Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Delegations Areas of Responsibility:

Matters relating to the operation and use of the York Valley and Eves Valley landfills as regional landfill facilities, and the timing of their use.

Powers to Decide:

Setting of fees and charges for waste disposal at the regional landfill facilities by 30 June each year; including the power to apply discounted fees and charges for the disposal of waste in bulk; and to determine other circumstances where discounted fees and charges may be applied.

Decisions to accept (or not accept) waste that is generated outside the Nelson- Tasman region.

Power to Recommend to Councils:

Any other matters under the area of responsibility of the Business Unit

All recommendations to Council will be subject to adoption of an equivalent resolution by the other Council, unless it is a matter specific to one Council only.

Quorum:

The Memorandum of Understanding governing the NTRLBU allows for either four or five members to be appointed. The quorum at a meeting is either two (if four members are appointed), or three (if five members are appointed), including at least one from each local authority.

Procedure:

The Standing Orders of the Council providing administration to the committee shall be applied at each meeting.

The Chairperson will not have a casting vote

Copies of minutes of meetings of the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit will be retained by each Council for record keeping purposes

Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Minutes - 29 November 2024

A blue and white logo

AI-generated content may be incorrect.,A close up of a logo

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Minutes of a meeting of the

Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit

Te Rōpū ā-Rohe Ruapara, Whakatū / Te Tai o Aorere

Held in the Council Chamber, Floor 2A, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson on Friday 29 November 2024, commencing at 9.28a.m.

Present: Deputy Mayor of Tasman S Bryant (Chairperson), Tasman District Councillor T Walker, Nelson City Councillors M Courtney (Deputy Chairperson) and A Stallard

In Attendance: Deputy Chief Executive/Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), General Manager Regional Services (N Clarke), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Governance Adviser (A Bryce)

Apologies : Nil

1.	Apologies
	There were no apologies.
2.	Confirmation of Order of Business
	There was no change to the order of business.
3.	Interests
	There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
4.	Public Forum
	There was no public forum.
5.	Confirmation of Minutes
5.1	16 August 2024
	Document number M20718, agenda pages 1 - 10 refer.
M20866		1

Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Minutes - 29 November 2024

Resolved RLBU/2024/027

6. Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit General Manager Update Report November 2024

Document number R28884, agenda pages 11 - 24 refer.

General Manager Regional Services, Nathan Clarke presented the report and answered questions on stormwater redistribution, leachate management, Nelson Hospital gas boilers and gas usage, York Valley Gully 1 landfill consents and the Eves Valley Class 3 landfill, battery collection bins next steps, the Regional Landfills Operations Contract and gas reuse actions.

The meeting discussed the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Terms of Reference, noting the current version as they stand do not prohibit or hinder any business that had or would be undertaken.

Resolved RLBU/2024/028

That the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit General Manager Update Report November 2024 (R28884); and

2. Requests officers to provide a report at the next meeting of the NTRLBU that states the reasons for the delay in presenting the revised Terms of Reference and Deed of Agreement to Tasman District Council, and outlines any concerns held by officers regarding the revised documents and the nature of work currently being undertaken on the documents including any possible changes being investigated. The report is to provide options including:

(a) Tasman District Council adopting the documents as adopted by Nelson City Council,

(b) both Councils adopting new versions of the documents this Council term, and

(c) further substantial work on the documents with the intention of adoption by both Councils in the following Council term.

2 M20866

Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Minutes - 29 November 2024

Stallard/Walker Carried

7. Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Business Plan 2025/26 Feedback Report

Document number R28906, agenda pages 25 - 54 refer.

General Manager Regional Services, Nathan Clarke presented the report and answered questions on the report options advantages and disadvantages, CPI rates, deferring costs effects and the waste disposal levy.

Resolved RLBU/2024/029

That the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit

1. Adopts the Nelson Tasman Landfill Business Unit Business Plan 2025/26 (NDOCS-1995708647-116).

Resolved RLBU/2024/030

That the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council

1. Receive the Nelson Tasman Regional Business Unit Business Plan 2025/26 (NDOCS-1995708647-116).

Bryant/Courtney Carried

8. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved RLBU/2024/031

That the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit

1. Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

3 M20866

Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Minutes - 29 November 2024

2. The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

Courtney/Walker Carried

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 16

August 2024

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(h)

To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

The meeting went into confidential session at 11.15a.m. and resumed in public session at 11.17a.m.

9. Minutes Confirmed in Confidential

The only business transacted in confidential session was to confirm the minutes of 16 August 2024. In accordance with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, no reason for withholding this information from the public exists, therefore this business has been recorded in the open minutes.
Resolved RLBU/2024/032

That the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit

1. Confirms the minutes of part of the meeting of the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit, held with the public excluded on 16 August 2024, as a true and correct record.

Stallard/Walker Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 11.17a.m. Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings by resolution on (date) Resolution

4 M20866

Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill

Business Unit 12 March 2025

Report Title: R25-105 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill

Business Unit Class 3 Waste Graduated Fee Report

Report Author: Nathan Clarke (General Manager Regional

Services)

Report Authoriser: Alec Louverdis (Deputy Chief Executive / Group

Manager Infrastructure)

1. Purpose of Report

1.1. To seek support for Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU) to consult and seek approval from the two Councils following feedback to implement a graduated fee scale for class 3 contaminated soil waste disposal at the Eves Valley Landfill for the 2025/2026 financial year.

2. Summary

2.1. For approximately two years there has been difficulty in disposing of contaminated soils cost-effectively within the Nelson Tasman Region.

2.2. A range of options have been considered by the NTRLBU over the last two years for the disposal of contaminated soil, and the NTRLBU has recently invested in improving the assets at the Eves Valley Landfill to allow this material to be disposed to the facility.

2.3. This facility is now operating using residual class 1 airspace on Stage 2 and has accepted over 1000 tonnes since October 2024.

2.4. Despite the Eves Valley Landfill being open and accepting class 3 contaminated soil wastes, there is still no cost-effective solution for soil disposal or reuse in the Nelson Tasman region.

2.5. The NTRLBUs fee for Eves Valley of $164 (excl GST) per tonne for class 3 wastes is consider uneconomic for companies developing land for residential, commercial, and industrial uses and therefore many of these companies are stockpiling these wastes on land within the developments rather than disposing of them.

2.6. Following requests from the industry, it is considered appropriate to review this fee to support cost effective and environmentally responsible disposal of these wastes within the region.

3. Recommendation

That the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit

1. Agrees to support the proposal to implement a graduated fee scale as detailed in report R25-105; and

2. Agrees to consult with the industry on the proposed changes with all feedback to be bought back to the committee that will allow a proposal to be submitted to both Councils.

4. Background and Discussion

4.1. For approximately two years there has been difficulty in disposing contaminated soil cost-effectively within the Nelson Tasman Region.

4.2. A range of options have been considered by the NTRLBU over the last two years for the disposal of contaminated soil, and the NTRLBU has recently invested in improving the assets at the Eves Valley Landfill to allow this material to be disposed to the facility.

4.3. This facility is now operating using residual class 1 airspace on Stage 2 and has accepted over 1000 tonnes since October 2024.

4.4. Following requests from the industry to lower the $164 (excl GST) per tonne cost for class 3 waste disposal, it is considered appropriate for this fee to be reviewed to support cost effective and environmentally responsible disposal of these wastes within the region.

4.5. There are a range of options for changing the fees including discounts for bulk mass of material, flat fees for different masses of materials, or the preferred option which is a graduated fee structure relating to the mass of material being discharged

4.6. NTRLBU is proposing a graduated fee scale where all disposers pay $164 per tonne for small amounts of material, with the cost for additional material reducing in steps as the volume increases, and a significant reduction in price over 7500 tonnes of material.

4.7. The proposed scale is shown below in Table 1 below

		· Loads to be by appointment.
		· Loads to be greater than 8 tonnes, or minimum charge equal to 8 tonnes.
250 – 1000 tonnes	$120	· Verification testing to be undertaken on each 125 tonnes of material.
		· Loads by appointment.
		· Loads to be delivered with minimum of 60 tonnes per day.
		· Discount only to projects relating to one disposal manifest and where project has contiguous property boundaries or is one project in the opinion of the NTRLBU GM.
		· Project to be undertaken over a maximum 4-month period.
		· Projects cannot span financial years.
1000 - 7500 tonnes	$90	· Verification testing to be undertaken on each 500 tonnes of material.
		· Loads by appointment.
		· Loads to be delivered at a minimum 120 tonnes per day.
		· Discount to projects relating to one disposal manifest only, and where project has

Table 1 – Proposed class three graduated fee structure for Eves Valley landfill along with the required conditions for the graduated fee structure to apply.

4.8. The proposed graduated fee scale is a way for NTRLBU to leverage the economies of scale associated with larger quantities being disposed in a short duration to reduce the cost of class 3 waste disposal.

4.9. In considering any change to the class 3 fee structure NTRLBU needs to balance the competing demands for conserving the Stage 2 class 1 airspace required for emergency capacity, and the responsibility for providing an environmentally and economically sustainable contaminated soil disposal option.

5. Development of class 3 airspace

5.1. The overarching program for the management of class 3 airspace has three steps.

5.2. Step one is to use class 1 airspace on Stage 2 for the 2025/ 2026 financial year. Steps two and three are concurrent with step one.

5.3. Step two involves seeking consent for disposal of class 3 material within the Eves Valley Landfill designation on the top of Stage 1 and in the area between Stage 1 and Stage 2.

5.4. Step three involves completing a road stopping process on a paper road on the southeast of the Eves Vally Landfill designation, and then seeking consent to dispose class 3 wastes to the gully to the south of Stage 1.

5.5. NTRLBU budgeted for 2000 tonnes of waste for the first year of the Eves Valley Class 2 facility and are on track to dispose this mass of waste.

5.6. The wastes being disposed to Eves Valley are principally from local government or industrial clients where there is either clear time pressure for projects or where there is no ability to stockpile or reuse the materials.

5.7. For most development projects the material is being stockpiled on part of the site rather than disposed. This has led to the creation of number of large stockpiles of class 3 material in the Nelson Tasman region.

5.8. Stage 2 airspace

5.8.1. The current airspace being used at Eves Valley for class 3 waste disposal is the residual class 1 airspace capacity on the Stage 2 landfill. This capacity was developed as Class 1 airspace when the landfill was operated by TDC and has been reserved until recently as emergency capacity for the region.

5.8.2. Stage 2 has a reserve capacity of approximately 70,000m3, and an assessment undertaken by the General Manager (GM) is that NTRLBU needs to keep approximately six months capacity in

5.10.3. The project will require the paper road to be removed from the title, and the landfill designation extended to cover the additional land area.

5.10.4. NTRLBU has already started the road stopping process and has liaised with Iwi and the TDC.

5.10.5. A discharge to land consent application will also be needed for this land.

6. Considerations to be resolved.

6.1. There are a range of actions required to be undertaken to implement this class 3 facility development plan, some of these actions are itemised in the below.

6.1.1. Acquire the South Gully area from Tasman District Council (TDC).

6.1.2. Compensate TDC for the loss of trees from the area to be acquired by NTRLBU for the class 3 landfill in South Gully.

6.1.3. Stop paper road over the land in South Gully.

6.1.4. Apply for discharge to land consent for the South Gully site.

6.1.5. Design and implement any required leachate management system and additional groundwater monitoring, for the South Gully class 3 facility, noting that the Waste MINZ class 3 landfill design guidelines do not require leachate management for class 3 facilities.

6.1.6. Develop an erosion and sediment control plan, including stormwater cut off drainage plan for the proposed facility.

7. Risks

7.1. There are two notable risks associated with this work program.

7.2. Excessive disposal of waste during the development of the South Gully facility

7.2.1. There is a risk that the discount to the class 3 fee will increase the class 3 material requiring disposal in the facility significantly and will quickly consume the available airspace.

7.2.2. There are two separate mitigations for this.

• Include provisions in the fee structure that prevent the lower fee levels where developed class 3 airspace is not available.

• Use airspace above stage 2 temporarily while the additional airspace is consented and then relocate the

material once consent has been granted. While this will increase NTRLBUs cost, the higher fee will cover the relocation costs.

7.3. Excessive duration for gaining consent for the class 3 facility.

7.3.1. Gaining consent requires a few prerequisite actions to occur, and there is a risk that the sequence of events will create delays in having a resource consent granted within the timeframe required.

7.3.2. The effect of this delay is that it will be more likely for the class 3 developed airspace to be consumed before additional airspace have been consented and developed.

7.3.3. The provision in the graduated fee that increases the cost for disposal if NTRLBU does not have developed airspace will act to reduce class 3 mass being disposed under these situations, however this does not fully mitigate the risk of significant delays.

8. Options

8.1. There are various advantages and disadvantages of this and there as outlined in table 2, and these are discussed briefly in the following sections

8.2. Don’t change the fee for class 3 contaminated soil disposal.

8.2.1. NTRLBU have the option of recommending to both councils any change to the fee structure for disposal of class 3 contaminated soil within the region.

8.2.2. If the fee is not lowered, then it is likely that additional stockpiles of class 3 contaminated soil will be created within the Nelson Tasman region until an affordable disposal option becomes available.

8.2.3. There is the possibility that both environmental and public health effects could occur with increased number and size of stockpiles.

8.2.4. There is also a likelihood that development in the region will remain constrained due to the cost of contaminated soil disposal.

8.2.5. The benefit that the higher fee has is that NTRLBU don’t use much capacity at Eves and therefore the capacity on stage 2 is not put at risk.

8.3. Graduated Scale of Fees

8.3.1. NTRLBU have the option of recommending to both Councils to change the fee structure to a graduated fee structure for disposal of class 3 contaminated soil within the region. There are various

advantages and disadvantages of this and there as outlined in table 2 below

8.3.2. A key advantage is that it would results in a system that encourages responsible disposal and allow economy of scale to support ongoing development in region.

8.3.3. A graduated system would be fair to all parties as irrespective of the amount the first 250 pays the same. However, it would potentially encourage brown fields developments compared to infill developments as the scale of infill developments would be lower and would not reach the same discount threshold.

8.3.4. The graduated fee structure and associated rules avoids most manipulation pressure because disposing a larger mass costs more irrespective of the amount or material type.

Option 1: Don’t change the fee for class 3 contaminated soil disposal.

Advantages

· NTRLBU staff will not be pressured to have airspace available in a short timeframe.

· NTRLBU will earn more per tonne from class 3 disposal, but and will have fewer tonnes to manage.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Responsible disposal of class 3 contaminated soil will not become affordable within the region.

· Additional stockpiling of the material will occur, and the risk of environmental and public health issues will increase.

· Costs for monitoring and tracking wastes within the regions will increase.

· There will be more risk of environmental and public health issues associated with class 3 contaminated soil.

Option 2: Graduated Fee scale for class 3 disposal with conditions. (Recommended Option)

Advantages

· Easy to administer.

· Is fair to all contractors for the same volume of material.

· Lowers cost for disposal of material for large projects, which will encourage responsible disposal.

· Current stockpiles may be appropriately disposed.

· Reduces likelihood of environmental and public health issues occurring.

· A graduated fee scale is relatively difficult to manipulate by contractors.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Could encourage aggregation of projects.

· Could result in aggregation of class 3 and 4 wastes if a more affordable class 4 waste disposal option is not available.

· Benefits big contractors/ developers significantly compared to small contractors/ developers.

· Could encourage brownfields developments compared to infill developments.

Table 2 – Options for Fees for class 3 contaminated soil disposal at Eves Valley landfill.

Local Government well-beings of social, economic, environmental, and cultural.

10.2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs.

10.3. Risk

There are a range of risk associated with not implementing a graduated fee structure and for implementing a graduated fee structure. On balance the risks associated with implementing the fee structure are considered manageable and reduce the potentially more significant and long lasting risks associated with not implementing the structure.

10.4. Financial impact

The development of the Class 3 disposal facility was included in the funding allowed in the NTRLBU 2024 – 2034 Activity management plan.

10.5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The NTRLBU is a Joint Committee of the two Councils and its activities are included in the Long-term Plans and Annual Plans of each Council.

Consultation is undertaken by both Councils in the preparation and adoption of these plans.

The development of the class 3 facility was included in the NTRLBU 2024- 2024 Activity management plan and is not considered significant to either council.

10.6. Climate Impact

A key feature of the NTRLBU capital programme is the ability to implement systems to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and environmental issues. The development of specific class 3 disposal facility reduces emissions and emissions levies. This reduction is due to class 3 facilities not producing carbon emissions and being exempt from ETS levies.

10.7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision-making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report but iwi have representation on the Board.

10.8. Delegations

The Deed of Agreement for the Nelson-Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (Deed), signed on the 28 April 2017 by the two Mayors and the two Chief Executives of each of the two Council’s (Nelson and Tasman) assigns

the delegations (as shown in the extract from the Deed - namely Clause 14 below) to the Joint Nelson-Tasman Regional Landfill Business (NTRLBU).

These delegations are in addition to NTRLBU having powers to decide the setting of fee and charges at the regional landfill, and to accept (or not accept) waste from outside the Nelson/Tasman region as reflected in the Delegations Register (pages 25/26).

These delegations as set out in the Deed are consistent with the delegations given to the NRSBU on the same matters – specifically designed to ensure consistency.

Clause 1.3 of the Delegations Register notes:

“The general principle is that Council retains all responsibilities, duties, functions and powers that must be exercised by Council and where delegations are prevented by legislation. It may also retain certain key responsibilities, duties, functions, and powers that it wishes to exercise. All other responsibilities, duties, functions, and powers may be delegated to a committee, sub-committee, or other subordinate decision-making body or, where not retained by Council, are delegated to the Chief Executive.

In addition, Section 3 of the Delegations Register details Delegations from Council to the Chief Executive.

On this basis the NTRLBU (and consistent with the NRSBU) is deemed to have the authority to enter into all contracts necessary for the operation and management of the NTRLBU in accordance with the approved budgets and intent of the Business Plan.

Responsibilities delegated to the NTRLBU

14. The Councils agree that responsibility for all management and administrative matters associated with the operation of the Joint Committee shall be delegated to the NTRLBU. The NTRLBU may without the need to seek any further authority from the Councils:

(i) operate a bank account for the NTRLBU.

(ii) enter into all contracts necessary for the operation and management of the NTRLBU in accordance with the approved budgets and intent of the Business Plan and the 'Procurement guidance for public entities' as produced by the Office of the Auditor General.

(iii) authorise all payments necessary for the operation and management of the NTRLBU within the approved budgets and intent of the Business Plan.

(iv) do all other things that are necessary to achieve the objectives as stated in the Joint Waste Plan, Long Term Plan, Activity Management Plan or Business Plan approved by the Councils, including setting terms of trade and acceptance criteria for waste to landfills.

Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill

Business Unit 12 March 2025

Report Title: R25-36 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit General Manager Update Report March 2025

Report Author: Nathan Clarke (General Manager Regional

Services)

Report Authoriser: Alec Louverdis (Deputy Chief Executive / Group

Manager Infrastructure)

1 Purpose of Report

1.1 This report is an update by the General Manager (GM) on activities undertaken to 31 December 2024 by the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU).

2 Recommendation

That the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit General Manager Update Report.

3 Background

3.1 The operations and maintenance contractor has been performing well in regard to health and safety and environmental performance.

3.2 Landfill operations have been running smoothly with few issues.

3.3 A new traffic light system has been implemented at the landfill traffic control hut to optimize the operations and allow the operational staff to control traffic remotely. It is anticipated that this will allow reduced operational costs over time.

3.4 Landfill compaction results are still good with the compaction results from the Compactor GPS system showing an average density for the period of

0.88 tonnes per m3 - above the contracted density requirement of 0.85 tonnes per m3

3.5 The mass of waste being disposed to York Valley landfill has been lower than forecast, continuing the trend seen during the 2024 calendar year.

3.6 Landfill finances are in good shape at present due to the receipt of revenue from the Tahunanui Back Beach sawdust disposal project, however total waste to the landfill (excluding the Tahunanui Beach Sawdust waste) is on average 311 tonnes per month below the 2024/2025 forecast mass for the year to 31 January 2025.

3.7 If this lower-than-expected waste trend continues then the NTRLBU should expect a reduction in net revenue (excluding the Tahunanui back beach sawdust wastes) of around $1 million from a waste mass of approximately 69,000 tonnes.

3.8 The budget for the 2025/2026 financial year assumed a waste mass disposal of 73,478 tonnes. It is possible, if current trends continue, that revenue for York Valley Landfill will be lower than budget by $1.2 million for the 2025/2026 financial year.

3.9 The Eves Valley Landfill has accepted 1035 tonnes of class 3 waste for disposal for the financial year to the end of January 2025. NTRLBU budgeted for a total Class 3 waste mass of 2000 tonnes for the financial year.

3.10 A range of improvements have been made to the Eves Valley Landfill to support ongoing acceptance of class 3 waste with improvements to stormwater management, leachate management, fencing and roading, this project is ongoing.

4 Health, Safety, and Environmental Records.

4.1 There were no notable health and safety incidents during the period.

4.2 There were five battery ignition events recorded in the waste between 1 November 2024 and 31 January 2024. All the events were handled well by the operation contractor.

4.3 All the ignition events were caused by Lithium-Ion batteries. The identified sources of the batteries were one laptop, and a number of cell phone batteries.

4.3.1 Table 1 below shows the list of the fire incidents

Category	Type	What occurred / was reported	What was done about it straight away	What has been done / will be done differently to prevent future recurrence or make improvements
Fire	Observation	Cellphone fire, smoke observed on refuse	Shifted to clay and extinguished
Fire	Observation	Tana crushed battery pack, small flame	Dug out onto clay and used watercart to wet down area	Recorded
Fire	Observation	Smaking cellphone	Dug out onto clay	Recorded
Fire	Observation	Small smoking battery, detected due to smellling smoke in cab	Dug out onto clay	Recorded
Fire	Observation	Small smoking battery spotted by compactor	Dug out onto clay	Recorded

Table 1: Fire incident records for the period to 31 January 2025

4.3.2 The list of Health and safety incidents and observations is provided to the end of January 2025 in table 2 below.

Category

Type

What occurred / was reported

What was done about it straight away

What has been done / will be done differently to prevent future recurrence or make improvements

HealthSafety

Near miss

While clearing out SRP3 silt, truck backing down into pond and brakes did not respond. Excvator had to stop truck with bucket.

Prestarts checked, truck inspected by mechanic, no faults. Added additional aggregate to ramp for

better traction.

HealthSafety

Observation

Thermal camera not facing tiphead each night and PTZ thermal cannot view waste due to current fill shape with bund.

Multiple reminders given to operator.

Previously Gas contractor has repaired and positioned camera, resulting in lack of responsibilty from landfill operator. Making camera more accessable for operator would help (IT constraints). Have operator review fire hazard and unstand importants of camera as an old of hours control.

HealthSafety

Near miss

While tracking across waste in excavator a piece of refuse (steel pipe) flipped up and smashed door window.

Glass vaccummed up and replaced.

HealthSafety

Incident

While carting a bucket of sawdust to tiphead in loader, drove into Well rocket 52. New route for driving to tiphead and dust reduces visiability.

Checked for gas leaks and lid to be replaced with thicker steel lid when internal installed. Flags placed around well.

Highlights critical risk that loader bucket limits visibility. Tiphead is controlled access area and haul roads are no go zones for staff.

HealthSafety

Complaint

Neighbours complaining of unnotified hunting occuring in adjacent forest. Concerned about noise scaring stock and safety. Complaint made via text to

site foreman.

Additional locks placed on forest gates.

Not able to control tresspassers.

Table 2: Health and Safety for the period to 31 January 2025

4.4 During the first six months of the operations contract the operations performed smoothly with improvements to compaction performance and stormwater management.

4.5 Environmental performance during the period has been good, although there were two odour notifications from a neighbour during the period. Both were investigated by staff.

4.6 Table 3 below outlines the environmental and odour incidents for the period to end of January 2025

Category

Type

What occurred / was reported

What was done about it straight away

What has been done / will be done differently to prevent future recurrence or make improvements

Complaina nt informed of results

Environmental

Observation

Consent monitoring technician arrive at York Valley to sample surface water. But ponds had just been desilted so no water available.

Advised consent monitoring office with phone and email, agreed to defer sampling until ponds

have water.

Better

Odour

Complaint

Adjcent neighbour texted reporting odour in the morning and seagulls dropping food and waste.

Site inspected fully receipt of report that evening, no odours detected will

monitor.

Yes

Odour

Complaint

Adjcent neighbour texted reporting odour at property.

Investigated, capping leaking at toe of benches, poorly capped by previousl contractor. Also transfer pad manhole was cleaned out and causing major

putrencent odour

Improve capping in area and increase gas suction.

Table 3: Environmental and Odour incidents for the period to 31 January 2025

4.7 During the period the independent odour assessor engaged by NTRLBU has undertaken fortnightly odour assessments and has not identified odours outside the landfill basin. The inspections also considered noise and litter and did not identify any noise or litter issues over the period.

5 Operations

5.1 The Tahunanui Beach contaminated sawdust disposal was completed during the period and an application by NTRLBU has been accepted by MFE for a levy exemption, which will reduce NCCs cost for disposal of the Tahunanui Back Beach sawdust.

A graph of a graph with different colored bars

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Graph 1: Waste mass being disposed February 2024 to January 2025

5.2 As outlined above the waste mass being received to the landfill for disposal is below budget. Graph 1 above shows the forecast mass (purple horizontal line), and the two highlighted peaks relate to the Tahunanui back beach sawdust disposal.

5.3 Despite the waste mass being received by the landfill being lower than budget for much of the period, NTRLBU preliminary finances to the end of December 2025 show a surplus compared to budget of $1.473 million for the 2024/25 year to date.

5.4 These results are a significant improvement on the results to the end of September 2024, with the principal change resulting from revenue from the disposal of the Tahunanui Back Beach contaminated sawdust.

5.5 The General Manager (GM) expects the surplus to reduce throughout the remainder of the financial year due to the low waste mass being received at the landfill, and additional costs for managing the two large slips that have occurred around the York Valley Landfill site.

6 Odour Management

6.1 NTRLBU received two notifications related to odour during the period. Both notifications occurred on cool misty mornings with no or very slight breeze.

6.2 Unfortunately, on both occasions the independent odour assessor was not available to investigate when contacted. When NTRLBU staff investigatedno odour was able to be detected, which suggests that any odour issues were of short duration.

6.3 The NTRLBU independent odour assessor uses an assessment criteria called the FIDOL criteria. This criteria is the method outlined in the Good Practice Guide for Managing Odour published by the Ministry For the Environment.

6.4 This odour assessment includes factors including:

6.4.1 Frequency; How often an individual is exposed to the odour.

6.4.2 Intensity; The strength of the odour.

6.4.3 Duration; The length of exposure to the odour.

6.4.4 Odour character; The character relates to the ‘hedonic tone’ of the odour, which may be pleasant, neutral or unpleasant.

6.4.5 Location; The type of land use and nature of human activities in the vicinity of an odour source.

6.5 Based on the low frequency, the low duration it is considered that the York Valley landfill does not create any more than minor adverse effects from its operations.

6.6 NTRLBU held open days recently for local residents, and during these visits residents did not consider odour a significant issue.

7 Contract 3912 completion

7.1 Contract 3912 was the contract under which the previous landfill operations and maintenance contractor was engaged. This contract was in dispute at the end of the contract period, and further work has been undertaken with the previous landfill contractor to resolve all matters amicably.

8 Update on projects.

8.1 Eves Valley Class 3 Facility

8.1.1 Several improvement works are underway at Eves Valley to ensure that the system can accommodate the class 3 waste and manage the stormwater from the disposal areas effectively.

8.2 There are additional stages of work required for developing additional airspace for the class 3 waste facility at Eves Valley Landfill. The work plan includes applying for discharge to land consents for additional locations at the Eves Valley Landfill facility.

8.2.1 The overarching program of works setting up the class 3 facility is behind schedule due to the delay receiving the completed resource

consent for Stage 2 of the Eves Valley landfill. NTRLBU has been advised to wait for the completion of the Stage 2 consent prior to commencing the discharge to land consent for additional areas of the landfill for class 3 waste disposal.

8.2.2 As part of the class 3 waste disposal stages a road stopping application for a section of paper road across the site. This application has been started.

8.3 Eves Valley Gas Utilisation.

8.3.1 The gas utilisation project has been progressing slower than desired, due to resolving concerns regarding gas quality.

8.3.2 The landfill gas generator for the Eves Valley Landfill has recently been specified and is in the process of being ordered.

8.3.3 The generator building and the electrical control systems and interconnection equipment are also being ordered.

8.3.4 In addition to the physical works, NTRLBU is working with Nelson City Council (NCC) to ensure that the new electricity purchasing agreement will allow the sale of electricity from the Eves Valley Landfill site.

8.4 York Valley Slip Repairs

8.4.1 NTRLBU are in the process of developing remedial plans for two slips on the rear of the landfill site. Geotechnical advice on remediation has been sought, and preliminary remedial plans have been developed. The plans currently involve excavating around 35,000m3 of material from unstable areas to reduce the risk of further failure. This material will be placed and compacted in Gully 2 of the York Valley Landfill designation. The remedial works are scheduled to commence in mid-March 2025. This work is covered by the resource consent RM251515V1 which authorises earthworks within Gullys 1, 2, and 3 of the York Valley Landfill designation.

8.5 Battery Collection Bin (BCB) Development Progress.

8.5.1 Three BCBs have been delivered to Tasman District Council (TDC), and the remaining ten BCBs are due to be delivered to NTRLBU in April 2025. NCC has requested 2 BCBs with TDC requesting another five.

9 Deed of Agreement and Terms of Reference Review

9.1 A separate report is on the agenda covering this review.

10 Emission Management

10.1 The NTRLBU gas management system at York Valley Landfill has continued to operate effectively.

10.2 Gas capture and destruction is still at high levels, and balance gas levels are lower than previous years suggesting that capping integrity has improved.

10.3 The 2024 annual UEF was approved at the maximum reduction, and the annual emission remission has been calculated to be 7318 tonnes for the 2024 calendar year.

10.4 Work is ongoing on the business case and market research and a concept plan is being developed for the reuse options for the remainder of the gas at the York Valley Landfill.

10.5 The NZ Government has released the new Emissions Trading Scheme (ETC) settings. The new settings come into effect on 1 January 2026.

10.6 The new Default Emission Factor will be raised from 0.91 to 1.023 which will increase the number of ETS credits NTRLBU need to remit annually.

11 Emissions Trading Scheme Position

11.1 The ETS unit price is currently around $63.40 per unit.

11.2 Our current holding of 155,569 units has an average cost of $43.45 per unit.

11.3 Our current New Zealand Unit (NZU) holding and movements.

11.4 Units on Hand 31 January 2024	141,090
11.5 Units surrendered for 2024	7,318
11.6 Balance after surrender	133,772

11.7 Treasury policy limit, assuming a Unique Emission Factor of 0.21 and budgeted waste volumes is 45,353 units.

11.8 Current holding is 87,419 units more than policy due to the reduction in the UEF achieved in 2022 and in 2023.

11.9 The NTRLBU and the Councils have approved the sale of 50,000 NZUs and delegated the timing of the sale to the General Manager of NTRLBU.

11.10 At present it is proposed that NTRLBU do not sell until there is more understanding of the NZ Governments position on climate change actions, and how this might affect future ETS prices, the Default Emission Factor, and the future NTRLBU ETS liability.

12 Waste Minimisation

12.1 These are the primary activities going on with waste minimisation for NTRLBU at present.

12.1.1 Battery diversion, this program has reduced the number of battery fires that NTRLBU has been experiencing at the landfill, however ignition events caused by lithium-ion batteries are still occurring.

12.1.2 NTRLBU has experienced five battery related ignition events during the last period. This work includes the development of the Battery Bins discussed above.

12.2 In addition to the battery bins NTRLBU is commencing a trial of a revised excavator grab bucket that will allow improved sorting of waste at the transfer facility at the landfill. This trial is anticipated to start in late March 2025.

13 Risk Management

13.1 NTRLBU considers its risks on an ongoing basis, as risks on the site frequently change because of additional information or changes to operations.

13.2 This section has been added to outline some strategic and tactical risks facing the landfill at present. It is not intended to be comprehensive or to outline all risks and will focus on different risks in each quarterly report or risks that NTRLBU are managing at that time.

13.3 Slip risk – A remedial program has commenced to resolve the known slip risks at York Valley Landfill. The principal risks associated with landslides relate to Health and Safety of personnel, maintaining unconstrained landfill access, and financial costs to remedy the slips.

13.4 Stormwater management – NTRLBU has upgraded the landfill sediment retention ponds and has improved stormwater channels and other services. There have however been occurrences where the sediment load from the system has exceeded the resource consent parameters due to the intensity and duration of the rain events, and the larger earthworks projects being undertaken on the site.

13.4.1 NTRLBU have developed a plan to divert stabilized stormwater away from the sediment ponds to reduce the flowrate requiring treatment. This will further reduce the risk of sediment issues from the site.

13.5 Regional Landfill Consenting – NTRLBU has started the process of developing its consent application for the future landfill. A range of options

REVIEW OF NTRLBU GOVERNANCE DOCUMENTS

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To update the Committee on why Tasman District Council staff have not progressed any recommendation to their Council to approve the proposed changes to the Terms of Reference (ToR) and Deed of Agreement (DoA) that govern the Nelson-Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU) as recommended in 2022.

2. Report Summary

2.1 Tasman District Council staff have not progressed any recommendation to their Council to approve the proposed changes to the ToR / DoA due to:

2.1.1 concerns around the quality and form of the external advice received about the proposed changes; and

2.1.2 there being no consideration of the amendments to the Commerce Act 1989 in the scope of the external advice.

3. Recommendation

That the Nelson-Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit

1. receives the Review of NTRLBU Governance Documents report and its Attachment.

4. Background and Discussion

4.1 In addition to the reasons set out below for not progressing any recommendation to Council about the Draft Report’s proposed changes to the ToR / DoA, the Tasman District Council staff have needed to give priority to other matters which has taken their attention away from

the review of the ToR / DoA.

Commerce Commission Authorisation

4.2 The NTRLBU operates under a conditional authorisation from the Commerce Commission dated 24 April 2017 (Authorisation) (Attachment 1).

4.3 At the time that the NTRLBU was established there was concern that the joining of the (previously separate) Nelson and Tasman landfill operations may breach the Commerce Act 1989. In order to ensure that no such breach was created by the establishment of the NTRLBU, the Authorisation (under sections 61(6) and 61(6A) of the Commerce Act) was obtained.

Item Page 1

4.4 Under the Authorisation, the Commerce Commission authorised the following Specific Provisions under each of the ToR and the DoA:

4.4.1 clause 5 of the DoA, which relates to the councils jointly controlling landfill facilities in the region;

4.4.2 clauses 7, 9 and 10 of the DoA, which relate to the councils co-operating together to provide their waste services;

4.4.3 clauses 12 and 13 of the DoA, which relate to the councils accepting out-of-district waste;

4.4.4 clause 14 of the DoA, which relates to the management of the councils’ waste services, including setting terms of trade and conditions of waste acceptance;

4.4.5 clause 1 of the ToR, which puts the NTRLBU in charge of managing and operating the region’s landfill facilities;

4.4.6 clause 10 of the ToR, which gives the Joint Committee the power to set fees and charges for disposal at the regional landfill facilities; and

4.4.7 clause 22(iv) of the ToR, which outlines the role of the NTRLBU’s management in making recommendations to the NTRLBU on fees (including charges and rebates), operational contracts, and waste acceptance.

4.5 The effect of the Authorisation was to allow the NTRLBU to operate with the Specified Provisions included in its governance documents. However, any change to the effect of these Specified Provisions (and other clauses in the ToR / DoA which affect the scope and application of the Specified Provisions) risks breaching the Commerce Act.

External advice

4.6 At the request of the then Chair of the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill committee, in April 2022 NTRLBU obtained a draft report reviewing the ToR / DoA and recommending changes to these documents (Draft Report).

4.7 The Draft Report was considered by the Tasman District Council staff who identified some concerns and noted that the format/style of the Draft Report was not easily understandable to non-legally trained readers.

4.8 The Draft Report acknowledged that the limited extent to which changes can be made to the ToR / DoA due to the restrictions that the Authorisation imposes. This meant that it was not possible to readily amend the ToR and DoA into fit-for-purpose governance documents for the NTRLBU.

4.9 Key concerns that Tasman District Council identified were around:

Delegations

4.9.1 The Draft Report identified inconsistencies in:

4.9.1.1 the descriptions of the Joint Committee role between the DoA / ToR with potential to create confusion, ambiguity and disagreements as to the role of the Joint Committee as compared to the Council; and

4.9.1.2 scope of delegations to the Joint Committee in relation to assets and activities of the NTRLBU.

Item Page 2

4.9.2 Given that some of these provisions are Specified Provisions, or could affect the application of Specified Provisions, these ambiguous provisions could not be amended.

4.9.3 Delegations to the Joint Committee under the ToR prevail so there should not be inconsistencies between them and any agreements as such inconsistencies create a risk that the Joint Committee may be acting without authority.

Local Government Act 2002 compliance

4.9.4 The Draft Report recommended that the actual decision on fees and charges be made by the Joint Committee. This is contrary to the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) around decision making for such matters (Sections, 83, 101 and Schedule 7 of the LGA).

4.9.5 We note that the fees and charges decisions are now made as part of the Long Term Plan process for both the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils.

Compliance with Council planning documents

4.9.6 The Draft Report noted that:

4.9.6.1 the DoA / ToR requirements for the Joint Committee to act in accordance with the Council’s Long-Term Plans and Annual Plans may undermine the delegations to the Joint Committee and some of those DoA / ToR requirements are stronger than the requirements under the LGA; and

4.9.6.2 the relevant clauses are Specified Provisions under the Authorisation so cannot be changed.

4.9.7 As the Committee is not a Council Controlled Organisation or an independent entity, LGA compliance is required in relation to Long Term Plan/Annual Plan and Annual Report processes. Accordingly, this apparent tension between Specified Provisions and L:GA requirements is not ideal.

4.10 Tasman District Council staff met with a representative of the authors of the Draft Report and the General Manager of the NTRLBU in August 2023 and requested a summary of the Draft Report in an easily understandable format for non-legally trained readers.

4.11 A summary document was provided to both Councils nine months later, in May 2023.

4.12 So, with this background on the legal technical and procedural issues, the Tasman District Council staff delayed forwarding the draft report and associated proposal to its Council. Given that the existing ToR was not compromising the current operations and activities of the NTRLBU, the Tasman District Council staff did not give this priority.

4.13 Over recent weeks, staff from both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council have worked together with specialist advisers to resolve the prevailing concerns. The outcomes of the advice will be the subject of a separate report to the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Joint Committee.

Impact of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008

4.14 The Authorisation was conditional on the Councils undertaking that any operating surplus generated from the NTRLBU be ringfenced to fund waste management and minimisation services, facilities or activities.

4.15 Section 53 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) provides:

Item Page 3

Proceeds from activities and services must be used in implementing waste management and minimisation plan; and

A territorial authority may sell marketable product resulting from any activity or service of the territorial authority carried out under this Part, but any proceeds of sale must be used in implementing its waste management and minimisation purposes.

5. Options

5.1 This is an information only report and no decision is required.

6. Important considerations for decision-making

6.1 Fit with Purpose of Local Government