Under the Resource Management Act 1991
In the matter of modifications to a designation and resource consents to enable the
construction and operation of Penlink
Between
Auckland Transport
Applicant
and
Auckland Council
Consent Authority
Statement of Evidence of Phillip John Ware
September 2015
BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS
A J L BEATSON
AUCKLAND LEVEL 22, VERO CENTRE, 48 SHORTLAND STREET
PO BOX 4199, AUCKLAND 1140, DX CP20509, NEW ZEALAND
TEL 64 9 916 8800 FAX 64 9 916 8801
Qualifications and Experience
1.
My full name is Phillip John Ware.
2.
I am currently employed as a Technical Director at Beca Ltd.
3.
I have a Bachelor of Science (Honours) with a double major in Geology
and Geography (University of Otago).
I am a member of the
Environmental Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ),
WasteMINZ, and a member of the Australasian Land and Groundwater
Association (ALGA).
4.
I have fourteen years’ experience working as an environmental
consultant
in
the
contaminated
land
sector,
undertaking
site
contamination assessments for a variety of large and small projects
across a range of industries. I have authored and reviewed more than
100 soil contamination investigation reports both in New Zealand and
overseas. I am familiar with the regulatory requirements in relation to
contaminated land in New Zealand, including the assessment of risk to
people and the environment and the provision of appropriate mitigation
measures.
5.
I currently review and approve all contaminated land reports from
Beca. I operate as a Suitably Qualified and Experienced Practicioner
(SQEP) as required by the National Environmental Standard for
Contaminated Soil, and have applied in the first intake of applicants to
be accredited as a Contamination Specialist within the Chartered
Environmental Profesional scheme as part of the Environmental
Institute of Australia and New Zealand (pending).
6.
I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses as contained in
the Environment Court Practice Note 2014, and I agree to comply with
it as if this hearing was before the Environment Court. My
qualifications as an expert are set out above. I confirm that the issues
addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise. I
have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter
or detract from the opinions expressed.
18469630
1
Background and Role
7.
Penlink is a proposed road providing a connection between State
Highway 1 and the Whangaparaoa Peninsula. An existing designation
is in place and Auckland Transport has applied for an alteration to that
designation. Auckland Transport has also applied for amendments to
an existing resource consent for occupation of the Coastal Marine Area
and for various new consents required to enable the construction and
operation of the new road.
8.
I have been involved in the Project since 2014 as the Contaminated
Land lead technical advisor. I reviewed and approved for issue the
Preliminary Site Investigation Report (PSI Report) and the Outline
Contaminated Soil Management Plan (CSMP).
Scope of Evidence
9.
My evidence will address the following:
(a)
A summary of the PSI Report as attached to the AEE;
(b)
A response to submissions;
(c)
A response to the Council Planner’s s 42A Report; and
(d)
The proposed conditions.
Summary of Evidence
10.
The key findings from my evidence are as follows:
(a)
The work carried out to date has not identified any significant
areas of contamination. A number of isolated activities
undertaken within or adjacent to the designation have been
identified that have the potential to cause localised
contamination.
(b)
The PSI Report prepared for the designation identified three
potentially contaminating activities. These were: an above
ground diesel storage tank, potential application of coal tar which
may have been used in the construction of Whangaparaoa Road,
18469630
2
and the possible migration of contamination from a former service
station adjacent to Whangaparaoa Road. Due to the rural nature
of the designation area there is also the potential for other
contaminating activities to have been undertaken within or
adjacent to the designation.
(c)
It is likely that additional potentially contaminating activities will be
identified during the works. This is because the investigation to
date has been primarily a desk-based investigation and a visual
assessment was not undertaken of all areas.
(d)
Further investigation is required to confirm the presence or
absence of contamination at these sites. If contamination exists,
it is my experience that it is likely to be limited to localised areas.
The most appropriate time to conduct this investigation is once
works are ready to commence and full access is available.
Summary of the PSI Report
11.
The PSI undertaken for the Penlink project consisted of a desk based
review of property file records and council files, together with a limited
site walkover. The investigation identified that no significant areas of
contamination exist within or in close proximity to the designation
however a number of isolated activities undertaken within or adjacent to
the designation have been identified that have the potential to cause
localised contamination.
12.
Three activities listed on the Ministry for the Environments Hazardous
Activities and Industries List (HAIL) have been identified: an above
ground diesel storage tank, potential application of coal tar used in the
construction of Whangaparaoa Road, and possible migration of
contaminants from a former service station adjacent to Whangaparaoa
Road. These activities have the potential to cause localised
contamination in the form of hydrocarbons, however are unlikely to
present a risk beyond the relevant site.
13.
The rural nature of the majority of the designation also means that
there could be other unknown potentially contaminating activities
undertaken within or adjacent to the designation such as horticultural
18469630
3
activities (market gardens, orchards, intensive cropping, greenhouses
and nurseries), or farm activities (which could include offal pits, rubbish
infill pits, sheep dips, agrichemical storage, use of oil and fuels
including fuel tanks). No direct evidence of these uses was discovered
for the area of designation as part of the PSI.
14.
Given that it is not known whether soils onsite are above or below the
Schedule 10 Permitted Activity Criteria, a conservative approach has
been taken and a consent has been applied for under the Auckland
Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water as a Restricted
Discretionary activity.
15.
The proposed works will also require a Discretionary Consent under
Regulation 11 of the National Environmental Standard for Assessing
and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (2011).
16.
During dicussions held as part of the interview phase of the PSI, staff
from Weiti Station mentioned that they believed a field north of the
Weiti Access Road had been used as a military rifle range around the
time of World War II. Correspondence between Mr Mike Leddy of Beca
and Ms Kate Jack of Defence Shared Services did not produce any
further evidence or indications of the presence or absence of ordnance
use.
17.
Given the alignment at this point is along the ridge and the anecdotal
reference to ordnance use is in the valley to the north, I consider, at a
“more likely than not” level of accuracy, that no additional HAIL activites
have taken place within the alignment footprint relating to ordnance.
Should works encounter ordnance, then the area where it is found will
be considered an ‘unexpected contamination’ discovery and
procedures for such finds will be provided for in the Contaminated Soils
Management Plan.
Summary of Outline Contaminated Soil Management Plan
18.
In response to Council requests, an Outline Contaminated Soil
Management Plan has been prepared. This document sets out the
topics and types of provisions that will, as a minimum, form the basis of
18469630
4
a full Contaminated Soil Management Plan (CSMP) as proposed as a
condition of consent.
19.
The aspects covered by the outline CSMP include management of all
contamination that is discovered during the detailed site investigations.
The outline CSMP identifies that at minimum procedures for the
management of soil contamination at the identified HAIL sites will be
put forward.
20.
I consider that the range of potential mitigation measures provided for
by the outline CSMP will be able to appropriately manage any effects of
contaminated land.
Response to Submissions
21.
No aspects of any submissions related directly to existing contaminated
land. None of the submissions identified or addressed any concerns
regarding the presence of, or disturbance of contaminated soils. I have
no comment to make in regard to the submissions.
Response to the Council Planner’s s 42A Report
22.
I have read those aspects of the Planner’s Report which are relevant to
contaminated soil assessment and management. I agree with the
content of the Report, with the exception of some of the consent
conditions as discussed below.
23.
As a minor point of clarification, a paragraph of the Planner’sReport
under the heading “Discharge of contaminants to Land” page 116
contains the text “The contamination along the route involves
concentrations of heavy metals associated with…..”. This implies that it
is known that contamination exists at the site. No soil sampling has
been undertaken and no contamination has been confirmed to be
present. At this stage all reference to soil contamination should
therefore be referred to as a ‘potential risk’.
18469630
5
Proposed Conditions
24.
I have reviewed the proposed Conditions 16 to 29 contained in the
Planner’s Report. I agree with Conditions 16 to 21 and conditions 28
and 29. I disagree with Conditions 22 to 27.
25.
The proposed approach to the management of potential soil
contamination onsite is to undertake a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI)
prior to the beginning of site works, and for the results of this DSI to
inform a set of site works procedures and mitigation measures
covering, as a minimum, the aspects identified within the outline draft
CSMP. Both the DSI and CSMP are proposed to be completed and
submitted to Council for approval.
26.
This general approach to the establishment of specific mitigation
measures has been endorsed by Council specialists Mr Samuel
Woolley and Mr Rob Burden, as established within section 6.3.2.10 of
the Planner’s Report. However, Mr Woolley has put forward a number
of specific management measures or procedures as consent
conditions, which are reflected as proposed Conditions 22 to 27.
27.
In my opinion Conditions 22 to 27 circumvent the process put in place
by Conditions 16 to 21 which provide for the development of a CSMP
based on a DSI and that Council has the opportunity to approve those
documents. The proscriptive nature of Conditions 22 to 27 do not add
an additional level of protection and I consider them to be
unneccessary.
Conclusions
28.
In summary, no significant areas of contamination have been identified
during the desk study. No activities have been identified which are
reasonably likely to cause widespread and significant contamination
issues. Isolated areas within the designation have been identified to
have either had, or currently have, activities taking place on them which
have the potential to cause localised contamination.
29.
Three main activities which could have caused contaminated land (fuel
storage, potential application of coal tar, and potential contaminant
18469630
6
migration from an adjacent former service station) have the potential to
cause localised soil contamination in the form of hydrocarbons. The
type of contamination likely to arise from these uses is unlikely to
present a risk far from the individual uses extent. No direct evidence of
any contamination has been found at this stage.
30.
I consider that the requirements for a DSI to be prepared as a condition
of consent, and for controls and procedures presented in the outline
CSMP to be updated to cover all known and any additional risks
presented in the future DSI, will adequately mitigate any risks.
Phillip John Ware
September 2015
18469630
7