12 June 2023
File Ref: OIARP-1274023063-2569
Kris Roestenburg
By email:
[FYI request #22809 email]
Tēnā koe Kris
Request for information 2023-124
I refer to your request for information which was received by Greater Wellington Regional Council
(Greater Wellington) on 15 May 2023.
Your full email is attached as Appendix A. You requested the fol owing information:
1. Why did the GWRC fail their duty under the RMA to ensure compliance with International
Waste Ltd's Discharge To Air Consent today? Typically you would advise us that the
environmental team are too busy or have multiple discharge to air breaches to inspect however
the ticket numbers show that I was the only one who called that day up until the second call so
what gives and what excuse do you have for not attending this breach of the Discharge To Air
Consent?
2. Kelly Sutton - one of the owners of Interwaste and also the owner SOS Success Ltd Divorce
Coaching and Mediation Services has listed in a affidavit to the courts that the GWRC has only
caught them breaching their Discharge To Air Consent in regards to emissions twice in all the
years they've been operating. Is this true? As I have at-least 22 serious breaches recorded down
for this year alone and as for what I would consider to be minor breaches these occur on a daily
basis as emissions fill my warehouse on a almost a daily basis.
3. If the GWRC are not attending and have not been attend for years on end than how is a
breach supposed to be recorded? It is almost as if the GWRC do not wish to take any
enforcement action against interwaste as they currently have a monopoly on the hazardous and
infectious waste or alternatively there is corruption occurring within the GWRC that is blocking
this from being looked into too much.
4.Wil the GWRC be paying for the future cancer treatments of those who have been affected
due to their negligence and failure to ensure consent compliance?
Wellington office
Upper Hutt
Masterton office
0800 496 734
PO Box 11646
PO Box 40847
PO Box 41
www.gw.govt.nz
Manners St, Wel ington 6142
1056 Fergusson Drive
Masterton 5840
[Wellington Regional Council request email]
5. Chris Wright an agent of the GWRC tried to alter the general publics perception about what
has been occurring here and mentioned in a public forum that I have no idea what I am talking
about, that my research papers have nothing to do with this matter even though it's based on
autoclaves and that according to him those within the GWRC believe that I am standing on
"soap box" - which is why the GWRC have done little to nothing to end this from happening.
Could you please advise if this the GWRC's official position on these constant breaches as it
would seem to be the case based off the GWRC's actions on this matter.
6. I made an official complaint directly to the Nigel Corry half a year ago and it was ignored by
him until the ombudsman got involved and then he replied half a year later. Why?
7. I responded to Nigel Corry's email to me and had some questions for him, which instead of
responding to he lodged as an LGOIMA through who I assume to be his personal assistance
when I never requested an LGOIMA, this delaying tactic seems to be common place when
dealing with the GWRC, Why?
Greater Wel ington’s response is as follows:
1. Why did the GWRC fail their duty under the RMA to ensure compliance with International
Waste Ltd's Discharge To Air Consent today? Typically you would advise us that the
environmental team are too busy or have multiple discharge to air breaches to inspect however
the ticket numbers show that I was the only one who called that day up until the second call so
what gives and what excuse do you have for not attending this breach of the Discharge To Air
Consent?
Greater Wellington received a complaint at 8:49am on the morning of 15 May 2023 of an odour from
Interwaste smelling “like burnt flesh and burnt hair.” The duty officer got in touch with Interwaste
in the first instance and was informed, “this morning between 0800hrs to 0945hrs our team member
was cooking outside on our BBQ for team brunch which consisted of meat products and fresh
produce for human consumption.” The duty officer thus did not attend site at this time, nor following
a second odour complaint received about the site at 2:09pm on the same day.
The fol owing day, 16 May 2023, we received two complaints about Interwaste, at 11:08am and
13:06pm. The duty officer did not have capacity to attend the first incident but attended the second.
The officer arrived on site at 13:54pm and did not detect any odour from Interwaste.
Page 2 of 7
2. Kelly Sutton - one of the owners of Interwaste and also the owner SOS Success Ltd Divorce
Coaching and Mediation Services has listed in a affidavit to the courts that the GWRC has only
caught them breaching their Discharge To Air Consent in regards to emissions twice in all the
years they've been operating. Is this true? As I have at-least 22 serious breaches recorded down
for this year alone and as for what I would consider to be minor breaches these occur on a daily
basis as emissions fill my warehouse on a almost a daily basis.
Greater Wel ington has evidence of the door being open for longer than ten minutes at a time on a
small number of occasions (breach of condition 16) and one objectionable odour (breach of
condition 6). On other occasions odour has been detected but has not met the offensive /
objectionable threshold and has thus not breached condition 6.
In relation to fugitive emissions passing through the open door; Greater Wellington encouraged
Interwaste to install a door alarm, which they did. Following this, the information we received
suggested that the door was being closed promptly. Greater Wel ington considered it was not
necessary to use enforcement tools in this instance.
In relation to odour – the test is for odour to be offensive / objectionable in the opinion of an
enforcement officer, so this assessment is needed before any al eged breach can be confirmed.
3.
If the GWRC are not attending and have not been attend for years on end than how is a breach
supposed to be recorded? It is almost as if the GWRC do not wish to take any enforcement
action against interwaste as they currently have a monopoly on the hazardous and infectious
waste or alternatively there is corruption occurring within the GWRC that is blocking this from
being looked into too much.
Greater Wel ington has attended incidents at Interwaste many times and on all bar one occasion we
have not detected any odour, or only odour which does not meet the threshold of being offensive
or objectionable. When we did detect objectionable odour, in January 2023, we took enforcement
action and Interwaste paid the subsequent $1,000 infringement fee.
4.
Wil the GWRC be paying for the future cancer treatments of those who have been affected due
to their negligence and failure to ensure consent compliance?
Under the Resource Management Act 1991, Greater Wellington has a regulatory role un ensuring
consent compliance. Our role in this in education and enforcement (when and where required) but
does not extend to us being liable for the consent holder’s non-compliance.
Page 3 of 7
5.
Chris Wright an agent of the GWRC tried to alter the general publics perception about what
has been occurring here and mentioned in a public forum that I have no idea what I am talking
about, that my research papers have nothing to do with this matter even though it's based on
autoclaves and that according to him those within the GWRC believe that I am standing on
"soap box" - which is why the GWRC have done little to nothing to end this from happening.
Could you please advise if this the GWRC's official position on these constant breaches as it
would seem to be the case based off the GWRC's actions on this matter.
As per our previous responses to your requests, we take allegations regarding our employees very
seriously. Al egations of this nature are considered in line with our Code of Conduct. For privacy
reasons and our obligations as an employer, we are not able to comment any further.
We have elected to withhold information in regards to this matter under section 7(2)(a) of the Local
Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 to protect the privacy of natural persons.
We have considered whether the public interest in the requested information outweighs Greater
Wel ington’s need to withhold the requested information. We do not consider in these
circumstances that the public interest outweighs Greater Wel ington’s reason for withholding the
information under the ground identified above.
6.
I made an official complaint directly to the Nigel Corry half a year ago and it was ignored by
him until the ombudsman got involved and then he replied half a year later. Why?
We apologise that this complaint was simply missed as you have sent us a large volume of
correspondence about Interwaste.
7.
I responded to Nigel Corry's email to me and had some questions for him, which instead of
responding to he lodged as an LGOIMA through who I assume to be his personal assistance
when I never requested an LGOIMA, this delaying tactic seems to be common place when
dealing with the GWRC, Why?
In your email of Wednesday, 10 May 2023, I identified aspects of your correspondence that
constituted a request for information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings
Act 1987 (the Act). Consistent with best practice as determined by the Office of the Ombudsman,
we lodged this email to be responded to as part of our usual official information request processes.
Your email was logged as 2023-120 and the questions you asked have been responded to.
The Act states that local government agencies must respond to official information requests as soon
as reasonably practicable and no later than 20 working days (section 13 of the Act). We responded
to your request 2023-120 on 7 June 2023. We believe this was reasonable and as soon as practicable
given our competing work demands.
Page 4 of 7
If you have any concerns with the decision(s) referred to in this letter, you have the right to request
an investigation and review by the Ombudsman under section 27(3) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987.
Please note that it is our policy to proactively release our responses to official information requests
where possible. Our response to your request wil be published shortly on Greater Wellington’s
website with your personal information removed.
Nāku iti noa, nā
Nigel Corry
Tumu Whakarae – Chief Executive
Greater Wellington Regional Council
Page 5 of 7
Appendix A: Your Email in Ful
Today (15/05/23) International Waste Ltd otherwise known as Interwaste was knowingly breaching their
Discharge To Air Consent for the entire day and allowing volatilized hazardous waste spew out beyond their
legal boundary and on to the streets. This in turn fil ed my warehouse with volatilized hazardous waste that
smelt like strange indescribable chemicals and feces \ damp ass type of smel .
I called the GWRC in the morning at approx 8.20am and informed them about this breach of Discharge To Air
Consent and was provided with the transaction number (TX 245-36).
The GWRC did not attend. However the emissions coming from International Waste Ltd continued to spew
out beyond their legal boundary and fil my warehouse.
At around 2PM the emissions unbearable and my lungs were sore and I had experienced multiple headaches
at random times so I once again called the GWRC and informed them and was provided with a transaction
number (TX 245-37). The GWRC once again did not attend.
By this stage of the day both me and my staff members had been breathing in volatized hazardous waste for
the entire day.
Based off the ticket numbers the GWRC had only received a smel complaint once during the day and that
was from me(TX-245-36 to TX-245-37).
My questions are this;
1. Why did the GWRC fail their duty under the RMA to ensure compliance with International Waste Ltd's
Discharge To Air Consent today? Typically you would advise us that the environmental team are too busy or
have multiple discharge to air breaches to inspect however the ticket numbers show that I was the only one
who called that day up until the second call so what gives and what excuse do you have for not attending
this breach of the Discharge To Air Consent?
2. Kel y Sutton - one of the owners of Interwaste and also the owner SOS Success Ltd Divorce Coaching and
Mediation Services has listed in a affidavit to the courts that the GWRC has only caught them breaching their
Discharge To Air Consent in regards to emissions twice in all the years they've been operating. Is this true? As
I have at-least 22 serious breaches recorded down for this year alone and as for what I would consider to be
minor breaches these occur on a daily basis as emissions fil my warehouse on a almost a daily basis.
3. If the GWRC are not attending and have not been attend for years on end than how is a breach supposed
to be recorded? It is almost as if the GWRC do not wish to take any enforcement action against interwaste as
they currently have a monopoly on the hazardous and infectious waste or alternatively there is corruption
occurring within the GWRC that is blocking this from being looked into too much.
4.Wil the GWRC be paying for the future cancer treatments of those who have been affected due to their
Page 6 of 7
negligence and failure to ensure consent compliance?
5. Chris Wright an agent of the GWRC tried to alter the general publics perception about what has been
occurring here and mentioned in a public forum that I have no idea what I am talking about, that my
research papers have nothing to do with this matter even though it's based on autoclaves and that
according to him those within the GWRC believe that I am standing on "soap box" - which is why the GWRC
have done little to nothing to end this from happening. Could you please advise if this the GWRC's official
position on these constant breaches as it would seem to be the case based off the GWRC's actions on this
matter.
6. I made an official complaint directly to the Nigel Corry half a year ago and it was ignored by him until the
ombudsman got involved and then he replied half a year later. Why?
7. I responded to Nigel Corry's email to me and had some questions for him, which instead of responding to
he lodged as an LGOIMA through who I assume to be his personal assistance when I never requested an
LGOIMA, this delaying tactic seems to be common place when dealing with the GWRC, Why?
Page 7 of 7
