compliance report 15 August 2016 routine inspection.pdf

16 August 2016

Warwick Meyer
Horowhenua District Council
File ref:  APP-1995003658
Private Bag 4002
SGS
LEVIN 5540

Dear Warwick

LEVIN  LANDFILL  15  AUGUST  2016  ROUTINE  INSPECTION  COMPLIANCE
REPORT

A routine site visit of the Levin Landfill was carried out on 15 August 2016. The
purpose  of  the  routine  site  inspection  was  to  determine  how  Horowhenua
District  Council  was  complying  with  the  relevant  resource  consent  conditions
associated  with  the  landfill.  This  compliance  assessment  does  not  assess  the
monitoring data contained in the Levin Landfill quarterly report.

The  attached  report  relates  to  this  site  visit.  It  was  observed  during  the  site
inspection that a landfill leachate breakout had occurred on Stage 2 resulting in
leachate discharging into the stormwater drain. Because of the urgent nature of
this  non-compliance  this  report  comments  on  this  issue  only.  A  separate
compliance report will be issued in due course which will assess the remainder
of the conditions.

As a result of this assessment Horowhenua District Council has been given an
overall  Non-Comply  grading  for  resource  consents  102259  and  6012.  As  a
result of this grading 100 per cent the costs associated with this inspection and
subsequent  reporting  will  be  charged  to  HDC.  This  is  provided  for  in  the  HRC
Annual Plan. This invoice will be sent to HDC at a later date.

Please  find  attached  a  copy  of  Horizons  Regional  Council’s  Compliance
Assessment Guidelines for your reference.

If you have any queries about the attached report, please contact me via email
[email address] or on 0508 800 800.

Kind regards

Stuart Standen
CONSENTS MONITORING OFFICER

COMPLIANCE REPORT
LEVIN LANDFILL

Consent
102259
6012

Reporting Period
15 August 2016 – Routine Site Inspection

16 August 2016

COMPLIANCE REPORT
On 15 August  2016 a Horizons Regional Council (HRC) compliance  officer carried out a routine  site
inspection  of  the  Levin  Landfill.  The  purpose  of  the  routine  inspection  was  to  determine  how
Horowhenua  District  Council  (HDC)  was  complying  with  the  relevant  resource  consent  conditions
associated with the Levin Landfill. Warwick Meyer, HDC Solid Waste Engineer, was present during the
routine site inspection.

It was observed during the site inspection that a landfill leachate breakout had occurred on Stage 2
of  the  landfill.  It  was  evident  there  were  no  measures  in  place  to  stop  the  leachate  entering  the
stormwater network.  Because  of the  urgent nature of the  non-compliance  this report assesses  the
leachate breakout only. A separate compliance report will be issued in due course which will report
on the remainder of the conditions. Of relevance to the leachate breakout are conditions 10 and 11
of  resource  consent  102259  and  conditions  2,  3,  4  and  5  of  resource  consent  6012.  This  report
assessed compliance against these conditions.

10.
Where it  is  practicable and economical to do so, the Permit  Holder shall ensure that  within
the operational landfill cell the minimum amount of stormwater shall be allowed to come into
contact  with  refuse.  This  shall  be  effected  by  constructing  impermeable  barriers,  diversion
drains or bunds on the side slopes and within the base of the landfill.

At the time of the routine site inspection the operational landfill cell was located on the southern fill
batter of Stage 3 with the gully area located between Stage 1 and Stage 3 being filled. The remainder
of Stage 2 and Stage 3 (excluding the eastern batter slope of Stage 2)  was covered with sand.  The
inspection identified that no attempts to prevent stormwater entering these areas had been carried
out.  Please  provide  HRC with  an  explanation,  no  later  than  26 August  2016  as to why  no  barriers,
diversion drains or bunds have been installed.

11.
There  shall  be  no  contamination  of  stormwater  with  leachate.  Leachate  includes  any
stormwater  within  an  operational  cell  that  is  not  separated  from  refuse  by  a  barrier  as
defined in condition 10.

During  the  routine  site  inspection  a  leachate  breakout  was  observed  on  the  eastern  fill  batter  of
Stage 2. The leachate breakout is located within an area of landfill with sand cover and near the clay
cap.

2

The clay capping has been keyed into the refuse layer of Stage 2 without an adequate impermeable
barrier, diversion drain or bund being installed between the sand and the clay cap. There is a wheel
rut located on the top of the clay cap that was acting as a small diversion bund at the time of the
inspection.  The  wheel  rut  is  not  a  planned  or  designed  diversion  bund.  The  wheel  rut  is  not  an
adequate  barrier  or  bund  because  it  is  not  compacted  or  high  enough  to  perform  a  barrier  or
diversion  function.  The  wheel  rut  was  diverting  the  leachate  breakout  to  the  stormwater  drain
located  on  the  southern  fill  batter  slope.  I  did  not  detect  any  leachate  contaminated  stormwater
discharging from the stormwater drain into the drain located outside of the litter fence at the time of
the inspection.

By  contaminating  the  stormwater  drain  with  landfill  leachate  HDC  has  non-complied  with  the
requirements of condition 11. Therefore this condition will be graded as Non-Comply.

The leachate breakout points are annotated on pictures 1 and 2 in Appendix A.

2.
Stormwater  run-off  contaminated  by  leachate  to  an  extent  that  it  may  cause  adverse
environmental effects shall be regarded as leachate.

Please  be  advised  that the  leachate  runoff  into  the  stormwater  drain  identified  during  the  routine
site inspection on Stage 2 is to be considered as leachate in accordance with this condition.  Please
advise HRC no later than 19 August 2016 as to what plans or procedures HDC will implement to treat
the contaminated stormwater as leachate.

3.
Stormwater falling on any operational cell shall be regarded as leachate.

Please be advised that all stormwater falling on the landfill that currently has a sand cover is to be
treated as leachate in accordance with this condition requirement.

4.
The  Permit  Holder  shall  carry  out  such  stormwater  or  sediment  control  measures  as  are
necessary to ensure that sediment is not carried and deposited beyond the boundaries of the
site.

Not Assessed

3

5.
The Permit Holder shall ensure that:

A.
stormwater  drains  within  the  site  are  maintained  to  ensure  that  the  flow  of
stormwater  around  the  landfill  is  unrestricted  and  the  potential  for  stormwater
contamination is reduced; and

As  observed  during  the  routine  site  inspection  the  stormwater  drain  located  on  the  southern  fill
batter of Stage 2 has been constructed, after the clay cap has been layered, in a manner that does
not  ensure  the  unrestricted  flow  of  stormwater  from  the  site  clay  cap.  This  is  because  there  is  an
earth barrier preventing stormwater discharging from the Stage 2 clay cap to the stormwater drain
located on the outside of the litter fence plus ponded stormwater was observed in the stormwater
drain on the southern corner of Stage 2. In addition, there is not an adequate barrier on the landfill
to minimise the potential for stormwater becoming contaminated by landfill leachate. Therefore this
condition will be graded as Non-Comply.

These points have been annotated on picture 3 in Appendix A

COMPLIANCE REPORT CONCLUSION
The  overall  compliance  grading  of  this  report  is  Non-Comply.  This  is  because  there  has  been  an
unauthorised discharge of landfill leachate into a stormwater drain which, according to observations
during  the  site  inspection,  has  been  on-going  and  the  leachate  has  the  potential  to  enter
groundwater  and  there  is potential  for  stormwater to  be  contaminated  by  leachate.  As  a  result  of
these non-compliances HDC are required to carry out the following actions:

  Cease the discharge of the leachate breakout to the stormwater drain  by no later than 19
August 2016 to avoid further non-compliance with condition 11;
  Install  adequate  barriers,  diversion  drains  or  bunds  to  prevent  leachate  or  contaminated
stormwater entering the stormwater drain;
  Provide HRC with an explanation no later than 26 August 2016 as to why no barriers, drains
or  bunds  have  been  constructed  minimise  the  amount  of  stormwater  entering  the
operational cell;
  Advise HRC no later than 19 August 2016 as to what plans or procedures HDC will implement
to treat the contaminated stormwater as leachate;
  Advise  HRC  no  later  than  19  August  2016  confirming  if  the  leachate  breakout  has  been
identified  in  the  monthly  landfill  inspections  required  by  condition  28  of  resource  consent
4

6010.  If  yes,  HDC  are  to  confirm  when  the  leachate  breakout  was  identified  and  when
remedial action was intended to be carried out; and
  The 2016 monthly inspection sheets  are to be provided to HRC in accordance with condition
29 of resource consent 6010.

If  you  have  any  queries  about  the  attached  report,  please  contact  me  via  email
[email address] or on 0508 800 800.

Kind regards,

Stuart Standen
CONSENTS MONITORING OFFICER

5

Table 1.  Compliance Assessment Guideline for Individual Consents
Site Compliance
Examples
Grade
Comply - Exceeds
  Consent holder has implemented practices, procedures, systems that are over and above that required by the
resource consent or consents for the site which are having a tangible environmental benefit.
Comply - Full
  Complying with all conditions of consent; and/or
  A non-compliance has occurred beyond the control of the consent holder; and/or
Comply
  One Minor Non-Compliance with a condition of the resource consent.
Comply – At Risk
  At Risk grading identified against key condition(s) of one or more of consents for the site.
Comply – On Track
  At risk grading identified AND site has entered into a Compliance Pathway Agreement (CPA) to reduce system
risks and achieve best practice.
Non-Compliance
  There have been two ‘first time’ Non -Compliances with the conditions of consent; and/or
  There has been one repeat Minor Non-Compliance with the same or similar condition.
Significant
Non-
  There has been at least one Significant Non-Compliance Rating with a condition; and/or
Compliance
  There has  been  at  least  two repeat  Non-  Compliance Ratings  associated  with the  same  or  similar  condition;
and/or
  There have been three or more ‘first time’ Non Compliance Ratings.
Not assessed
  Monitoring has not been undertaken of this consent during the reporting period.

Table 2.  Compliance Assessment Guideline for Individual Conditions
Condition

Compliance
Adverse Effects Scale
Examples (not exhaustive)
Grade

Consent  holder  has  implemented  practices,  systems,  and
Comply
–
procedures      that  are  over  and  above  that  required  by  the
Nil.
Excellent
resource  consent  and  are  having  tangible  environmental
benefit.
Conditions of consent are fully complied with.
Comply - Full
Nil.
Sampling out of sequence or late due to circumstances outside
of consent holders control (e.g. flow related sampling).
Nil – de-minimus.
(dictionary:  de-minimus  -  need  Compliant  at  time  of  inspection  but  management  /  system
not  be  considered.    In  terms  of
Comply
–  At
deficiencies  indicate  there  is  a  real  risk  of  a  non-compliance
the  RMA  the  term  means  an
Risk
occurring  (e.g.  insufficient  effluent  storage,  poor  irrigator
effect  which  is  less  than  minor,  performance).
of  no  consequence,  so  trifling
that it should be disregarded).
System has been  identified as At Risk, but the consent holder
Comply  –  On
has  agreed  to  enter  into  a  Compliance  Pathway  Agreement
Nil – de-minimus.
Track
(CPA) to ensure compliance is consistently achieved.  Consent
holder is currently complying with conditions of consent.
One-off failure to comply with a condition of consent (e.g. One
off  minor  exceedance  in  key  parameter  in  6-months  worth  of
sampling  (allows  for  two  minor  exceedances  in  a  12-month
period).
Minor
Non-
Intent  of  condition  met  however  data  and  /  or  report  provided
De-minimus to less than minor.
Compliance
late (no later than 6 weeks).
First  up  failure  to  install  a  water  meter  for  a  small  take
(stockwater),  provide  management  plan  or  environmental
information  (e.g.  water  quality  information)  within  required
timeframes.
More  than  minor  and  /  or  Four  minor  exceedances  of  key  parametres  for  one  year’s
ongoing
(dictionary:
defines
‘minor’
as
worth of sampling / data.

lesser
or
Non
-
Repeat failure to provide a report or monitoring data.
comparatively  small  in  size  or
Compliance
Repeat Failure to undertaken sampling.
importance).
Failure  to  install  water  meter  for  a  more  than  minor  take  (e.g.
Ongoing  (dictionary:  continuing  irrigation).
to exist).
Water  quality  results  indicate  there  is  a  potential  for  or  an
More  than  minor  to  significant,  actual effect which is more than minor that is not authorised by
serious and / or ongoing.
the resource consent.
Significant
(dictionary:  Unauthorised discharge of  wastewater / effluent  into  water or
important,
noteworthy,  onto  land  where  it  may  enter  water,  excessive  ponding  of
Significant  Non-
consequential).
effluent on the land surface.
Compliance
Serious  (dictionary:  important,  Repeated  failure  to  provide  a  report/monitoring  data/
demanding  consideration,  not  management plans/install water metering equipment etc.
slight).
Repeated failure to undertake sampling.
Ongoing: (dictionary: continuing  Repeated failure to comply with authorised discharge or water
to exist).
take volumes.
Applies  to  conditions  that  are  no  longer  applicable.    Generally
relates  to  historic  conditions  that  may  require  provision  of  a
Not Applicable

management  plan,  which  has  been  provided  and  consent
requires no further action.
Not Assessed

Monitoring not undertaken of consent condition.