Pollution control 2006/07

Key Points:

• Environmental incidents were down 20% from last year, with odour showing the biggest decrease.
• Enforcement action was up 21% from last year.

Incident response

During the 2006/07 financial year, we responded to 1,264 complaints about 1,106 environmental incidents (some incidents, like odour, prompted more than one complaint). This was a significant decrease from the 1,579 complaints about 1,368 incidents last year. An “environmental incident” is an activity that should be authorised under the Resource Management Act 1991, such as discharging a contaminant to the environment, taking damming or diverting water, or disturbing the bed of a river or the coastal marine area.

Significant incidents

The following environmental incidents were deemed significant because of their potentially high impact on the environment. Some led to enforcement action.

In August 2006 a large slip in Kelson, Hutt City, caused a sewer main to break and discharge raw sewage into a local creek. Remedial action was taken to divert sewage away from the stream and back into another branch of the sewer network. A sign was put up at the discharge point in the stream where the clean-up operation took place, and water quality monitoring set up to check when there were no longer any effects of the sewage on the stream.

A Featherston landowner was issued an abatement notice for two unauthorised discharges of dairy shed effluent which entered a tributary of the Tauherenikau River, and another for dumping a truckload of demolition materials into old oxidation ponds on his property. He received two infringement fines of $750 each for these offences.

An engineering consultancy in charge of a large subdivision site in Newlands, Wellington was responsible for sediment laden water discharging to the Porirua Stream in breach of resource consent conditions, and for illegally filling in two unnamed tributaries of the Porirua Stream. It received a $750 infringement fine for the illegal discharge and a $500 infringement fine for the illegal reclamations.

Two people were each issued an abatement notice requiring them to stop the illegal disposal of tyres – one to land and another into a stream. Both were asked to remove the tyres by mid December 2006 but both failed to do so and were each issued an infringement notice for $750 on 13 March 2007.

Prosecutions

Tenga Pickering Contracting Ltd and Tonkin & Taylor Ltd were charged in July 2006 for discharging sediment laden water from a large sediment pond at Silverstream Landfill into Hulls Creek and the Hutt River in January 2006. Charges were withdrawn against Tonkin & Taylor, while Tenga Pickering Contracting Ltd was convicted on two charges after pleading guilty, and the Environment Court agreed to restitution offered by both parties of $10,000. The restitution amount, to be managed by Greater Wellington, will be used for environmental enhancement works in the Hulls Creek and Hutt River area.

Burrell Demolition Ltd and Alex Burrell were charged in November 2005 for the unauthorised laying of a pipe in a tributary of Owhiro Stream at C&D Landfill, in Wellington in August 2005. Charges were withdrawn against Alex Burrell, while Burrell Demolition Ltd was convicted on four charges and fined $6,000 after pleading guilty on 12 February 2007; costs of $3,125 were awarded to Greater Wellington. The Environment Court took into account the deliberateness of the works and considered that a strong deterrent was required to discourage other operators from taking a similar approach.

Brooklyn Holdings Ltd and Lance James were charged in May 2006 for the unauthorised discharge of sediments to the Owhiro Stream, Brooklyn Wellington in December 2005. Charges were withdrawn against Lance James, while Brooklyn Holdings Ltd was convicted after pleading guilty on 6 November 2007. He was fined $2,000 and costs of $5,000 were awarded to Greater Wellington.

What is Greater Wellington doing?

Our pollution control team are on call around the clock to respond to complaints about pollution or any activity thought to breach to the Resource Management Act 1991. Where the effects of the reported activity are more than minor, and the person responsible is identified, the pollution officer can take a range of actions to require the problem to be put right. The Table at the left shows that while giving the person an advisory notice is still the most common response, it is being used less now than four years ago. Formal enforcement procedures of fines, abatement notices and even prosecutions are increasing.

Our Take Charge pollution prevention team assessed industrial and commercial sites in Paraparaumu for their compliance with the Resource Management Act 1991, and began a new area assessment in Grenada North, around the Takapu stream. We also carried out eight audits for the Envirosmart Programme, which helps businesses find ways of reducing energy, water use and waste generation.

Greater Wellington organised the collection of 1.25 tonnes of agrichemicals from the Wairarapa. These have now been sent for disposal.  

What can you do?

If you notice a pollution incident or an activity that you suspect does not comply with the Resource Management Act, call Greater Wellington’s pollution hotline on 0800 496 734. This is a 24-hour service and our duty officer will respond within the hour on most occasions.

More information

If you want more information about how to avoid, reduce or respond to pollution, ring a member of our pollution control team on 04 384 5708 in Wellington, 06 378 2484 in Masterton, or ring 0800 496 734.