A review of the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards Relating to Certain Air Pollutants, Dioxins and other Toxics) Regulations 2004 (the air quality standards) was announced by Environment Minister Hon Dr Nick Smith on 10 June 2009.
The air quality standards, which were gazetted in 2004, set threshold concentrations for certain air pollutants. They provide nationally consistent, bottom-line standards that should not be breached.
This report provides information on the review of the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality. It includes information on:
An independent Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for Air Quality was commissioned by the Government in 2009 to review the standard for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The TAG, which had specific Terms of Reference, considered whether:
The TAG presented an independent report containing its recommendations to the Minister for the Environment in November 2009. Based on these recommendations, the Government agreed to public consultation on several options, including two preferred options.
The Ministry for the Environment published a discussion document on the proposed amendments in June 2010. Five workshops were held in main centres and general submissions were invited by the Ministry. Submissions closed on 9 July 2010.
This information summarises submissions on the proposed amendments. It outlines the options presented in the discussion document and presents a summary of the submissions received. It is not intended to provide an analysis of the views presented in submissions or to present recommendations in response to the submissions.
The discussion document contained the recommendations of the TAG together with three other option packages, including the Minister's preferred options.
Options 4a and 4b were the two preferred options because they:
Table 1 provides a comparison of each option with the status quo, the existing air quality standards.
| No. | Description of possible changes to NES for air quality |
Status Quo | Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | Option 4a | Option 4b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Increase the number of permitted exceedances from 1 to 3 |
1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 2 | Exclude exceptional events from being counted as exceedances |
2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||
| 3 | Removal all industry consent restrictions | 3 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Extend timeline to 2020 (maximum) | 4 | 4 (2018) | 4 (2018) | |||
| 5 | Place a greater focus on education | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||
| 6 | Require mandatory reporting (PM10 monitoring data) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | |
| 7 | Require councils to submit airshed implementation plans | 7 | |||||
| 8 | Increased ministerial oversight | 8 | |||||
| 9 | Investigate funding links (link funding to areas without a plan in place) |
9 | |||||
| 10 | Retain one permitted exceedance | 10 | 10 | 10 | |||
| 11 | Retain industry restrictions | 11 | 11 | ||||
| 12 | Retain the 2013 timeline | 12 | 12 | ||||
| 13 | Use existing ministerial powers under the RMA (s27) | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | ||
| 14 | Establish an air quality compliance strategy | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | ||
| 15 | Investigate funding links (link funding to breaching airsheds) |
15 | 15 | ||||
| 16 | National guidance on domestic emission restrictions | 16 | 16 | ||||
| 17 | Introduce mandatory offsets for all
discharge consents in breaching airsheds after 2013 |
17 | |||||
| 18 | Introduce mandatory offsets for new industry consents in breaching airsheds after 2018 |
18 |
One hundred and fourteen submissions were received. The largest number of submissions came from industry (50), followed by the general public (28) and local government (21), as shown in Figure 1 below. For a list of submitters see table 2.
Read a description of this image
This pie chart sorts the 114 submissions into six categories:
Industry 44%
NGO/Iwi 4%
Health sector 4%
Central government 4%
Local government 19%
General public 25%
A number of themes emerged from the submissions. There was clear support for improvements in several areas:
Sectors differed in what they expressed opposition to:
Figure 2 shows the preferred options expressed by submitters. There was no overall clear preference for any of the options outlined in the discussion document, although industry expressed a clear preference for Option 4b (in which all consent restrictions are removed). The largest number of submitters put forward proposals of their own ('Other'in Figure 2).
Read a description of this image
This pie chart shows the percentage of submitters who expressed a preference for each option:
TAG 2%
Option 2 1%
Option 3 3%
Option 4a 12%
Option 4b 34%
Status quo 3%
Other 40%
No preference 5%
Read a description of this image
This table breaks down each option into the number of submitters in each category who expressed a preference for that option:
| TAG | Option 2 | Option 3 | Option 4a | Option 4b | Status Quo | No preference | Other | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | - | - | - | 5 | 31 | - | 2 | 12 |
Central government |
- | - | - | 1 | - | - | 2 | 2 |
Local government |
- | - | - | 5 | 5 | - | - | 11 |
Health |
- | - | 1 | 2 | - | - | - | 2 |
NGO/Iwi |
1 | 1 | - | - | 1 | 1 | - | 1 |
General public |
1 | - | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 18 |
1. There did not, however, appear to be a common understanding that the proposal only related to new industry with significant discharges of PM10 and only those located in polluted airsheds. This may be due to provisions of the RMA which require that existing industry be considered as 'new' when applying to renew a resource consent. However, the PM10 regulations currently contain different provisions for existing (regulation 17C) and new (regulations 17A and 17B) industry.
Last updated: 29 January 2011