaview WWTP are diverted to the Waiwhetu Stream for a continual period between 5 May and 5 July (dry weather discharges) there may be times (i.e. during periods of low flow) when reasonable mixing is not achieved by the Port Road Bridge.

Notwithstanding the above, under section 107(2) of the Act, a consent authority may grant a discharge permit or coastal permit that may allow any of the effects listed above if it is satisfied that:

(a) That exceptional circumstances justify the granting of the permit; or

(b) That the discharge is of a temporary nature; or

(c) That the discharge is associated with necessary maintenance work and that it is consistent with the purpose of this Act to do so.

Therefore, where dry weather discharges into the Waiwhetu Stream do not meet section 107(1)(c)-(g) they are provided for under section 107(2) (c) (i.e. associated with necessary maintenance work). In addition, should these discharges cause effects described in section 107(1)(c)-(g) they will be limited to a short duration within a five year period and are considered temporary under section 107(2)(b).

Part 2 of the Act is discussed in section 13 of this report.


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

12.1 National planning instrument

12.1.1 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) The purpose of the NZCPS is to state the policies in order to achieve the purpose of the Act in relation to the coastal environment of New Zealand. It includes general principals and policies, rather than specific directives, for the management of the natural and physical resources within New Zealand’s coastal environment.

The NZCPS sets out policies on coastal issues including the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, planning for subdivision, use, and development, protection of biodiversity and water quality, and management of coastal hazard risks.

I have reviewed the NZCPS in relation to this application. The objectives and policies of relevance to this application are listed below.

Objectives:

Objective 1: To safeguard the integrity, form, functioning and resilience of the coastal environment and sustain its ecosystems

Objective 2: To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect natural features and landscape values

Objective 3: To take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, recognise and provide for the role of tangata whenua in management of the coastal environment

Objective 4: To maintain and enhance the public open space qualities and recreation opportunities of the coastal environment

Objective 6: To enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and health and safety through use and development of the coastal environment

Policies:

Policy 1: To recognise the extent and characteristics of the coastal environmental

Policy 2: The Treaty of Waitangi, tangata whenua and Maori heritage

Policy 3: Precautionary approach

Policy 6: Activities in the coastal environment

Policy 11: Indigenous biological diversity (biodiversity)

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Policy 18: Public open space

Policy 19: Walking access

Policy 23: Discharge of contaminants

Mr Mikoz noted in the Wellington Marine Recreational Fishers Association submission that the proposal may be contrary to policies in the NZCPS given the lack of concern for marine life. Objective 1 of the NZCPS promotes the safeguard of coastal environments to sustain ecosystems and I consider this objective the most relevant to Mr Mikoz concern. Through the pre-hearing meeting and consultation process Mr Mikoz concerns were alleviated through the recommended consent conditions.

Policy 21 relates to the enhancement of water quality in deteriorated coastal environments whereby water quality is having a significant adverse effect on ecosystems or natural habitats and is restricting shellfish gathering and recreational activities. As the scour valves have been used for a number of years to drain the MOP and there is no evidence that the discharge has caused a significant adverse effect I consider the proposal consistent with Policy 21. To investigate the significance of the effect of discharges associated with MOP maintenance I have recommended a shellfish toxicity survey is undertaken as a condition of consent.

Policy 23 refers to the discharge of contaminants and what must be considered when managing the discharge of human sewage into the CMA. I consider the proposal is consistent with Policy 23 because the discharge is treated wastewater, consideration has been given to alternative discharge locations, further investigations will be undertaken, and decisions will be informed by an understanding of tangata whenua values and the effects on them through the tangata whenua values monitoring programme.

Policy 18 recognises the need for public open space within and adjacent to the CMA to ensure amenity values are provided and Policy 19 recognises the need for walking access along the coastline. However when the scour valves are draining the MOP public access will be restricted to the CMA. I consider the proposal is consistent with these policies as discharges will occur when people are less likely to be walking along the coast (i.e. outside the summer bathing season) and access will only be restricted for short duration (<13 days).

In summary the maintenance work is intended to improve the performance of existing infrastructure and reduce the number of unplanned discharges into the coastal environment when adverse effects may be more significant.

I have considered the other relevant policies listed and overall consider that the proposal is consistent with these policies of the NZCPS.

12.1.2 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 (NPS) took effect on 12 May 2011. This national 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. The national policy statement is a first step to improve freshwater management at a national level. The intent of this NPS is that any more than minor potential adverse effects of activities, in relation to water takes, use, damming and diverting, as well as discharges, are thoroughly considered and actively managed.

Policy A2: requires regional councils to set limits on discharge permits to assist the improvement of water quality in the water bodies and to meet those targets within a defined timeframe.

Discharge limits have been defined on consent WGN050359 [24539] and treated wastewater quality consistently meets the requirements. Given the discharges are temporary and provided for under section 107 (2) (c) I do not consider discharge limits to be necessary in this case. I consider that the proposed activity outlined in the application is consistent with the objectives and policies of this NPS.

12.2 Regional planning instruments The relevant regional planning instruments are the Regional Policy Statement (RPS), Proposed Regional Policy Statement (Proposed RPS) and the Regional Coastal Plan (RCP), the Regional Freshwater Plan (RFP), and the Discharges to Land Plan (RDLP). The applicant’s proposal has been assessed against the relevant objectives and policies contained within the RPS, Proposed RPS and RFP, RCP and RDLP as outlined in the sections below.

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

The chapters of the RPS relevant to this application are Chapters 4 – the iwi environmental management system, 5 – fresh water, Chapter 7 – the coastal environment, Chapter 9 – ecosystems, Chapter 13 – waste management and hazardous substances and Chapter 14 – the built environment and transportation.

Chapter 4 – the iwi environmental management system emphasises the active participation of tangata whenua in the development and implementation of resource management policy and plans, and in the resource consent process. I consider the proposal to be consistent with the objectives and policies of Chapter 4 because the iwi authorities of Port Nicolson Block Trust and Te Runanganui o Taranaki Whanui Ki Te Upoko O Te Ika a Maui are directly involved in the establishment of tangata whenua values for the Waiwhetu Stream and Wellington harbour and also because tangata whenua value monitoring is required as a condition of consent.

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Chapter 5 of the RPS addresses water quality issues in terms of both the character of water, encompassing the health values of ecosystems. Policy 5 seeks to improve water quality and restore contaminated water to a standard which is appropriate for its desired uses and natural values. The Waiwhetu Stream has recently been rehabilitated to achieve water quality appropriate for its desired uses. I do not consider the proposal to be consistent with Policy 5.

Chapter 7 addresses coastal issues in terms of the character of the coastal environment, encompassing the value of marine ecosystems, and the sediments or contaminants that may be carried in or deposited by coastal waters. As the scour valve discharges are intermittent discharges of highly treated wastewater into a dynamic environment I consider the proposal to be consistent with Chapter 7 of the RPS.

Chapter 9 seeks to improve the overall quality of ecosystems and addresses the sustainable management of ecosystems. As previously mentioned the Waiwhetu Stream has been identified in the RFP as being of high priority for restoration. The proposed wastewater discharges have the potential to adversely affect freshwater due to the discharge of contaminants, including nutrients, to water. I consider the proposal is not aligned with Policy 4 of Chapter 9 which seeks to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on ecosystems. Consent conditions have been recommended which require the consent holder to continue to monitor the streams water quality which may be affected by the continuation of these discharges.

Chapter 13 defines ‘waste’ resources as materials which no longer have an economic value to the person or industry which used them. The disposal of waste (solid, liquid, gaseous, hazardous and non-hazardous) can have an adverse effect on the environment in a number of ways, most notably by causing pollution. Of particular note is Policy 10 which seeks to ensure sewage is treated to a high level which is appropriate to the means of disposal so that adverse effects on human health and the quality of the ecosystems are avoided remedied or mitigated; the values and views of the relevant iwi are given due recognition; and the values and views of the appropriate communities of interest are taken into account. I consider the proposal to be consistent with the policies and objectives of Chapter 13.

Chapter 14 seeks to provide guidance on the use and development of the built environment in the Wellington region. Policies 5 and 6 recognise the importance of, and large costs associated with, providing and using infrastructure. Network utility operations generally represent a considerable physical resource in the Wellington region. These policies advise that a balance needs to be struck between using infrastructure to achieve a good return on initial investment and avoiding adverse effects on the environment. As such, I consider the proposed discharges are consistent with the objectives and policies of this chapter.

Overall, while the proposal is not consistent with two policies, on balance it is consistent with the RPS.


12.2.2 Proposed Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region The proposed RPS was notified in March 2009. The decision was released and notified in May 2010. Following this, 8 appeals were received. Since 2010, mediation has been ongoing to resolve these appeals. The mediation was successful and all parties agreed to changes with consent orders being sought from the Court to confirm these agreements. On 7 December 2012, the final consent order was received from the Court. Given this, significant weight can be placed on the policies of the proposed RPS. Full weighting will follow when the proposed RPS becomes 'fully' operative following public notification in early 2013.

The provisions in the proposed RPS must be considered pursuant to section 104(1)(b)(v) of the Act. Section 4.2 of the proposed RPS contains the relevant regulatory policies to be given particular regard when assessing and deciding on resource consent applications. I consider Policies 36, 38, 39, 48, 52 are relevant to this application.

Policy 36 seeks to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of coastal ecosystems.

Policy 38 seeks to recognise the benefits of regionally significant infrastructure.

Policy 39 seeks that water bodies are safeguarded for aquatic ecosystem purposes.

Policy 48 seeks to avoid adverse effects on matters of significance to tangata whenua.

Policy 52 seeks to provide public access to and along the coastal marine area

The proposal may not meet the above policies that seek to safeguard ecosystems all of the time. However, given the activity is related to regionally significant infrastructure that protects public health from the provision of essential services, I am satisfied the recommended consent conditions will ensure that any adverse effects of the discharge are avoided, remedied or mitigated to an acceptable.

12.2.3 Regional Coastal Plan (RCP) The RCP contains several objectives, policies and rules which are relevant to this application. This plan classifies the discharge of human sewage to the CMA (outside of an Area of Significant Conservation Value) as a discretionary activity. I have expanded only on the main objectives policies of interest in this plan.

Objectives:

4.1.6: Protection of ecosystems and natural and physical resources

4.1.7: Protection of public health

4.1.8: Maintenance and enhancement of public access along and within the CMA

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

4.1.13, 4.1.14, 4.1.15, 4.1.16: Tangata whenua values and interests

Policies:

4.2.5: Precautionary approach to activities in the CMA

4.2.10: Protection of habitats, natural and physical resources and ecosystem

10.2.1 and 10.2.2: to manage areas mapped in Appendix 7 for contact recreation and shellfish gathering purposes

10.2.3: to have regard to water quality criteria in Appendix 6 to determine if Policies 10.2.1 and 10.2.2 can be met

Policies 10.2.1 and 10.2.2 identifies the receiving waters along the eastern bays as being managed for contact recreation and shellfish gathering purposes and a 200m wide coastal strip from Camp Bay to Inconstant Point is managed for shellfish gathering purposes. Discharges to the CMA are expected to meet minimum water quality standards as outlined in section 107 of the Act and will typically occur outside the bathing season so water quality standards as outlined in Appendix 6 of the RCP will only apply for unplanned discharges. I have recommended conditions of consent requiring water quality monitoring if discharges to the CMA occur during the summer bathing season. In addition I consider the mitigation measures proposed in section 10.4 and 10.5 of this report will effectively manage the risk to public health.

Overall, I consider that, for the reasons given in Section 10 of this report and provided the recommended consent conditions are complied with, the proposal will be generally consistent with all other listed objectives and policies of the RCP.

12.2.4 Regional Freshwater Plan The RFP contains objectives, policies and rules aimed at avoiding, remedying or mitigating the potential adverse effects of the use and development of water bodies, including discharges to water. I have briefly discussed the objectives and policies of most relevance to these applications below.

Objectives:

4.1.1 – 4.1.3: the relationship of tangata whenua with fresh water and having regard to the Treaty of Waitangi

4.1.11: communities should be able to use freshwater resources to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well being and for their health and safety

4.1.12: To avoid remedy or mitigate adverse effects of the use of the water body


5.1.1 and 5.1.2: to ensure quality of freshwater is maintained to meet a range of uses and for future generations

5.1.3: to ensure quality of freshwater is consistent with the values of the tangata whenua

Policies:

4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.4, 4.2.5 and 4.2.8: which relate to avoiding, remedying and mitigating adverse effects on water bodies with special value to the tangata whenua.

4.2.23: to have regard to the benefits arising from the use of the water body

5.2.9: to manage quality of water bodies identified in Appendix 7

5.2.10: seeks to allow discharges that do not meet Policies 5.2.1 to 5.2.9 under certain circumstances

5.2.11: factors to regard when determining mixing zones

5.2.12: relates to discharges containing sewage

5.2.13: promotes discharge to land as an alternative to surface water

Tangata whenua consider that the discharge of treated or untreated human waste to freshwater is culturally inappropriate as it has an adverse effect on the mauri of freshwater. Therefore, the overflow discharges to the stream are inconsistent with objective 4.1.2 of the RFP. This is not an affect that can be easily remedied, avoided or mitigated. The applicant considers the mauri of the Waiwhetu Stream has already been compromised by historic industrial activities as well as the discharges from the wastewater overflows. The applicant cannot remedy the effects of the discharges on the mauri of the stream and they cannot avoid them as the sewer network is critical community infrastructure. However, I consider the applicant has done their best to mitigate the effects by the timing of discharges into the Waiwhetu Stream and the management strategy to reduce the number of MOP leaks and therefore associated repair work and dry weather discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream.

Policy 4.2.1 of the RFP seeks to manage sites of special value to the tangata whenua in water bodies so that the cultural values of those sites are not adversely affected. I consider the application is inconsistent with Policy 4.2.1 as the cultural values of the stream are adversely affected by the discharges.

Policy 4.2.23 requires the benefits resulting from any proposal for the use of a water body to be taken into account when assessing the proposal; as previously discussed the disposal of wastewater is of benefit to the Hutt Valley community.

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

The Waiwhetu Stream is identified in Appendix 7 as a stream with water quality that needs enhancing. Policy 5.2.9 provides for the management of water bodies listed in Appendix 7 with the purpose of improving the quality. The proposal to discharge treated wastewater in the stream may be seen in conflict with this policy. However Policy 5.2.10 allows the discharge of contaminants to freshwater which do not satisfy policies 5.2.1 to 5.2.9 if the discharge is of temporary nature or the discharge is associated with necessary maintenance works. Therefore, I consider that the applications to discharge to the Waiwhetu Stream are in accordance with Policy 5.2.10.

Policy 5.2.11 of the RFP describes the factors that should be taken into consideration when reasonable mixing zones are being determined for a discharge permit. These factors were considered when recommending the conditions for the two discharge permits [31523] (wet weather discharges) and [31528] (MOP repair discharges).

The applicant is involved in ongoing consultation with the community and iwi to meet the needs of policy 5.2.12 for wastewater discharges directly to fresh water.

Policy 5.2.13 promotes the discharge of contaminants to land versus water. The applicant has stated that due to the configuration of the existing infrastructure it is not possible to discharge treated wastewater to land as an alternative. I concur with the applicant and consider the proposed activity consistent with policy 5.2.13.

I consider that the application to discharge treated wastewater to the Waiwhetu Stream following wet weather events and during maintenance on the MOP is in general accordance with the objectives and polices of the RFP.

12.2.5 Regional Discharges to Land Plan (RDLP) The RDLP contains objectives, policies and rules aimed at avoiding, remedying or mitigating the potential adverse effects of discharging contaminants to land. I have briefly discussed the objectives and policies of most relevance to these applications below.

Objectives:

4.1.4: to significantly reduce contamination of surface water, groundwater and coastal water

4.1.5: to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of discharges from point sources onto land

Policies:

4.2.12: to consider relevant iwi management plans or statements of tangata whenua when discharging human treated wastewater to land

4.2.19: seeks to allow discharges to land where the effects would be greater if discharged to water


Temporary repairs will be made on the MOP in situations where it is appropriate to avoid the need to drain the pipeline to undertake a permanent repair. This may result in a low rate discharge to land surrounding pipeline until a permanent repair is made the following year. I consider this approach to be consistent with policy 4.2.19.

I consider the proposal to be consistent with the objectives and polices of the RDLP.

12.3 Other relevant matters 104(1)(c)

12.3.1 Other regulations Other regulations relevant which should be considered when making a decision on this application include:

The Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whânui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Act 2009

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

(a) Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whânui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Act 2009

The Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whânui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Act 2009 (the Settlement Act) gives effect to certain provisions of the deed that settles the historical claims of Taranaki Whânui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika. Statutory Acknowledgements within the deed of settlement acknowledge areas or sites with which claimant groups have a special relationship, and need to be recognised in any proceedings under the Act.

Part 2 of the Settlement Act states that the purpose of the statutory acknowledgement is to:

Require relevant consent authorities to have regard to the statutory acknowledgement

Require relevant consent authorities to forward summaries of resource consent applications to the trustees, and

Enable the trustees and any member of Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika to cite the statutory acknowledgement as evidence of the association of Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika with the relevant statutory areas

The statutory acknowledgment requires GWRC to provide a summary of any application with respect to consents that affect the Hutt River, Waiwhetu Stream and Wellington harbour to the PNBST and that they have the status of affected person.

A summary of the application was sent to PNBST on 13 January 2012. PNBST did not make a submission on the application.

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

As discussed in section 10.8 the applicant is consulting with PNBST to determine and take into consideration the tangata whenua values of the Waiwhetu Stream and Wellington harbour. I therefore consider that the proposed activity is consistent with the Settlement Act.

(b) Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 repeals the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. The Act guarantees access in, on or over the entire common marine and coastal area. The only restrictions on public access in the common marine and coastal area are the reasonable ones that already exist – for example, to working port areas or naval bases, or on recognised burial grounds. Under the Act, whānau, hapū and iwi can seek recognition and protection of longstanding customary interests. The Act also preserves and protects existing recreational fishing rights, navigation rights and all other existing uses.

The applicant has not identified any customary interests along the eastern bays of the Wellington harbour and there are no current applications for recognition agreements relating to potential customary marine titles in this area2. If there are any customary interests that may be affected by the proposed activity, I expect they will be identified and protected through the tangata wheua values monitoring programme.

In section 10 of this report I have assessed public access to be restricted when discharges are occurring via the scour valves to the CMA. There will be no physical barrier limiting public access during the discharge events; however the public will be discouraged from entering the foreshore area by discharge notification signs to protect their health.

I consider that the proposed activity is consistent with the Marine and Coastal Act.

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

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

13.1 Section 6 – Matters of National Importance In exercising its powers and functions under the Act, GWRC is required to recognise and provide for the matters of national importance listed in section 6 of the Act. I have identified the following matters to be of relevance to this application and have addressed the effects of the proposal on that basis.

2 Ministry of Justice website http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/constitutional-law-and-human-rights/marine-and-coastal-area-takutai-moana/current-marine-and-coastal-applications (checked 17 December 2012).


Section 6(a) recognises the importance of preserving the natural character of the CMA and rivers and their margins and protecting them from inappropriate use and development. Section 6(b) provides for the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate use and development. Section 6(c) provides for the protection of areas of significant habitats of indigenous fauna. Section 6(d) provides for the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the CMA. Section 6(e) provides for the relationship of Maori with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga, Section 6(f) provides for protection of heritage from inappropriate use and development and Section 6(g) provides for the recognition of customary activities.

I have concluded in Section 10 of this report that the potential adverse effects of the proposed activity on water quality and aquatic ecosystems, public health, contact recreation, odour and amenity values, flood management and cultural values can be adequately avoided or mitigated such that they are acceptable provided the recommended conditions of consent are complied with. As such, I consider the proposal will not be inconsistent with any matter of national importance as identified under section 6 of the Act.

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

Sections 10 and 12 of this report specifically address the relationship of the proposed activity to a number of these matters, namely:

(a) kaitiakitanga

(aa) the ethic of stewardship

(b) efficient use and development of natural and physical resources

(c) maintenance and enhancement of amenity values

(d) intrinsic values of ecosystems

(f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment

(g) finite characteristics of natural and physical resources

(h) The protection of habitat of trout and salmon

In relation to the matters set out in section 7, the effects of the proposed activities have been discussed in depth, and it is considered that, subject to the suggested conditions, overall the intentions of the section 7 provisions will be satisfied.

Of particular note is (b) and I consider the proposal to be consistent with this matter because the MOP has an economic life of approximately 25 years and

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

the proposal is to maintain the MOP and to increase its efficiency during this timeframe. The proposal is also considered to meet (f) because the network manages wastewater discharges to protect the environment.

I do not consider that the other matters listed in section 7 are of relevance to this application.

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

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

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

The applicant undertook consultation with local iwi prior to lodgement of the consent application. The applicant is also involved in ongoing consultation with iwi to identify and protect tangata whenua values. Taking into account recommendations made by iwi during the consent process and the forum that has been setup for ongoing consultation between iwi and the applicant to ensure all reasonable steps are undertaken to meet the aspirations of tangata whenua, I consider that the principles of consultation have been satisfied.

Furthermore, it is noted that the PNBST and Wellington Tenths Trust did not make a submission on the application.

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

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


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

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and

(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”

Section 5 of the Act provides for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in a way that allows people and communities to thrive. When assessing the relative merits and adverse effects of the application, I consider that this principle is of the utmost importance, and embodies the overall intent of the Act.

The applicant’s proposal is to discharge treated wastewater to the CMA and land or streams adjacent to the MOP and Waiwhetu Stream when the MOP is being repaired; and to discharge treated wastewater to the Waiwhetu Stream during periods of heavy rain. These discharges are necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Hutt Valley wastewater system which enables the people and community of Waiwhetu, and the wider Hutt Valley and Wainuiomata to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety.

However it must be noted that dry weather discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream (i.e. when flows are diverted from the Seaview WWTP in order to undertake maintenance on the MOP) have the potential to cause adverse environmental effects and compromise the life-supporting capacity of the Waiwhetu Stream and downstream water bodies. The adverse effects are, however, hard to quantify due to the uncertainties regarding dilution and mixing. Where possible, conditions of consent have been recommended to ensure that the adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated. In addition I have recommended conditions of consent to monitor the dilution and mixing characteristics of each discharge event, and to investigate alternative disposal options and/or additional storage and treatment upgrades at the Seaview WWTP during the five year consent term.

I consider that the proposal is generally consistent with the relevant policy documents and other relevant legislation with the exception of the RPS and the proposed RPS. Inconsistencies relate to safe-guarding the life-supporting capacity of the Waiwhetu Stream as outlined in Policy 4 and 5 in the RPS.

The Waiwhetu Stream is identified in Appendix 7 of the RFP as a stream with water quality that needs enhancing and in 2009 significant investment was made to clean up the stream. Preliminary results from an ecological survey following remediation show the stream is in a state of recovery and contaminated material was still present. The claim that discharges (related to wet weather overflows or MOP repair work) into the Waiwhetu Stream are somehow warranted because the stream is already degraded is inconsistent with Policy 5.2.9 of the RFP. However Policy 5.2.10 of the RFP allows the

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

discharge of contaminants to the Waiwhetu Stream (Appendix 7 water bodies) if the discharge is of temporary nature or the discharge is associated with necessary maintenance works.

I consider that the proposed discharges are not consistent with objective 4.1.2 and Policy 4.2.1 of the RFP as the discharges are culturally offensive and have an adverse effect on the mauri of freshwater. However, the proposed discharges are generally consistent with the objectives and policies of the RFP.

In order to maintain public health and safety I consider public notification of the above discharges to be very important. I have recommended conditions of consent that require a public notification strategy, signage and a consultation group to be established.

In making my recommendation, I have also considered sections 104, 105, 107 and 108 of the Act, and the relevant objectives and policies of the NZCPS, NPS, RPS, Proposed RPS, RCP, RFP and RDLP. Additionally, I have considered the proposal against other regulations of relevance, including Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 and The Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whânui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Act 2009.

While there are a number of adverse effects associated with the discharge, the effects are short term and associated with regionally significant infrastructure. The proposed activity will enable the applicant to undertake essential maintenance, facilitate temporary discharges associated with this maintenance and provide for temporary discharges during extreme wet weather events. In turn this will benefit the social, economic and cultural well-being of the people and communities of the Hutt Valley and Wainuiomata and provide for their health and safety by ensuring that the wastewater treatment service runs efficiently but without long term detriment to the receiving environment. In addition the consents associated with discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream will allow time to investigate a longer term solution whilst providing for social, economic and the needs of future generations.

On balance, provided that the discharges are undertaken in accordance with the recommended consent conditions, I consider that the continued intermittent discharges of treated wastewater to the Waiwhetu Stream, CMA and land or streams adjacent to the MOP are consistent with the purpose of the Act.

14. Conclusions This proposal to discharge treated wastewater to the Waiwhetu Stream and the CMA has undergone modification throughout the ‘process’ to address environmental and health concerns raised by GWRC and the submitters.

The key ‘shift’ in this process has been to a short term consent regime for the Waiwhetu Stream discharges. This is because there is a risk that discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream may adversely affect water quality and aquatic ecosystems, tangata whenua values and public health and a ‘precautionary approach’ is necessary i.e. there is currently not enough information to be certain about the effects. The recommendation for a short term consent, with


robust information gathering conditions, is the most appropriate way to reduce this uncertainty. During this five year consent term HCC are required to investigate the scale and significance of any actual and potential adverse effects on the Waiwhetu Stream whilst determining the integrity of the MOP. Of critical importance during this consent duration is HCC progressing investigations into alternative discharge options and/or increasing storage and implementing nutrient removal systems at the Seaview WWTP. It is this investigation phase that will ‘drive’ the direction of the new consent process in 2017. It is GWRC’s expectation that we will have a viable alternative on the table, and we do not expect another short term consent will be required given the robust monitoring and investigation conditions proposed. The Waiwhetu Stream has strong statutory provisions regarding its enhancement.

I do appreciate that these discharges are associated with municipal wastewater infrastructure and the costs associated with the above investigations and upgrades are significant. So, the short consent duration is appropriate for the discharges to be allowed to continue in the short term until an alternative disposal option and/or the effects are known and a long term management option is before us.

In terms of the CMA discharges from scour valves - I consider the environmental effects of these discharges are relatively minor given the short duration and timing of the discharges. Hence the recommended duration of just under 20 years.

In making my recommendation on this application, I have considered the actual and potential effects on the environment of the activities, matters raised by the review of technical reports, the concerns raised by submitters, the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, the matters of Part 2 and other relevant sections of the Act and the relevant planning provisions.

I consider that the recommended set of conditions will ensure the adverse effects of the proposal are avoided or mitigated to an acceptable level and that the correct information is collected during the consent term to answer the ‘effects’ questions in 2017.

Key monitoring and reporting conditions recommended are:

CMA discharges:

Summer bathing season water quality monitoring

Tangata whenua values monitoring

Site specific repair plans for temporary/minor leaks

Public notification of discharge events

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Waiwhetu Stream discharges:

Discharge volume and quality compared to the stream flow rate and quality downstream/upstream of the discharge point

Photographs of receiving environment at the reasonable mixing zone boundary;

Tangata whenua values monitoring

Shellfish quality survey

Public notification of discharge events

Investigations into options to improve the current system to reduce the adverse effect on the receiving environment. In particular, alternative discharge locations, increased storage and nutrient at the Seaview WWTP

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

The applicant requested a duration of 20 years for the consents relating to discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream in their application. However, following consultation with submitters, the applicant has agreed to a duration of 5 years for consent [31523] and [31528].

I consider that a duration of 5 years for the above consents pursuant to section 123(d) of the Act is appropriate as it will allow the applicant to time to undertake necessary works to check the condition of the MOP, and investigate alternative discharge locations/storage and treatment plant upgrades and the effect of discharges in the Waiwhetu Stream.

I recommend a duration of approximately 19 years to expire on 25 August 2031 for the consent relating to scour valve discharges to the CMA [31524] and the associated land use consent [31740] to aligns with the expiry of the consent to discharge from the MOP at Pencarrow Head being 25 August 2031 and pursuant to section 123(d) of the Act. I note that when consents [31523] and [31528] expire, consent [31524] will not be able to be exercised as the discharge is limited to draining the pipeline and relies on the diversion of wastewater from Seaview WWTP to the Waiwhetu Stream.


Attachment 1 WGN120142 [31523]

To temporarily discharge treated wastewater to the Waiwhetu Stream during and/or immediately after heavy rain events when flows exceed the capacity of the main sewerage outfall pipeline and the storm tank system is fully utilised.

General conditions 1. The consent holder shall operate the proposed discharge in general accordance

with the consent application and associated documents lodged with the Wellington Regional Council on 8 December 2011 and further information received on:

12 January 2012 (addendum letter including Form 9) 2 March 2012 (further information on treated wastewater discharge

quality, frequency of discharges and AEE) 7 May 2012 (response to issues raised at pre-hearing meeting 1 including

timeframes for future investigations and AEE) 25 June 2012 (response to issues raised at pre-hearing meeting 2 including

further detail on future investigations) 27 July 2012 (further information on predicted effects of wastewater

discharges), and 22 August 2012 (investigations timetable)

In the event of any inconsistencies between the application and further

information provided by the applicant, the most recent information applies. In the event of any inconsistencies between information provided by the applicant and conditions of the consent, the conditions apply.

Note 1: Any change from the location, design concepts and/or operation from

those outlined above, may require a change in consent conditions pursuant to Section 127 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Operational conditions 2. The consent holder shall ensure that only secondary treated and UV disinfected

wastewater is discharged to the Waiwhetu Stream via the Seaview wastewater treatment plant outfall (at approximate map reference NZTM: 1759405.5433209) when flows exceed the capacity of the main outfall pipeline (1520 L/s) and the storm tank is fully utilised.

3. The consent holder shall provide a copy of this consent certificate to all

contractors undertaking repair work or carrying out monitoring required by this consent, prior to repairs or monitoring commencing.

Note: It is recommended that contractors be verbally briefed on the

requirements of the conditions of this consent prior to commencing any repair work or monitoring.

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Notification conditions 4. The consent holder shall establish a consultation group by 1 March 2013 or

within a longer timeframe approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. As a minimum the group shall be made up of those individuals/community groups that submitted on this consent who wish to participate and interested persons put forward by those submitters who wish to participate.

The function of the consultation group is to provide:

Comment on the Public Notification Strategy required by condition 5 of this consent

Comment on the Overflow Contingency Plan required by condition 22 of this consent

Comment on the option assessment report required by condition 26 of this consent directly to Wellington Regional Council, and

Be a line of communication between the consent holder, the submitters and the wider community for the duration of the consent

The consent holder shall notify the Manager, Environmental Regulation,

Wellington Regional Council of the establishment of the consultation group by 1 March 2013.

Note 1: The consultation group is considered "established" when the consent

holder has collated contact details for all submitters/interested persons joining the group, and the group has been provided with a plan of how the consultation process will be facilitated.

Note 2: The consultation group is not a decision making group, but is a forum

for the dissemination of information from the consent holder and provides and opportunity for the group to comment on consent compliance and the development of specific plans.

Note 3: The consultation group is expected to provide comments to the consent

holder within two weeks of being sent information/plans to review. Note 4: The need for and the frequency of the meetings shall be determined by

the consultation group following the receipt of the reports/plans received in accordance with this condition.

5. The consent holder shall develop a Public Notification Strategy in consultation

with Regional Public Health and the consultation group required by condition 4 of this consent. The Strategy shall include but not be limited to:

Methods for warning the general public, and targeted groups within the

community of the risks associated with water contact recreational activities and seafood (including shellfish) gathering during the discharges, and

Notification requirements following water quality monitoring


The Strategy shall be submitted to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council for approval by 1 May 2013, or within a longer timeframe approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. The consent holder shall operate in accordance with the Public Notification Strategy at all times.

Note: The Public Notification Strategy document can be combined with the

Main Outfall Pipeline Contingency Plan. 6. Within 8 hours of any discharge commencing, the consent holder shall notify

the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council at [email protected] and Regional Public Health at [email protected] of the following:

Location of the discharge Consent reference WGN120142 [31523] Start date and time of the discharge Cause of the discharge, and Name and phone number of a contact person for further information

7. Within two working days of the discharge stopping, the consent holder shall

submit details of each discharge event in a suitable electronic format to Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council at [email protected] and Regional Public Health at [email protected].

Details shall include but not be limited to:

Consent reference WGN120142 [31523] Cause of the discharge Location of the discharge Start date and time of the discharge End date and time of the discharge Maximum flow (L/s) of the discharge Mean flow (L/s) of the discharge Daily volume (m3) of the discharge Contact person for further information regarding the discharge Continuous flow records (m3/s) during the discharge period as measured

by the consent holder as required by condition 10 Rainfall in the catchment during the discharge period (mm) (if available)

Note: Local rainfall data (Hutt at Birch Lane monitoring site) can be

downloaded from the Greater Wellington website http://graphs.gw.govt.nz/rainfall-2/

8. On the day of the commencement of the discharge the consent holder shall

ensure that lockable folding signs are installed and maintained at the locations listed below to indicate a health warning and advise that the immediate area has been recently polluted by treated wastewater. The signs shall remain in

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

place for a minimum of 48hours after the cessation of the discharge. The content, location and duration of the signage shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.

Note 1: A draft version of the notification sign shall be submitted to the

Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council for approval prior to being installed.

Sign locations:

Seaview Road bridge (at the walkway entrance at or about map reference NZTM: 1759639.5433386, and

Port Road bridge (approximately 40m south of the bridge or about map reference 1759327.5433073)

Note 2: the Port Road bridge sign is to be relocated from its current location

beside the bridge to a parking area approximately 40m south of the bridge. Monitoring conditions 9. The consent holder shall monitor the flow rate, duration and total volume of all

overflows discharged from the treatment plant into the Waiwhetu Stream and shall report the results to Wellington Regional Council in accordance with condition 25 of this consent, or upon request.

The flow monitoring devices shall be capable of measuring wastewater flows

of magnitudes up to and beyond peak instantaneous flow rates, and calibrated and maintained to ensure that the measurement error is no more than +/- 10%.

10. The consent holder shall install, commission and operate a flow sensor as close

as practicable to the discharge point in the Waiwhetu Stream by 1 August 2013 to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council that is capable of continuously monitoring and logging flow in the stream during a discharge event.

Note: It is recommended that the design, specification and operation of the

flow sensor are discussed with Greater Wellington Flood Protection and Environmental Monitoring and Investigation Departments prior to installation.

11. The consent holder shall take a grab sample of treated wastewater as it leaves

the treatment plant prior to entering the overflow pipe each day that a discharge occurs for more than one hour. The samples shall be analysed for parameters specified in condition 14.

12. Each day a discharge occurs and one day after the cease of a discharge the

consent holder shall take representative grab samples of Waiwhetu Stream water at two levels in the water column, namely 0-5 centimetres and 15 centimetres below the surface. The samples shall be collected from the true left bank of the Waiwhetu Stream at locations specified in Table 1.1:


Table 1.1 Water quality monitoring locations Site NZTM

Easting Northing

Immediately upstream of the Port Road Bridge 1759345 5433136

Adjacent to the Waiwhetu Pa site and downstream of the public walkway

1759539 5433352

Immediately downstream of the Bell Road Bridge 1760431 5433523

The consent holder shall record the date, time (NZ standard time), weather (in

particular wind direction and strength) and tidal conditions (low/medium/high and ebb/flood tide) at the stream mouth when the samples are taken. Where practicable, the sampling should be undertaken at least three hours after any ebb tide starts.

The samples shall be analysed for parameters specified in condition 14. Note: This condition does not apply to overflows with a duration of less than

one hour. 13. All sampling techniques employed in respect of the conditions of this consent

shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environment Regulation, Wellington Regional Council and undertaken by suitably trained and experienced persons. All water analyses undertaken in connection with this consent shall be performed by an International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) registered laboratory or otherwise as specifically approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.

Note: The consent holder shall consider the New Zealand Municipal

Wastewater Monitoring Guidelines (2002) when preparing for the monitoring programme required by this consent and include any additional monitoring recommended in these guidelines.

14. The samples collected in accordance with conditions 11 and 12 shall be

analysed for:

Faecal coliforms (cfu/100 mL) Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD5) (g/m3) Escherichia coli (no./100mL) Enterococci (no./100mL) Dissolved reactive phosphorus (g/m3) Ammoniacal nitrogen (g/m3) Nitrate nitrogen (g/m3), and Nitrite nitrogen (g/m3)

In addition, on each sampling occasion at the three locations along the

Waiwhetu Stream as described in condition 12 the consent holder shall ensure the following in-situ measurements are recorded:

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Water temperature pH Salinity, and Dissolved oxygen.

An assessment of the above results shall be provided in the annual report

required by condition 25. Copies of the water quality monitoring results shall be provided in both electronic and hardcopy format to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council upon request.

15.a) The discharge shall not result in any of the following effects on the water of the

Waiwhetu Stream beyond the reasonable mixing zone boundary defined as 100m downstream of the Waiwhetu Stream outfall (i.e. immediately upstream of Port Road Bridge) and 100m upstream the Waiwhetu Stream outfall (i.e. adjacent to Lot 2 DP 421395):

1) The production of any conspicuous oil or grease or grease films,

scums or foams or floatable or suspended materials, or 2) Any conspicuous change in colour or clarity 3) Any emission of objectionable odour, or 4) Any significant adverse effects on aquatic life b) During each sampling event required by condition 12, the consent holder shall

take photographs of the point of discharge and immediate receiving waters around the point of discharge to show the presence of any of effects (1-4) listed in condition 15 (a) and any obvious undesirable biological growths or visible die-offs.

The consent holder shall forward to the Manager, Environmental Regulation,

Wellington Regional Council a copy of the photographs in the annual report required by condition 25 of this consent or upon request.

Complaints register 16. The consent holder shall keep a record of any complaints received. The record

shall contain the following details, where practicable:

Name and address of complainant (if provided) Identification of the nature of the complaint Date and time of the complaint and of the alleged event Weather conditions at the time of the alleged event, and Any measures taken to address the cause of the complaint


Wellington Regional Council of any complaints relating to the exercise of this consent, within 24 hours of being received by the consent holder or the next working day.


Notification can be sent to the Manager, Environmental Regulation,

Wellington Regional Council at [email protected]. Please include the consent reference WGN120142 [31523] and the name and phone number of a contact person responsible for the discharge. The consent holder shall forward to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council a copy of the complaints record, in the annual report required by condition 25 of this consent.

Tangata whenua values monitoring conditions 17. The consent holder shall engage a suitable person to assist them with the

development of the Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring Plan (TWVMP) and the consultation with Iwi, and monitoring. The scale of the plan shall reflect the scale and nature of the discharges authorised by this consent (i.e. water body scale) and shall be in accordance with the Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring Scope developed by Wellington Regional Council.

18. The consent holder shall submit a TWVMP to the Manager, Environmental

Regulation, Wellington Regional Council by 1 February 2014, or within a longer timeframe approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.

The TWVMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

Identify the cultural health indicators to be monitored Identify any sites of significance (e.g. Marae, Urupa, traditional kai

gathering sites etc) and monitoring to be undertaken at these sites A map of all monitoring sites, and sites of significance The monitoring methodology The frequency of monitoring Timeframe for undertaking the baseline monitoring, and Any other relevant information

The TWVMP shall be developed in general accordance with the Ministry for

the Environment’s ‘Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways, 2006’ or any other guideline, as appropriate.

The TWVMP shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental

Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. A copy of the TWVMP shall be provided to Te Runanganui o Taranaki

Whanui ki te Upoko o te Ika Maui, Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust and the Wellington Regional Council.

19. Upon notification from the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington

Regional Council that the most recent TWVMP is acceptable, the consent holder shall implement the plan.

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

20. The results of the monitoring required by the TWVMP, shall be reported to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, on an annual basis, by 1 August, once the TWVMP has been approved. The assessment of the monitoring results shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified person that is to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.

The TWVM report shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

The results of all monitoring undertaken under the TWVMP A discussion of the likely impact the discharges are having/had on the

cultural values of the waterbody including cumulative effects, if possible A comparison of the results with any previous monitoring undertaken in

accordance with the TWVMP Any recommendations for changes to the TWVMP (e.g. indicator species,

monitoring sites), and why Any recommendations for mitigation and minimising the impact of the

discharges on cultural values of the waterbody, if possible Copies of any comments on the monitoring results that have been received

from the organisations included in condition 18, and Any other relevant information

The report shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental

Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. A copy of the TWVM report shall be provided to Te Runanganui o Taranaki


21. Upon review of the TWVM report, the consent holder can update the TWVMP

or the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, can request the TWVMP be updated to include any changes or additions considered necessary to provide an adequate understanding of the effects of the discharge.

Any amended TWVMP shall be submitted to and be to the satisfaction of the

Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. Overflow contingency plan 22. The consent holder shall prepare an Overflow Contingency Plan (OCP) which

outlines procedures that will be adopted during an overflow discharge event. The OCP shall be prepared in consultation with the Regional Public Health and the consultation group required by condition 4 of this consent and submitted to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council for approval by 1 May 2013 of the commencement of this consent, or within a longer timeframe approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council . The OCP shall include the following:


Procedures the consent holder will adopt during and following an overflow event to ensure that the potential adverse effects of the discharge are minimised as much as practicable

Procedures for the notification ( including signage) of any overflows Procedures for recording and reporting the flow rate, duration, total

volume of each overflow event and water quality monitoring as required by conditions 9 and 12

Procedures to ensure that the conditions of this consent are complied with at all times during and following an overflow event

The consent holder shall operate the discharge in accordance with this OCP at

all times. The OCP shall be to the satisfaction the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.

Note: the Overflow Contingency Plan document can be combined with the

Public Notification Strategy. Investigations 23. The consent holder shall investigate and implement ways and means of

reducing stormwater infiltration and inflow (I&I) into the sewerage system with the aim of minimising overflow discharges. Investigations shall include but not be limited to:

CCTV and pressure testing monitoring to identify faulty mains requiring

replacement, and Flow monitoring and system assessment to identify the sources of inflow

and infiltration, system performance and options to reduce the infiltration and inflow

The investigations and works undertaken to reduce I&I shall be reported on in

the annual report required by condition 25. 24. Within six months of the granting of this consent the consent holder shall

commence a detailed investigation into options that reduce the frequency of overflows, and/or reduce any adverse effect of the overflow discharges on the receiving environment. These investigations shall continue for the duration of the consent and be completed by 1 August 2017.

Investigations shall include but not be limited to:

Increasing storage capacity at Seaview Wastewater Treatment Plant to retain a higher proportion of flows in excess of the main outfall pipeline capacity

Alternative discharge options to the Waiwhetu Stream outfall as outlined in MWH report following the pre-hearing meeting on 14 May 2012 (dated June2012)

Constructing a new pumped overflow extended 4500m off Barnes Street into Wellington harbour

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Upgrades to the treatment plant to provide biological nutrient removal, specifically to reduce ammoniacal nitrogen concentrations in the discharge, and

Background contaminant levels in the Waiwhetu Stream water, and A comprehensive assessment of environmental effects for proposed

upgrade options including plume dispersion studies for the current and any proposed disposal location(s). Plume dispersion studies shall include computer modelling and be validated by field data (e.g. using drogues, dyes, meters). The assessment shall consider biodiversity, values and usage within the plume area

Findings from the investigations above shall be reported in the reports required

by conditions 25 and 26. Annual reporting 25. The consent holder shall prepare and submit a comprehensive annual report to

the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, Regional Public Health and members of the consultation group as required by condition 4 of this consent by 1 August each year (covering the year 1 July to 30 June). The annual report shall include as a minimum:

A summary of overflow events (including dates, volume discharged,

duration and cause) A summary of consultation group involvement The flow monitoring results (carried out under conditions 9 and 10 of this

consent) The treated wastewater and water quality monitoring results (carried out

under conditions 11 and 12 of this consent) A critical evaluation by an appropriately qualified and experienced

scientist of the previous years monitoring results, in particular the environmental effects of each overflow discharge event. This evaluation shall utilise the treated wastewater and stream water quality and flow monitoring data for each overflow event comparing the data against relevant environmental guidelines

Photographs from the visual inspections undertaken under condition 15(b) of this consent

Complaints record as required by condition 16 Summary of I&I investigations, and works undertaken to reduce I&I into

the sewerage network as required by condition 23 Summary of investigations undertaken, a list of investigations scheduled

for the upcoming year (required by condition 24), and timeframes for implementation of any upgrades and/or consent applications, and

Any other matters the consent holder considers relevant The report shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental

Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.


Options assessment report 26. The consent holder shall submit an options assessment report to the Manager,

Environmental Regulation Wellington Regional Council and the consultation group as required by condition 4 of this consent by 1 August 2017. The report shall comprehensively describe the investigations undertaken as required by condition 24, potential upgrade options and a preferred option (including timeframes for implementation) that reduces the frequency overflows, and/or reduces any adverse effects of the overflow discharges on the receiving environment.

The assessment report details and level of analysis shall be to the satisfaction

of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. Note 1: It is intended that this report will present detail on the options

assessment to the Wellington Regional Council and the consultation group prior to lodging a new application for resource consent for the activity. There is no approval process associated with the submission of the options report. Any decisions on future discharges will be made during the subsequent resource consent process.

Note 2: The consultation group may provide feedback on the options

assessment report directly to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.

Review condition 27. The Wellington Regional Council may review any or all conditions of this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

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

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

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

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



To temporarily discharge treated wastewater to the coastal marine area, and onto land where it may enter streams or the coastal marine area from: Planned repairs Unplanned repairs Leaks associated with temporary repairs, and Minor leaks in relation to main outfall pipeline from Seaview Wastewater Treatment Plant to Pencarrow Head. Definitions Planned repairs – are pipeline repairs carried out between 5 May and 5 July each

year Unplanned repairs – are pipeline repairs that cannot be deferred to the planned

repair period the following year due to the extent of the discharge and/or its associated effects

Temporary repairs – are repairs that will significantly reduce a leak on the pipeline but after these repairs have been carried out there may be an ongoing minor leak until a permanent repair is made the following year within the planned repair period. The purpose of temporary repairs is to avoid the more disruptive process of draining the pipeline to undertake a permanent repair outside the planned repair period. Temporary repairs are to be undertaken where the ongoing leak is not likely to have any adverse effect on recreational use or shellfish gathering activities

Minor leaks – are small leaks resulting in damp ground, a small puddle adjacent to the pipeline or low rate discharge to a nearby stormwater drain or stream. Minor leaks exclude direct discharges to the waters of the Wellington Harbour

Commencement of a discharge – is the first day a scour valve is used to drain treated wastewater from the main outfall pipeline to undertake repair work. Typically, discharges associated with planned and unplanned repairs will take less than three consecutive days. However if stormwater/groundwater seeps into the pipe via open manholes or pressure lids while a repair is undertaken the scour valve will need to be reopened to drain the pipeline. The subsequent discharge during the same repair ‘event’ is not considered a separate discharge event

General condition 1. The consent holder shall operate the proposed discharge in general accordance


12 January 2012 (addendum letter including Form 9) 2 March 2012 (further information timeframes for upgrades, repair

strategies and AEE) 7 May 2012 (response to issues raised at pre-hearing meeting 1 and AEE)

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

25 June 2012 (response to issues raised at pre-hearing meeting 2 including further detail on future investigations)

27 July 2012 (further information on predicted effects of wastewater discharges), and

22 August 2012 (investigations timetable) In the event of any inconsistencies between the application and further




General operational condtions 2. The consent holder shall ensure that only secondary treated and UV disinfected

wastewater is discharged from the main outfall pipeline from repairs and leaks authorised under this consent.


contractors undertaking repair work or carrying out monitoring required by this consent, prior repairs or monitoring commencing.



Planned/unplanned repair operational conditions 4. The consent holder shall ensure that discharges associated with planned and

unplanned repairs authorised by this consent do not exceed three days per repair event.

5. The consent holder shall ensure planned repair work is undertaken between 5

May and 5 July each year to avoid discharges to the coastal marine area during open scallop season.

Note: At the time the consent was granted the open scallop season was 15 July

to 14 February. The above planned repair timeframe ensures a 10 day depuration period for shellfish.

6. The consent holder shall ensure that steps such as the excavation of trenches

beneath the scour valves are taken to minimise ponding beneath scour valves and to ensure that so far as practicable treated wastewater drains freely to the Wellington Harbour.

Note: Consent WGN120142 [31740] authorises temporary channels to be

excavated to create a preferential flow path from the scour valve to the sea.


Temporary repair operational conditions 7. The consent holder shall ensure that leaks associated with temporary repairs

and minor leaks are permanently repaired within 12 months of being identified, and within a planned repair period defined in condition 5.

8. If the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council

determines that a minor leak or leak associated with a temporary repair is having a significant adverse effect; the consent holder shall undertake a permanent repair within 14 days, or a longer timeframe in agreement with the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.

Pipeline upgrade 9. A new pipeline connection between the Seaview to Eastbourne section of the

main outfall pipeline to allow a portable pump to drain the pipeline back to scour valve 2 shall be constructed and commissioned by 30 June 2013.

Note: This upgrade is to reduce the need to drain the pipeline to the urban area

of the Eastern Bays (via scour valves 3 to 9) and also significantly decrease the time to drain pipeline for repairs in that section by at least 24 hours.

General notification condition 10. The consent holder shall establish a consultation group by 1 March 2013 or








Note 1: The consultation group is considered "established" when the consent

holder has collated contact details for all submitters/interested persons joining the group, and the group has been provided with a plan of how the consultation process will be facilitated.

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Note 2: The consultation group is not a decision making group, but is a forum for the dissemination of information from the consent holder and provides and opportunity for the group to comment on consent compliance and the development of specific plans.






The notification requirements for each type of discharge i.e. discharges

associated with planned, unplanned, temporary repairs and minor leaks Criteria to determine whether a notification sign is required (e.g. for minor

leaks) Methods for warning the general public, and targeted groups within the


Notification requirements following water quality monitoring The Strategy shall be submitted to the Manager, Environmental Regulation,

Wellington Regional Council for approval by 1 May 2013 or within a longer timeframe approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. The consent holder shall operate in accordance with the Public Notification Strategy at all times.


Main Outfall Pipeline Contingency Plan. Planned/unplanned repair notification conditions 12. The consent holder shall notify the Manager, Environmental Regulation,

Wellington Regional Council at [email protected] and [email protected] and Regional Public Health at [email protected] 48 hours in advance (where practicable) of any planned/unplanned repair work commencing, or no later than eight hours after commencement of a discharge associated with unplanned repairs. Notification is to include:

The consent reference WGN120142 [31524] A name and phone number of a contact person for further information

13. On the day of the commencement of the discharge the consent holder shall

ensure that notification signs are installed and maintained as close as practicable to the scour valve discharge location to indicate a health warning


and advise that the immediate area has been recently polluted by treated wastewater. The signs shall remain in place for a minimum of 10 days after the cessation of the discharge. The content, location and duration of the signage shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.

Note: A draft version of the notification sign shall be submitted to the


14. The consent holder shall notify the Manager, Environmental Regulation,

Wellington Regional Council at [email protected] of the number of the scour valve(s) (i.e. scour valve 1-15) used to drain the pipeline and provide a description of the immediate receiving environment (e.g. discharge direct to water or across foreshore) within 24 hours of the discharge commencing.

Temporary repair/minor leak notification conditions 15. The consent holder shall notify the Manager, Environmental Regulation,

Wellington Regional Council at [email protected] and [email protected] and Regional Public Health at [email protected] within 8 hours of a leak being identified. Notification is to include the consent reference WGN120142 [31524] location of the leak (NZTM coordinates) and a name and phone number of a contact person for further information.

Repair plan for temporary repairs/minor leaks 16. A site specific Repair Plan shall be submitted to the Manager, Environmental

Regulation, Wellington Regional Council within 7 days of a leak being identified and shall include but not be limited to the following information:

Map reference (NZTM coordinates) of the pipeline leak Photograph showing the pipeline leak and associated discharge Estimated flow rate of the discharge (L/s) Confirmation on whether a temporary repair is to be made Discharge duration estimate (i.e. number of days/months until the pipeline

is repaired permananently) Mitigation measures to reduce potential risk to public health (e.g. bunding,

signage) The Plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental

Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. Monitoring conditions 17.a) Discharges associated with planned or unplanned repairs shall not result in any

of the following effects on the water of the Wellington Harbour beyond 30m radius of each scour valve:

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

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

2) Any conspicuous change in colour or clarity; or 3) Any emission of objectionable odour; or 4) Any significant adverse effects on aquatic life

b) During a scour valve discharge, the consent holder shall take photographs of a

scour valve and immediate receiving waters around the point of discharge to show the presence of effects (1-4) listed in condition 17 (a) and any obvious undesirable biological growths or visible die-offs.

The consent holder shall identify and take photographs of a control site for

comparison. This control site shall be at least 100m from any stormwater or stream outfall.


Wellington Regional Council a copy of the photographs in the annual report required by condition 30 of this consent.

18. Pipeline leaks associated with a temporary repair and/or minor leaks that enter

any water shall not result in any of the following effects on the waters of the Wellington Harbour beyond a 10m radius of each discharge point:

The production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams, or

floatable or suspended materials, or Any conspicuous change in colour or clarity, or Any emission of objectionable odour, or Any significant adverse effects on aquatic life

19. During the summer bathing season (1 November to 30 April inclusive) the

consent holder shall collect daily water samples 30m either side of a scour valve discharging to the sea. Samples shall continue to be collected for two days following the cease of the discharge or to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.

Samples shall be collected at 0-5 centimetres and 15 centimetres below the

surface of the water. The samples shall be analysed for faecal coliform and enterococci bacteria.

The consent holder shall record the date, time (NZ standard time), weather (in

particular wind direction and strength), tidal conditions (low/medium/high) and location the samples are taken.

Note 1: This monitoring is required to allow actions to be taken during the

summer bathing season if the results don’t meet Microbiological Water Quality Guidelines for Marine and Freshwater Recreational Areas (June 2003), including the possible requirement to close beaches. Note that no single water


sample should contain greater than 140 enterococci/100 mL to meet these water quality guidelines.

20. The results of the sampling undertaken in accordance with condition 19 shall

be shall be emailed to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council at [email protected] and [email protected], and Regional Public Health at [email protected] and within 36 hours of the sample being taken to allow action to be taken if necessary.

Note: The laboratory can email the results directly to Greater Wellington and

Regional Public Health. 21. All sampling techniques employed in respect of the conditions of this consent

shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environment Regulation, Wellington Regional Council and undertaken by a suitably trained and experienced persons. All water analyses undertaken in connection with this consent shall be performed by an International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) registered laboratory or otherwise as specifically approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.





Name and address of complainant (if provided) Identification of the nature of the complaint Date and time of the complaint and of the alleged event Weather and tidal conditions at the time of the alleged event, and Any measures taken to address the cause of the complaint




Wellington Regional Council at [email protected]. Please include the consent reference WGN120142[31524] and the name and phone number of a contact person responsible for the discharge.


Wellington Regional Council a copy of the complaints record, in the annual report required by condition 30 of this consent.

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring 23. The consent holder shall engage a suitable person to assist them with the

development of the Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring Plan (TWVMP) and the consultation with Iwi, and monitoring. The scale of the plan shall reflect the scale and nature of the discharges authorised by this consent (i.e. waterbody scale) and shall be in accordance with the Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring Scope developed by Wellington Regional Council.





gathering sites etc) and monitoring to be undertaken at these sites A map of all monitoring sites, and sites of significance The monitoring methodology The frequency of monitoring Timeframe for undertaking the baseline monitoring Any other relevant information








26. The results of the monitoring required by the TWVMP, shall be reported to the

Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, on an annual basis, by 1 August, once the TWVMP has been approved. The assessment of the monitoring results shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified person that is to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.


The results of all monitoring undertaken under the TWVMP


A discussion of the likely impact the discharges are having/had on the cultural values of the waterbody including cumulative effects, if possible

A comparison of the results with any previous monitoring undertaken in accordance with the TWVMP

Any recommendations for changes to the TWVMP (e.g. indicator species, monitoring sites), and why

Any recommendations for mitigation and minimising the impact of the discharges on cultural values of the waterbody, if possible

Copies of any comments on the monitoring results that have been received from the organisations included in condition 24, and

Any other relevant information The report shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental





Any amended TWVMP shall be submitted to and be to the satisfaction of the

Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. Investigations 28. The consent holder shall investigate options to reduce the frequency of pipeline

leaks, and/or reduce any adverse effect of the pipeline leak discharge on the receiving environment. These investigations shall continue for the duration of the consent or a shorter timeframe to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.


A structural condition assessment of the integrity of the pre-stressing wires of the pipe sections of the main outfall pipeline

Full or part replacement of the main outfall pipeline as described in MWH report following the pre-hearing meeting on 14 May 2012 (dated June 2012)

Upgrades to the treatment plant to provide biological nutrient removal, specifically to reduce ammoniacal nitrogen concentrations in the discharge


by condition 30.

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Main outfall pipeline contingency plan 29. The consent holder shall update the Main Outfall Pipeline Contingency Plan

(MOPCP) to outline procedures that will be adopted when a leak is discovered and pipeline is under repair. The MOPCP shall be prepared in consultation with the Regional Public Health and the consultation group required by condition 10 of this consent, and submitted to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council for approval by 1 May 2013, or within a longer timeframe approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. The MOPCP shall include but not be limited to:

Procedures the consent holder will adopt following the identification of a

leak to ensure that the potential adverse effects of the discharge are minimised as much as practicable

Procedures for water quality monitoring and reporting (required by condition 19)

Procedures for the notification (including signage) of any discharges Procedures for operating the portable pump to drain the pipeline back to

scour valve 2 (required by condition 9) The consent holder shall operate the discharge in accordance with this MOPCP

at all times. Note: The Main Outfall Pipeline Contingency Plan document can be combined

with the Public Notification Strategy. Annual reporting 30. The consent holder shall prepare and submit a comprehensive annual report to

the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council and Regional Public Health and members of the consultation group as required by condition 10 of this consent by 1 August each year (covering the year 1 July to 30 June). The annual report shall include as a minimum:

A detailed summary of repairs undertaken on the pipeline in the last twelve

months (i.e. planned and unplanned repair work) including detail on the length and location of repairs and any associated monitoring

Repair work planned for the upcoming year The condition of temporary repairs made on the pipeline and programme

for permanent repair A critical evaluation by an appropriately qualified and experienced

scientist of the previous years monitoring results, in particular the environmental effects of each discharge event. This evaluation shall utilise the treated wastewater and water quality data, comparing the data against relevant environmental guidelines

Summary of consultation group involvement Photographs of scour valves (required by condition 17 (b)) accompanied

by field observations or comments as appropriate The complaints record (required by condition 22)


Summary of investigations undertaken, a list of investigations scheduled for the upcoming year (required by condition 28), and timeframes for implementation of any upgrades and/or consent applications, and


Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. Review condition 31. The Wellington Regional Council may review any or all conditions of this




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








OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1


To temporarily discharge treated wastewater from the Seaview Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Waiwhetu Stream when the main outfall pipeline is being repaired. Definitions Planned repairs – is pipeline repair work carried out between 5 May and 5 July each

year. Unplanned repairs – are pipeline repairs that cannot be deferred to the planned

repair period the following year due to the extent of the discharge and its associated effects.

Treatment plant – Seaview Wastewater Treatment Plant General conditions 1. The consent holder shall operate the proposed discharge in general accordance


12 January 2012 (addendum letter including Form 9) 2 March 2012 (further information on treated wastewater discharge

quality, frequency of discharges and AEE) 7 May 2012 (response to issues raised at pre-hearing meeting 1 including

timeframes for future investigations and AEE) 25 June 2012 (response to issues raised at pre-hearing meeting 2 including

detail on future alternative discharge options) 27 July 2012 (further information on predicted effects of treated

wastewater discharges), and 22 August 2012 (investigations timetable)





Operational conditions 2. The consent holder shall ensure that only secondary treated and UV disinfected

wastewater is discharged to the Waiwhetu Stream when the main outfall pipeline is being repaired.


contractors undertaking repair work or carrying out monitoring required by this consent, prior to repairs or monitoring commencing.




4. The consent holder shall ensure that discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream

associated with planned repairs on the main outfall pipeline are limited to the period 5 May and 5 July each year and for a maximum period of six weeks.

5. The consent holder shall ensure that discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream

associated with unplanned repairs on the main outfall pipeline occur for the shortest time possible and a maximum period of 2 weeks per event.

6. The consent holder shall manage the discharge to the Waiwhetu Stream such

that treated wastewater is discharged on the ebb tide as far as practicable. The discharge regime shall incorporate the following aspects whenever possible:

Treated wastewater shall be diverted into the 5000m3 storm tank at the

treatment plant during each flood tide, and Stored wastewater shall then be released over a five hour period during the

ebb tide beginning approximately 30 minutes after the high tide as measured at the Waiwhetu Stream outfall

Note: The normal function of the storm tank is for buffering wet weather flows

and this function shall take precedence over the above condition. Notification conditions 7. The consent holder shall establish a consultation group by 1 March 2013 or





Comment on the option assessment report required by condition 34 of this consent directly to Wellington Regional Council, and




OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Note 1: The consultation group is considered "established" when the consent holder has collated contact details for all submitters/interested persons joining the group, and the group has been provided with a plan of how the consultation process will be facilitated.

Note 2: The consultation group is not a decision making group, but is a forum

for the dissemination of information from the consent holder and provides and opportunity for the group to comment on consent compliance and the development of specific plans.






The notification requirements for each type of discharge i.e. discharges

associated with planned, unplanned repairs Methods for warning the general public, and targeted groups within the


Notification requirements following water quality monitoring, and Notification requirements following review of the shellfish quality survey

results The Strategy shall be submitted to the Manager, Environmental Regulation,

Wellington Regional Council for approval by 1 May 2013, or within a longer timeframe approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. The consent holder shall operate in accordance with the Public Notification Strategy at all times.


Main Outfall Pipeline Contingency Plan. 9. On the day of the commencement of the discharge the consent holder shall

ensure that lockable folding signs are installed and maintained at the locations listed below to indicate a health warning and advise that the immediate area has been recently polluted by treated wastewater. The signs shall remain in place for a minimum of 48hours after the cessation of the discharge. The content, location and duration of the signage shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.

Note 1: A draft version of the notification sign shall be submitted to the



Sign locations:

Seaview Road bridge (at the walkway entrance at or about map reference NZTM: 1759639.5433386

Port Road bridge (at or about map reference NZTM: 1759327.5433073) At the end of the culdasac off Marine Parade adjacent to beach track (at or

about map reference NZTM: 1758655.5433480), and Small beach beside the marina and Port Road (at or about map reference

NZTM: 1759264.5432094) Note 2: the Port Road bridge sign is to be relocated from its current location

beside the bridge to a parking area approximately 40m south of the bridge.

10. The consent holder shall notify the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council at [email protected] and [email protected] and Regional Public Health at [email protected] 48 hours in advance (where practicable) of any planned/unplanned repair work commencing, or no later than eight hours after commencement of a discharge associated with unplanned repairs. Notification is to include the consent reference WGN120142 [31528] and a name and phone number of a contact person for further information.

11. Within two working days of the discharge stopping, the consent holder shall

submit details of each discharge event in a suitable electronic format to Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council at [email protected] and [email protected] and Regional Public Health at [email protected].

Details shall include but not be limited to:

Cause of the discharge (e.g. associated with planned or unplanned repairs) Location of the discharge Start date and time of the discharge End date and time of the discharge Maximum flow (L/s) Mean flow (L/s) Daily volume (m3) Contact person for further information regarding the discharge, and Continuous flow records (m3/s) during the discharge period as measured

by the consent holder as required by condition 13 Monitoring and reporting 12. The consent holder shall monitor the flow rate, duration and total volume of

treated wastewater discharged each day from the treatment plant into the Waiwhetu Stream and shall report the results to Wellington Regional Council in accordance with condition 35 of this consent, or upon request.

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

The flow monitoring devices shall be capable of measuring treated wastewater flows of magnitudes up to and beyond peak instantaneous flow rates, and calibrated and maintained to ensure that the measurement error is no more than +/- 10%.

13. The consent holder shall install, commission and operate a flow sensor as close

as practicable to the discharge point in the Waiwhetu Stream by 1 August 2013 to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council that is capable of continuously monitoring and logging flow in the stream during a discharge event.

Note: It is recommended that the design, specification and operation of the

flow sensor are discussed with Greater Wellington Flood Protection and Environmental Monitoring and Investigation Departments.

14. The consent holder shall take a grab sample of treated wastewater as it leaves

the treatment plant prior to entering the discharge pipe each day the discharge occurs. The samples shall be analysed for parameters specified in condition 16.

15. The consent holder shall take grab samples of Waiwhetu Stream water three

times per week (i.e. every Monday, Wednesday and Friday) and one day after the discharge has ceased at two levels in the water column, namely at 0-5 centimetres and 15 centimetres below the surface. The samples shall be collected the locations specified in Table 1.1:

Table 1.1: Water quality monitoring locations Site NZTM

Easting Northing

On the true left bank of the Waiwhetu Stream at:

a) Immediately upstream of the Port Road Bridge 1759345 5433136

b) Adjacent to the Waiwhetu Pa site and downstream of the public walkway

1759539 5433352

c) Immediately downstream of the Bell Road Bridge 1760431 5433523

On the true left bank of the Hutt River at:

a) 50m upstream of the Waiwhetu Stream mouth 1759318 5433191

b) 50m downstream of the Waiwhetu Stream mouth (1)

1759313 5433070

(1) The sample shall be taken immediately upstream of the stormwater

drain located on the foreshore of the Hutt River The consent holder shall record the date, time (NZ standard time), weather (in

particular wind direction and strength) and tidal conditions (low/medium/high and ebb/flood tide) at the stream mouth when the samples are taken. Where practicable, the sampling should be undertaken at least three hours after any ebb tide starts.


The samples shall be analysed for parameters specified in condition 16. Note: Samples may not be able to be collected from the Hutt River following

heavy rainfall events due to the health and safety risk. 16. The samples collected for conditions 14 and 15 shall be analysed for

parameters specified in Table 1.2. An assessment of the results shall be provided in the annual reports required by condition 35. Copies of the water quality monitoring results shall be provided in both electronic and hardcopy format to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council upon request.

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Table 1.2: Treated wastewater and water quality monitoring locations and test parameters

Location Site FC (cfu/100mL)

Enterococci (no./100mL)

cBOD5

(g/m3) E. coli

(no../100mL) DRP

(g/m3) NH4-N (g/m3)

NO3-N

(g/m3) NO2-N (g/m3)

Dissolved Zinc

Dissolved copper

Turbidity (NTU)

Temp (°C)

pH Salinity Dissolved oxygen (g/m3)

Seaview Wastewater Treatment

Plant wastewater

samples

Prior to entering the

discharge pipe

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Immediately upstream of

the Port Road Bridge ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Adjacent to the Waiwhetu Pa site and

downstream of the public walkway ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Waiwhetu Stream

samples

Immediately downstream of the Bell Road

Bridge ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 50m upstream

of the Waiwhetu

Stream mouth ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

Hutt River samples

50m downstream of the Waiwhetu Stream mouth ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !


17. All sampling techniques employed in respect of the conditions of this consent shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environment Regulation, Wellington Regional Council and undertaken by suitably trained and experienced persons. All water and shellfish analyses undertaken in connection with this consent shall be performed by an International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) registered laboratory or otherwise as specifically approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.



18.a) The discharge shall not result in any of the following effects on the water of the

Waiwhetu Stream beyond the reasonable mixing zone boundary defined as 100m downstream of the Waiwhetu Stream outfall (i.e. immediately upstream of Port Road Bridge) and 100m upstream of the Waiwhetu Stream outfall (i.e. adjacent to Lot 2 DP 421395):

1) The production of any conspicuous oil or grease or grease films,

scums or foams or floatable or suspended materials, or 2) Any conspicuous change in colour or clarity 3) Any emission of objectionable odour, or 4) Any significant adverse effects on aquatic life

b) During each sampling event required by condition 15 the consent holder shall

take photographs of the point of discharge and immediate receiving waters around the point of discharge to show the presence of any of effects (1-4) listed in condition 18 (a) and any obvious undesirable biological growths or visible die-offs.


Wellington Regional Council a copy of the photographs, in the annual report required by condition 35 of this consent or upon request.

Shellfish quality survey 19. The consent holder shall prepare and undertake a survey of the microbial

contamination of shellfish from beaches and rocky shores near the Waiwhetu Stream outfall by 1 February 2014.

Note 1: The purpose of the shellfish survey is to assess the risk to public health

from consuming shellfish contaminated by wastewater-borne microbes

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Note 2: Wellington Regional Council recommend the shellfish quality survey is undertaken in conjunction with the plume dispersion studies required in condition 33 of this consent.

20. The shellfish quality survey required by condition 19 shall be prepared and

undertaken by a suitably qualified person and be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.

21. The consent holder shall submit the shellfish quality survey plan to the

Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council for approval prior to undertaking the survey.

22. As a minimum, the following details shall be included into the design of the

shellfish quality survey:

a) Shellfish shall be collected at:

The mouth of the Waiwhetu Stream Along the western shore of Petone Beach, and Sorrento/Lowry Bay

Note: The sampling locations include popular shellfish collection sites and a site near the mouth of the Waiwhetu Stream to detect contamination gradients.

b) Shellfish shall be collected:

2-3 days prior to the start of a planned repair discharge to the Waiwhetu Stream (control samples)

2-3 days prior to the end of the discharge period, and Approximately one month (28-32 days) following the cease of the

discharge Where practicable the influence of recent rainfall events and tide state shall be

consistent across the spatial and temporal scales of the survey. The control samples shall be collected at a time when there has been at least

one month without wastewater discharges into the Waiwhetu Stream.

c) Shellfish species for collection and analysis shall include (where sufficient shellfish are available):

Mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis or Perna canalicula) (12

individuals), and Cockles (40-50 individuals), or Pipis (40-50 individuals)

Or other species as appropriate and approved by the Manager, Environmental

Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.


d) Shellfish flesh samples shall be analysed for:

Escherichia coli Enterococci, and Norovirus

e) At the time of shellfish collection the consent holder shall also collect

seawater samples from the three locations described in condition 22 (a) and take a grab sample of treated wastewater as it leaves the treatment plant prior to entering the discharge pipe. The samples shall be analysed for:

Escherichia coli Enterococci, and Norovirus

Note: The purpose of these samples is to assist with determining whether

microbial contamination in shellfish is linked to the wastewater discharge or other sources.

23. The consent holder shall submit the results of the shellfish quality survey to the

Manager, Environmental Regulation Wellington Regional Council within two months of the survey completion date.

24. The results of the shellfish quality survey shall inform the public notification

strategy (e.g. trigger a review of signage requirements) in the second year of this consent.

25. Additional shellfish monitoring shall be undertaken as directed by the

Manager, Environmental Regulation Wellington Regional Council. Note 1: Following the review of the shellfish quality survey results further

monitoring may be required to assess the risk to public health from consuming shellfish contaminated by wastewater-borne microbes. Additional monitoring requirements will be determined in consultation with the consent holder.

Note 2: It may not be possible to repeat the shellfish survey as the most

significant discharge will occur in year one of the consent (i.e. when pipeline assessment is undertaken).



Name and address of complainant (if provided Identification of the nature of the complaint Date and time of the complaint and of the alleged event Weather conditions at the time of the alleged event, and Any measures taken to address the cause of the complaint

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1




Wellington Regional Council at [email protected]. Please include the consent reference WGN120142[31528] and the name and phone number of a contact person responsible for the discharge.


Wellington Regional Council a copy of the complaints record, in the annual report required by condition 35 of this consent.

Tangata whenua values monitoring conditions 27. The consent holder shall engage a suitable person to assist them with the

development of the Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring Plan (TWVMP) and the consultation with Iwi, and monitoring. The scale of the plan shall reflect the scale and nature of the discharges authorised by this consent (i.e. waterbody scale) and shall be in accordance with the Tangata Whenua Values Monitoring Scope developed by Wellington Regional Council.





gathering sites etc) and monitoring to be undertaken at these sites A map of all monitoring sites, and sites of significance The monitoring methodology The frequency of monitoring Timeframe for undertaking the baseline monitoring, and Any other relevant information









30. The results of the monitoring required by the TWVMP, shall be reported to the

Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, on an annual basis, by 1 August, once the TWVMP has been approved. The assessment of the monitoring results shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified person that is to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.


The results of all monitoring undertaken under the TWVMP A discussion of the likely impact the discharges are having/had on the

cultural values of the waterbody including cumulative effects, if possible A comparison of the results with any previous monitoring undertaken in

accordance with the TWVMP Any recommendations for changes to the TWVMP (e.g. indicator species,

monitoring sites), and why Any recommendations for mitigation and minimising the impact of the

discharges on cultural values of the waterbody, if possible Copies of any comments on the monitoring results that have been received

from the organisations included in condition 28, and Any other relevant information

The report shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental





Any amended TWVMP shall be submitted to and be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.

Overflow contingency plan 32. The consent holder shall prepare an Overflow Contingency Plan (OCP) which

outlines procedures that will be adopted during a discharge event. The OCP shall be prepared in consultation with Regional Public Health and the consultation group required by condition 7 of this consent submitted to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council for approval by 1 May 2013, or within a longer timeframe approved by the

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. The OCP shall include the following:

Procedures the consent holder will adopt during and following a discharge

event to ensure that the potential adverse effects of the discharge are minimised as much as practicable

Procedures for the notification ( including signage) of any discharges Procedures for recording and reporting the flow rate, duration, total

volume of each discharge event and water quality monitoring as required by conditions 12 and 15

Procedures to ensure that the conditions of this consent are complied with at all times during and following an overflow event

The consent holder shall operate the discharge in accordance with this OCP at

all times. The OCP shall be to the satisfaction the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.

Note: the Overflow Contingency Plan document can be combined with the

Public Notification Strategy. Investigations 33. Within six months of the granting of this consent the consent holder shall

commence a detailed investigation into the long-term viability of the main outfall pipeline and options to improve the current sewerage system to reduce impacts of the discharge on the receiving environment. These investigations shall continue for the duration of the consent and be completed by 1 August 2017.


A structural condition assessment of the integrity of the pre-stressing wires of the pipe sections of the main outfall pipeline

Full or part replacement of the main outfall pipeline Increasing storage capacity at Seaview Wastewater Treatment Plant to

retain a higher proportion of flows in excess of the main outfall pipeline capacity

Alternative discharge options to the Waiwhetu Stream outfall as outlined in MWH report following the pre-hearing meeting on 14 May 2012 (dated June 2012)

Constructing a new pumped overflow extended 4500m off Barnes Street into Wellington harbour

Upgrades to the treatment plant to provide biological nutrient removal, specifically to reduce ammoniacal nitrogen concentrations in the discharge

Background contaminant levels in the Waiwhetu Stream water, and A comprehensive assessment of environmental effects for proposed

upgrade options including plume dispersion studies for the current and any proposed disposal location(s). Plume dispersion studies shall include computer modelling and be validated by field data (e.g. using drogues,


dyes, meters). The assessment shall consider biodiversity, values and usage within the plume area


by conditions 34 and 35. Options assessment report 34. The consent holder shall submit an options assessment report to the Manager,

Environmental Regulation Wellington Regional Council and the consultation group as required by condition 7 of this consent by 1 August 2017. The report shall comprehensively describe the investigations undertaken as required by condition 33, potential upgrade options and a preferred option (including timeframes for implementation) that reduces the frequency discharges, and/or reduces any adverse effects of the discharge on the receiving environment.

The assessment report details and level of analysis shall be to the satisfaction

of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. Note 1: It is intended that this report will present detail on the options

assessment to the Wellington Regional Council and the consultation group prior to lodging a new application for resource consent for the activity. There is no approval process associated with the submission of the options report. Any decisions on future discharges will be made during the subsequent resource consent process.

Note 2: The consultation group may provide feedback on the options

assessment report directly to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council.

Annual reporting 35. The consent holder shall prepare and submit a comprehensive annual report to

the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, Regional Public Health and the consultation group as required by condition 7 of this consent by 1 August each year (covering the year 1 July to 30 June). The annual report shall include as a minimum:

A summary of overflow events (including dates, volume discharged, tidal

conditions during discharges, the discharge duration and cause) Flow monitoring results (carried out under conditions 12 and 13 of this

consent); Treated wastewater and water quality monitoring results (carried out under

conditions 14 and 15 of this consent) Summary of consultation group involvement A critical evaluation by an appropriately qualified and experienced

scientist of the previous years monitoring results, in particular the environmental effects of each overflow discharge event. This evaluation shall utilise the treated wastewater and stream water quality and flow

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

monitoring data for each discharge event comparing the data against relevant environmental guidelines

Photographs from the visual inspections undertaken under condition 18 (b) of this consent

Summary of investigations undertaken, a list of investigations scheduled for the upcoming year (required by condition 33), and timeframes for implementation of any upgrades and/or consent applications, and


Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. Review condition 36. The Wellington Regional Council may review any or all conditions of this




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










To construct a temporary channel on the foreshore to direct treated wastewater discharged from scour valves on the main outfall pipeline into the sea to allow pipeline repair to be undertaken.

General condition 1. The consent holder shall operate the proposed discharge in general accordance

with the consent application and associated documents lodged with the Wellington Regional Council on 8 December 2011 and further information on 14 September 2012.





Operational conditions 2. This consent does not authorise the deposition of any substance including

concrete onto the foreshore or seabed. 3. The extent of foreshore disturbance shall be limited to that required to create a

preferential flow path for treated wastewater discharged from a scour valve to the sea.

4. Any material excavated shall not be removed from the foreshore. 5. Within two days of the cease of a discharge the consent holder shall recontour

the foreshore where the temporary channel was excavated. Reducing effects on water quality 6. The consent holder shall ensure that:

a) All machinery is thoroughly cleaned of vegetation (e.g. weeds), seeds or contaminants at least 10 metres away from any waterbody, water flow channel or stormwater system, prior to entering the site

b) All machinery shall be regularly maintained in such a manner to

ensure no contaminants (including but not limited to oil, petrol, diesel, hydraulic fluid) shall be released into water, or to land where it may enter water, from equipment being used for the works

OF 88 WGN_DOCS-#1151333-V1

c) All contaminant storage or re-fuelling areas are bunded or contained in such a manner so as to prevent the discharge of contaminants to water or to land where it may enter water.

d) No machinery is cleaned, stored or refuelled within 10 metres of any

water body, water flow channel or stormwater system 7. In the event of a spill of fuel, hydraulic fluid, or other potential liquid

contaminants, immediate steps shall be taken to contain the spilt contaminant. The spilt contaminants and any material used to contain it shall be removed from the site and disposed of at authorised landfill. The consent holder shall also immediately notify the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council of the spill and actions to be taken.

Review condition 8. The Wellington Regional Council may review any or all conditions of this




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








Appendix 1

Summary of submissions

WGN_DOCS-#1019057-V1

Summary of submissions received for notified resource consent applications to Greater Wellington (GW) WGN120142 [31523], [31524], [31528], [31525], [31529] and [31530] by Hutt City Council for temporary discharges of treated wastewater to Waiwhetu Stream and Wellington Harbour

Submitter Contact Support/Oppose/Neutral

Issues raised Wish to be heard?

1 Roy Hewson Support Considers the works involved necessary. The submitter notes the importance of the public being informed. Requests GW to grant resource consent.

No

2 Brock Beyer Oppose Opposes discharges into waterways because it’s not healthy and people gather food and use these areas for recreation. The submitter notes that millions of dollars have been spent tidying up the Waiwhetu Stream. The submitter recommends stopping pollution going into the harbour and its surrounds. Requests GW to decline resource consent.

No


3 East Harbour Environmental Association Incorporated

Roger Lawrence Supports in part The submitter seeks clarification of the consent term sought. Would not support a 25 year consent term. The submitter notes they understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of the outfall system. Supports the application as outlined in page 2 of the executive summary. Would like section 12.2.1 condition 3 in the application document to include a requirement that notification signs are placed at locations known to be frequented by shellfish gatherers. Recommends the location of these signs should be determined through consultation with relevant residents’ associations. Requests that GW amend proposed condition 8 in section 12.2.6 to include a requirement to meet particular milestones to avoid and mitigate wet weather overflows during the term of the consent. Requests GW grant consent for a 20 year term with the amended conditions as proposed above.

Yes


4 Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers’ Association (Inc)

Jim Mikoz Oppose The submitter states their experience and involvement in other resource consent applications regarding the marine environment and as an advisory body to New Zealand government departments. The submitter states the application does not adequately address or provides misinformation regarding: Brown froth of sludge arriving on Seatoun beach originating from

the main outfall pipe; Fish species effected by the discharge; Resource consent requirements for mining beaches at scour valve

locations; Wastewater flowing upstream; Population increase and increased flows; Wet weather flow discharge rates; Effect of increased rainfall events on discharge volume; Total volumes discharged into the Waiwhetu Stream; Sea level rise; Currents in the Wellington harbour and mixing characteristics of

wastewater and seawater; Impacts on intertidal species, marine life and plants; Effects of chemicals from landfill leachate and industrial waste that

are not removed by the treatment process; Effects on commercial fish species; Water sampling methodology.

The submitter notes that $21M has been spent on removing pollution from Waiwhetu Stream bed. Recommends wastewater should be discharged via an emergency pipe

Yes


near Somes Island rather than discharging into Waiwhetu Stream. The submitter is concerned that houses upstream of the discharge point will be flooded with wastewater. The submitter notes that wastewater can be smelt and seen west of the Settlers Museum on Petone Beach. The submitter considers the application in breaches the NZ Coastal Policy Statement 2010, and NZ Freshwater National Policy Statement. The submitter provides examples of the impact of wastewater and chemical discharges on marine animals. Requests GW decline resource consent.

5 Henry Steele Oppose The submitter is opposed to sewage being discharged to the Waiwhetu Stream because of the remedial work undertaken to clean up the lower reaches of the stream and it is harmful to fish which travel upstream from the coast. Recommends the discharges and quantity should be reduced and the quality improved. Recommends 5 year consent term with requirement to report, reductions in the quantity, frequency and quality of discharge. Recommends a temporary extension to the Waiwhetu outlet and a condition of consent to find a more satisfactory option.

No


The submitter states that effort should be made to prevent stormwater entering the wastewater system and be subject to monitoring and reporting. Recommends water quality monitoring (at, upstream and downstream of discharge point) during planned and emergency repair work and wet weather overflow discharges. Results should be compared with monitoring undertaken at points further upstream unaffected by the discharge. Requests GW decline the application unless conditions are imposed and consent term reduced to 5 years.

6 Friends of Waiwhetu Stream

Merilyn Merrett Oppose The submitter states that they are involved in improving the health of the Waiwhetu Stream and provides the vision statement of the group. The submitter only comments on discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream and not other aspects of the application. The submitter was not involved in the consultation workshop and wants to be involved in future discussions with the applicant. The submitter is concerned about: The application provides no evidence that water quality of the lower

Waiwhetu Stream is still impaired. The submitter notes the increase in birds living in this area.

Effects on aquatic life with a marine life cycle such as galaxids. The applicant rejecting mitigation work to prevent discharges to the

stream as uneconomic because dilution is achieved by mixing with stream waters, and the environment is already impaired;

Inadequate means of demonstrating improvements to reduce peak

Yes


wet weather overflows in the stream. The submitter wants conditions that require: Water quality monitoring (at Taita Cemetery, Port Rd, Whites Line

East and downstream of discharge point) during planned and unplanned maintenance work, emergency repairs and wet weather overflows.

To be consulted on a monitoring programme to determine effects of planned works on stream quality;

Monitoring to reduce the amount of stormwater entering the sewerage system;

Additional storage at Seaview wastewater treatment plant to reduce likelihood of a discharge under the emergency provisions of the RMA 1991.

An additional outlet installed into the Wellington harbour to replace the Gough St outlet.

Request GW grant consent with the above conditions.

7 Blue Wellington (Forest and Bird Wellington Branch)

David Ellison Oppose Oppose the application due to lack of information to determine the full extent of actual and potential environmental effects associated with the proposed discharges.

The submitter is most concerned about discharges into the Waiwhetu Stream and into enclosed areas of the harbour where flushing, dilution and dispersal of contaminants is significantly slower that the open coast.

The submitter requests information is supplied regarding:

The habitat and ecology of the receiving coastal marine environment (including the Waiwhetu Stream) and the effect of the

Yes


discharges; The actual or potential effects on cultural values and recommends

GW request further information to enable an appropriate assessment of effects.

The submitter recommends the following matters are addressed in the conditions of consent: Public education of the problem of infiltration of stormwater into

wastewater system Continuation of the monitoring programme to identify stormwater

infiltration and to remedy in set timeframes; Strategy to reduce volume of wastewater inflows; Implementation of a Public Notification Strategy and the timeframe

to do so; Include email and text notification of discharges to the public; Ongoing monitoring of key wastewater toxins in water and

sediments at discharge points; Up-to-date studies on ecology to identify flora and fauna that must

be protected; as well as changes in ecology over time.

Request GW grant consent with the above conditions.

8 Regional Public Health

Dr Jill McKenzie Neutral Submitted to ensure that the public health risks associated with the application are considered.

The submitter discusses the public health issues with wastewater.

The submitter recommends including the following as conditions of consent:

Limiting planned maintenance to winter months;

Yes


Development of Public Notification Strategies; Direct notification to RPH and GWRC of planned and unplanned

discharges; Overflow Contingency Plan for wet weather flows; Public health warning signage, and ensuring temporary signage

remains in place for 48 hour period following cessation of discharge;

Consultation with RPH and GWRC about steps to minimise or avoid human contact with treated wastewater;

Annual reporting on steps taken to reduce infiltration and inflow; Proposed Condition 7 Section 12.2.3 be included as a condition in

section 12.2.4; Proposed condition 7 Section 12.2.4 be included as a condition in

12.2.3.

The submitter notes the discharge of wastewater to water bodies is significant to iwi and that the applicant is in the process of consultation with local iwi. Recommends long term Council planning address the funding implications of upgrades that will prevent the need for recurrent wet weather discharges.

Appendix 2

Pre-hearing meeting minutes and applicant’s response


17 April 2012 File: WGN120142 [31523], [31524], [31528], [31525], [31529] and [31530] Report on a pre-hearing meeting held on 29 March 2012 at 9.00pm, Pelorus Trust Sporthouse, Hutt Park, Seaview, Lower Hutt

Hutt City Council - To discharge treated wastewater to the Waiwhetu Stream, to the Coastal Marine Area and to land, associated with planned maintenance, unplanned repairs and temporary repairs of the main sewerage outfall pipeline and wet weather overflow discharges

Present

Wellington Regional Council representatives Jeremy Rusbatch (facilitator) – Team Leader, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council Malory Osmond (decision support officer) – Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council Hutt City Council (the applicant) Bruce Sherlock – Hutt City Council Alan Bannatyne – MWH Steve Hutchison –MWH Caroline van Halderen –MWH David Cameron - MWH Submitters Teri Puketapu - Te Runanganui o Taranaki Whanui ki te Upoko o te Ika a Maui Inc Roger Lawrence – East Harbour Environmental Association Paula King – Regional Public Health Chris Edmonds – Regional Public Health Grant Webby – Friends of the Waiwhetu Stream Merilyn Merrett - Friends of the Waiwhetu Stream Jim Mikos – Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers Association Henry Steele - Friends of the Waiwhetu Stream

OF 5

1. Introduction

Jeremy Rusbatch, Team Leader, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council (GW) opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and explained that the purpose of the meeting was to address any questions that the submitters may have of the applicant and to discuss the issues raised in submissions.

Mr Rusbatch described the rules of the pre-hearing meeting and clarified that he does not have any influence on the decision process, and his role was as a mediator at this pre-hearing meeting.

Everyone present introduced themselves. Mr Rusbatch passed on apologies from Jude Weggery (processing officer) at GW, who could not attend.

Alan Bannatyne, on behalf of Hutt City Council (HCC), then gave a brief run through of the proposal, the consents applied for and the history of the wastewater infrastructure.

Bruce Sherlock also gave a brief introduction to the proposal and stated that the Council is committed to continuous improvements in terms of infrastructure and environmental improvements. He stated that the Council has money in their 20year plan for wastewater improvements.

2. Identification of issues

Jeremy Rusbatch, facilitator, suggested we first identify everyone’s issues and write these on the whiteboard, then discuss them one by one. Everyone agreed with this approach.

The issues identified were:

Term of consent

Review ‘windows’

Emergency discharge points

Waiwhetu Stream as a receiving environment

Signage location and the length of time it stays in place

Milestones in the consent – what HCC will do to reduce the frequency and volume of discharges

Consistency of conditions across all HCC wastewater consents

Contingency plans and updating of these

Physical location of discharge point to Waiwhetu Stream

Volumes of discharge versus volume of water in the stream during dry weather flows

OF 5

Monitoring conditions during a discharge

Scour valve locations and the effects on marine life

Mixing zones and volumes and the mixing of wastewater with seawater

Effects of discharge to Waiwhetu Stream on Petone Beach at the Settlers Museum

Effect on shellfish

Visual effects on the beaches (brown sludge) from scour valves around Eastern Bays

Lack of consultation with environmental groups

Adequacy of the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE)

3. Discussion of issues

The main points from the discussion of issues are detailed below. Term of consent The applicant clarified that there was a typo in the consent application and they were applying for a 20 year consent term. Mr Rusbatch stated that GW had not made any decision on the term of the consent. However, an option for consideration is to align the duration of this consent so that it expires with the Pencarrow discharge consent. This consent expires in 2031. Milestones A number of submitters emphasised the importance of having milestones in the consent and for HCC to report back on both work undertaken and planned. The applicant noted that the milestones need to be flexible as they can’t commit to projects in 10, 15, 20 years time. There is money set aside for this work in the Council long term plan, but they don’t know where the focus will be beyond the next five years. The applicant agreed with submitters that it was important to get milestones written into the consent, so that future politicians are committed to the work. Action point – the applicant to come back with suggested milestones for the consent. Location of discharge point to the Waiwhetu Stream The applicant stated that they will actively manage the dry weather flows with the tides. They currently have some storage at the plant and are looking at having sufficient storage to ensure any dry weather discharges to the Waiwhetu Stream occur during the outgoing

OF 5

tide. They stated that they won’t be able to provide enough storage to hold all wet weather flows. Another option is an alternative outfall to the Hutt River off Port Road. However, at this stage the applicant advised they favoured storage over moving the discharge location to the Hutt River. The applicant stated the cost of moving the outfall would be in the order of 1.5 million and providing more storage would cost in the order of 10 million. There was significant interest from all submitters for the applicant to move the outfall from the Waiwhetu Stream to the Hutt River. Action point – The applicant to provide more information on moving the outfall to the Hutt River and an update to the assessment of environmental effects as a result of moving the outfall. Information is also to include timeframes for that work.

Location of scour valves and the effects A submitter raised concern that the application stated excavation of a small trench in the beaches may be required to drain the discharge from the scour valves and that no consent had been applied for this activity. Mr Rusbatch advised that this was not a concern and that an additional consent for this activity could easily be added to the application. Everyone was happy with that. Effects on marine life A number of submitters stated that the AEE was inadequate. In particular, the effects of petroleum and chemicals in the discharge had not adequately been assessed. Action point – The applicant to provide more information regarding the effects of the discharge on marine life and the petroleum/chemical content in the discharge.

4. Process from here

Mr Rusbatch advised that we had run out of time for this meeting and acknowledged that not all the issues identified had been discussed.

Issues not discussed were:





OF 5




Effect on shellfish

Mr Rusbatch suggested a second prehearing meeting to discuss the remainder of the issues and also to discuss the further work the applicant had agreed to do as action points from today’s meeting. Everyone agreed that they would be happy with a second meeting.

Mr Rusbatch suggested another meeting in one month’s time; however, the applicant advised that they would need time to gather the additional information. It was agree that the applicant would come back with a proposed date for the next meeting soon.

Mr Rusbatch advised that a pre-hearing meeting report would be sent to everyone in the next few weeks.

The meeting was closed at 11.05am.


15 June 2012 File: WGN120142 [31523], [31524], [31528], [31525], [31529] and [31530] Report on the second pre-hearing meeting held on 14 May 2012 at 6.00pm, Wellington Tenths Trust, 24D Marine Parade, Petone, Lower Hutt


Present

Wellington Regional Council representatives Jeremy Rusbatch (facilitator) – Team Leader, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council Jude Weggery (processing officer) – Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation Malory Osmond (decision support officer) – Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council Hutt City Council (the applicant) Bruce Sherlock – Hutt City Council Alan Bannatyne – MWH Steve Hutchison –MWH Caroline van Halderen –MWH David Cameron - MWH Submitters Roger Lawrence – East Harbour Environmental Association Chris Edmonds – Regional Public Health Grant Webby – Friends of the Waiwhetu Stream Merilyn Merrett - Friends of the Waiwhetu Stream Jim Mikoz – Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers Association Henry Steele - Friends of the Waiwhetu Stream Michael Ellis – Friends of the Waiwhetu Stream Claire Graeme – Wellington Forest and Bird

OF 6

1. Introduction

Jeremy Rusbatch, Team Leader, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council (GW) opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and explained that the purpose of the meeting was to continue the discussions of issues from the first meeting and to discuss the further information the applicant has provided.

Mr Rusbatch described the rules of the pre-hearing meeting and clarified that he does not have any influence on the decision process, and his role was as a mediator at this pre-hearing meeting.

Everyone present introduced themselves.

2. Further information from the applicant

Alan Bannatyne, on behalf of Hutt City Council (HCC), then ran through the further information that has been provided.

Mr Bannatyne firstly stated that the most important aspect of the application is to investigate the conditions on the main outfall pipeline (MOP). This needs to be done before they can consider the alternatives. He explained that they now propose a five year consent for the Waiwhetu discharges as this will allow HCC time to adequately assess the pipeline and investigate alternatives, so that they have a preferred option when they come to apply again for long term consents.

Jim Mikoz arrives.

Mr Bannatyne said they have considered an alternate discharge point, such as the Hutt River. However they need time to adequately assess the environmental effects of any alternatives and can not rush into anything. He stated that they also want to consider other options such as providing further storage and improving the level of treatment to the wastewater and a combination of the options.

A submitter asked about the implementation of the alternative options. Mr Sherlock replied and said they could not commit to any option until they know what it is. They need to investigate the options to know what the preferred option is before they can commit to it. That is what the five year consent will allow. Implementation of any alternatives would be covered by a new application in five years times. Mr Sherlock then confirmed that there is money in the Long Term Plan (LTP) for this issue.

A submitter asked about stormwater getting into the sewerage network and illegal cross connections. Mr Bruce Sherlock confirmed that the Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) work will continue under the Councils asset management planning. He said there are ongoing programmes in the Council budget and through the LTP process. For example they are currently working in the Wainuiomata area and are looking at where the next priority area

OF 6

is. They also undertake annual smoke testing to check for cross connections on private properties.

Mr Bannatyne clarified that the new proposal is a five year consent term for the Waiwhetu discharges only. This includes the wet weather overflow to the Waiwhetu Stream. The discharges to the coast and land adjacent to the coast around the eastern bays will remain at 20 years (as requested durations in the application).

A submitter asked whether the relocation of the pipeline would take place in 5 years time or could be sooner. Mr Bannatyne stated it could be sooner but they needed time to first assess the conditions of the MOP and to consider the effects of all alternatives. Mr Bannatyne added that the capacity of the MOP would also be assessed.

Mr Rusbatch then asked the submitters if there was any comfort around the table for this new proposal and five year consent term for the Waiwhetu discharges. The general feeling from the submitters was positive provided the applicant addressed the information gaps in any new application after five years. This includes the impact on ecology of each option and modelling of the Waiwhetu and Harbour flow patterns.

Mr Rusbatch asked the applicant how long it would take to assess the pipeline before the next step could be taken. Mr Bannatyne said there was some uncertainty. He stated they are happy to share information as they go, but they need the full five years to report on the results pipeline investigations and alternative options.

A submitter asked whether the applicant could provide a scope or list of what will be investigated. Mr Bannatyne said they could do this and provide it following the meeting.

A submitter also said it would be good if there were information sessions held with the group on progress the applicant was making around every 18 months.

3. Discussion of issues

Mr Rusbatch then wrote up on the board the outstanding issues from the first pre-hearing meeting for discussion.

The issues identified were:







OF 6


Effect on shellfish

Volumes of discharge versus stream flow

Mr Dave Cameron stated that the discharge of wastewater will be 2 times the stream flow at times of low flow in the Waiwhetu Stream. He acknowledged that there is an issue with the levels of ammonia and this was one reason why HCC needs to look at options for providing more storage, an alternative outfall and further treatment. He stated that moving the discharge to the Hutt River would alleviate the ammonia problem.

It was agreed that the applicant would provide a list of what options are going to be investigated and effects assessment undertaken.


A submitter asked a question about what monitoring is being undertaken. Mr Cameron mentioned the study Greater Wellington is undertaking post the Waiwhetu remediation project. He said the current water quality sampling undertaken measures contaminant concentrations during a discharge.

A submitter asked about what ecological monitoring is undertaken. Mr Cameron said they need to wait and see the results of the GW study. The preliminary results for stream ecology so far are poor.

Mr Cameron stated that the faecal coliforms are not too bad as the wastewater is treated and disinfected. He also stated that industry in the area has decreased and discharges form industry has decreased which has had a positive effect on the quality of the wastewater.

Mr Mikoz mentioned that there would be a new version of the ANZECC water quality guidelines coming out soon. He stated that the consent should require the applicant to comply with any updated guidelines and have the most recent ones written into the conditions of the consent.

Mr Rusbatch asked about the discharges form the MOP from the scour valves. Mr Steve Hutchison explained that the discharges from the scours are a lot smaller in volume and duration from the Waiwhetu discharges.


A submitter asked what the dilution was from the scour discharges and how far are the effects observed. Mr Cameron stated the in the assessment of environmental effects provided with the application (p.34) it shows the results from 2009 sampling undertaken at 20m, 50m and 100m from the scour valve. The results show the discharge plume is picked up 50m away from the scour valve but not at 100m.

Mr Bannatyne said there was a trade off with the effects of the Waiwhetu discharge. If they do not discharge to the scour valves, it means the discharge to the Waiwhetu Stream will occur for a longer duration.

OF 6

Mr Sherlock mentioned that any planned works would be undertaken in the winter months when there is less contact recreation around the locations of the scour valves.

Mr Cameron said that they had characterised the wastewater quality and provided this in the further information. There was toxicity testing undertaken in 2003-2004 and that was done with algae and mussels. He stated that that assessment showed over a 4 fold dilution the effects disappeared. He stated that the results showed the wastewater was not having a huge effect on marine life.

Signage – location and timing

Mr Hutchison said there was an existing protocol with GW and RPH regarding the signage and that they issue a press release on the HCC website when discharges occur.

The sign is orange, 1200 x 900mm, double sided and located at the location of the discharge.

He also mentioned that the protocol requires water quality sampling during the discharge and for two days after the discharge has ceased. The results are reported to RPH, GW and notification to various interested parties.

Mr Sherlock stated he would be happy to add the submitters to the notification list.

A submitter asked where the sign was for the Waiwhetu outfall. Mr Hutchison confirmed that one sign was located at the mouth. A submitter asked where the discharge plume went and should extra signs be put up along Petone Beach. They also stated that the applicant needs to establish where people enter the water and collect shellfish and ensure signs are put up there also.

Mr Cameron pointed out that one of the suggested consent conditions is for a public notification strategy which would cover this issue. Mr Sherlock then stated he would be happy to put up more signs at key locations. It was agreed that the suggested consent conditions regarding public notification would be updated to include this point.

Effects on Petone Beach and Settlers Museum / Effects on shellfish Mr Mikoz said that the applicant has to acknowledge this issue. He stated that during an outgoing tide, the plume goes along Petone Beach and that people can smell the wastewater.

Mr Mikoz asked whether any monitoring has been undertaken along Petone Beach and in particular, of shellfish. He stated that this is information that needs to be in any new consent application in five years time as it is a gap in the current application. Therefore, this should be part of the five year consent investigations.

Consent condition consistency

It was agreed that this would be covered off by the suggested conditions.


Mr Hutchison stated that it is proposed to prepare a contingency plan in the suggested consent conditions.

Other issues

A submitter asked about the effects on cultural values.

OF 6

Mr Rusbatch provided an update on the proposed cultural health monitoring conditions and work currently being undertaken in this area. He stated that GW was working with Caleb Royal to develop a scope for the cultural health monitoring (now being referred to as Tangata Whenua Values monitoring). Once the scope has been developed it will be discussed with HCC. Mr Teri Puketapu, who sent his apologies for this pre-hearing meeting, is also up to date with the progress on this matter. Mr Rusbatch confirmed that updates on this matter would be provided to the group when they can.


Mr Rusbatch ran through the action points for the applicant. These were:

To provide a scope of works for the five year consent for the Waiwhetu Stream discharges and to circulate this to all submitters in one months time (approx 14 June). This scope is to include what works will be undertaken to investigate the condition of the MOP and the alternative options that will be investigated during this time.

To update the suggested consent conditions in the application and circulate to all submitters and Ms Weggery.

Ms Weggery will then provide comment back to the applicant on the suggested conditions.

Mr Rusbatch advised that a pre-hearing meeting report would be sent to everyone in the next few weeks.

The meeting was closed at 8.00pm.


1 October 2012 File: WGN120142 [31523] [31524], [31525], [31530] and [31740] Report on a pre-hearing meeting held on 20 September 2012 at 6pm, at Wellington Tenths Trust 24A Marine Drive, Seaview


Present

Wellington Regional Council representatives Jeremy Rusbatch (facilitator) – Team Leader, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council Summer Greenfield (technical expert) – Senior Environmental Scientist, Environmental Monitoring and Investigations, Wellington Regional Council Jude Weggery (processing officer) – Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council Hugh Dixon-Paver (minute taker) - Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council Hutt City Council (the applicant) Bruce Sherlock – Hutt City Council Alan Bannatyne – MWH Steve Hutchison –MWH Caroline van Halderen –MWH David Cameron - MWH Submitters Roger Lawrence – East Harbour Environmental Association Alan Hart – East Harbour Environmental Association Chris Edmonds – Regional Public Health Grant Webby – Friends of the Waiwhetu Stream Merilyn Merrett - Friends of the Waiwhetu Stream Michael Ellis - Friends of the Waiwhetu Stream Henry Steele - Friends of the Waiwhetu Stream Jim Mikoz – Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers Association

OF 4

Apologies

Teri Puketapu - Te Runanganui o Taranaki Whanui ki te Upoko o te Ika a Maui Inc 1. Introduction

Mr Rusbatch, Team Leader, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council (GW) opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and explained that the purpose of the meeting was to review draft conditions of consent proposed by GW and address any questions that the submitters may have.

Mr Rusbatch described the rules of the pre-hearing meeting.

Everyone present introduced themselves.

Mr Sherlock of Hutt City Council (HCC) then addressed the group and noted that there had been significant progress made through the application process and that HCC would like reach an agreement with submitters this evening on conditions.

2. Waiwhetu Stream survey

Mrs Greenfield gave a brief summary of the findings of the Waiwhetu Stream survey conducted earlier this year. Mrs Greenfield noted that there had been positive changes in the Waiwhetu Stream but ongoing inputs into the lower estuary require management.

Mrs Greenfield noted that this report is available on the Greater Wellington website. The document can be downloaded at: http://www.gw.govt.nz/document-library-2/detail/1048

3. Greater Wellington draft conditions of consent

Mr Rusbatch recommended that we only go through critical consent conditions rather than verbatim given the time constraints of the meeting and that conditions were circulated prior to the meeting. Ms Weggery read through the draft conditions of consent WGN120142 [31523] on this basis.

Mr Mikoz requested that public notification of discharges required by condition 4 is in different languages to ensure all ethnicities are notified.

Mr Steele requested that a draft version of the Public Notification Strategy is provided to submitters for comment prior to submission to Wellington Regional Council.

Mr Sherlock was happy with the above changes to condition 4. Mr Mikoz said more signage may be needed to notify drivers, but signs shouldn’t be

too close to the roundabout. Mr Mikoz and Mr Webby requested that water sampling in condition 11 require

samples to be taken at “0-5cm” depth.

OF 4

Mr Webby requested that “NZ standard time” be recorded when samples are collected under condition 11.

Mr Ellis noted that not all infiltration & inflow in the catchment relates to HCC pipes. Mr Sherlock commented that HCC and UHCC work together on this matter.

Mr Steele requested that the draft Overflow Contingency Plan is provided to submitters for comment and input.

Ms Weggery passed around the project timeline to submitters to review and said she would email submitters a copy of this.

Mr Ellis requested that “emergency” outfall is added when referring to the Waiwhetu Stream outfall to ensure no one thinks we are describing the main outfall pipeline.

All submitters would like to be sent a copy of the annual report required by condition 25.

Mr Steele suggested that comments by submitters or interested parties on the options assessment report (condition 26) should also be sent directly to the Manager, Wellington Regional Council, Environmental Regulation.

Mr Mikoz noted that GW should be referring to the MfE Wastewater Monitoring Guidelines (Oct, 2002).

Ms Weggery read through the draft conditions of consent WGN120142 [31524], [31525] and [31530].

Ms Weggery said the amendments agreed upon when discussing the above consent WGN120142 [31523] will be carried through to relevant conditions of subsequent consents.

Mr Mikoz suggested that discharge notifications could be broadcast on radio to reach ethnic audiences. Ms Weggery said that this could be incorporated into the Public Notification Strategy.

Mr Mikoz suggested that people surf near scour valves 11-15 and Mr Hart mentioned paua is collected in nearby waters. All agreed that water quality monitoring during the summer bathing season not required around scour valves 11-15 (condition 18) but that signs need to be erected to notify surfers and people collecting shellfish of the discharge.

Mr Edmonds suggested discussing the requirement to test norovirus in shellfish with the Ministry of Health and Dr Jill McKenzie. Ms Weggery proposes to get Paul Barter to review condition 20.

Mr Rusbatch suggested combining condition 16 and 24 and all agreed this was a good idea.

Ms Weggery read through the draft conditions of consent WGN120142 [31528] and [31529]

Ms Weggery said the amendments agreed upon when discussing the first consent WGN120142 [31523] will be carried through to relevant conditions of subsequent consents.

Mr Ellis requested that the words “shortest time possible” were added to condition 5.

OF 4

Mr Lawrence suggested that signage was required at the small beach beside marina, and Mr Mikoz and Mr Ellis suggested that signs are placed near of the Hikoikoi Waka Ama and Petone rowing club to notify people of discharges from the Waiwhetu Stream.

Mr Webby requested that water samples should be collected from the Waiwhetu stream one day after the discharge ceases (condition 14).

Mr Webby queried why E.coli is not analysed for samples collected from Waiwhetu Stream at the Bell Road bridge. Ms Weggery said this was likely a typo and would this requirement in Table 1.2. Also need to check whether nitrites are to be analysed in this sample.

Ms Weggery paraphrased a new condition (specific wording not drafted yet) that requires the consent holder to collect and analyse shellfish when flows are diverted to the Waiwhetu Stream for planned and unplanned repair work on the main outfall pipeline. Ms Weggery asked submitters for input into what shellfish beds these samples should be collected from. Mr Mikoz said there are pipis and cockles near Petone Wharf and the rugby league club, and paddle crabs are collected at Lowry Bay.

Mr Mikoz requested that the word “emergency” is added before the word outfall in condition 26 for clarity.

Mr Edmonds requested that plume and dispersion studies are undertaken for any proposed discharge locations and not only alternative disposal options (i.e. Waiwhetu Stream outfall).

Ms Weggery introduced the final consent WGN120142 [31740] and said these were relatively standard conditions for temporary works on the foreshore. No comments were made by submitters on this consent.


Mr Rusbatch commented on the very positive discussion had during the meeting and the value submitters had added in drafting the conditions of consent.

Ms Weggery advised she planned to circulate the updated set of conditions to submitters within 7-10 days of the meeting for review and further comment.

Mr Rusbatch explained how the submitters could withdraw their ‘wish to be heard’ at the hearing if they are happy with proposed consent conditions and that submitters appeal rights were available until 15 working days after the decision is released. Mr Rusbatch explained that if all submitters did not withdrawal their wish to be heard at a hearing, this consent application would proceed to a hearing.

Mr Sherlock asked if submitters were happy with the proposed conditions plus amendments discussed during the meeting, no objection was raised.

The meeting was closed at 8:27pm.

Notified resource consent decision (without hearing) · The applicant administers the trunk...

Documents

Transcript of Notified resource consent decision (without hearing) · The applicant administers the trunk...