Council Search Information · p. 1; 'No Asbestos in Our Backyard', Howick & Pakuranga Times,...

AECOM

Contaminated Land Assessment

02-Oct-2014 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – Co No.: N/A

Appendix C

Council Search Information

AECOM



C.1 Site Contamination Enquiry

AECOM



C.2 Manukau Library and Media Search and Closed Landfill

Information

New Search < <<<<

Your search found 1 entry[ 1 of 1 ]10 October 1998 bThe Flat Bush asbestos scare

In 1992 asbestos waste was found on a farm in Chapel Road, East Tamaki. This was disposed of at the Greenmountlandfill ('Asbestos Dump Found on Farm', Manukau Courier, 30/4/92, p. 5; 'Pipes Go to Tip', Manukau Courier,19/5/92, p. 3).

In November 1997 developers discovered further asbestos waste on the site of a new Flat Bush subdivision nearby.The contaminated material was buried and remedial work undertaken. At this stage it was realised that there mighthave been widespread dumping of asbestos in the area between the 1950s and the 1970s ('Manukau Admits AsbestosBuried', NZ Herald, 21/8/98, A10; 'Asbestos Claim Says "Council Knew"', Howick & Pakuranga Times, 29/3/99, p. 3;'Killer Waste Delivered by the Truckload', Weekend Herald, 10/4/99, A3; 'Asbestos Dumps in Rich Areas', NZHerald, 14/4/99, A4; 'Asbestos: the killer in the soil', NZ Herald, 20/6/2001, A13).

Manukau City Council funded an extensive investigation of the problem, commencing 30 September 1998. Othergovernmental agencies such as the Auckland Regional Council, the Ministry of Health and Auckland HealthcareServices provided advice rather than cash during the process (Flat Bush Asbestos Investigation, Minutes and Agendasfor Manukau City Council ... 13 August 1998 to 15 August 2000 [compilation], Manukau City Council, 2000;'Asbestos Scare', Papatoetoe & Otahuhu Week, 19/8/98, pp. 1, 3; 'Lethal Asbestos Zone Spreads', NZ Herald, 20/8/98A7; 'Action on Asbestos Scare', Papatoetoe & Otahuhu Week, 26/8/98, p. 1; 'Asbestos Options Considered', ManukauCourier, 1/9/98, p. 5; 'The Asbestos Files', Howick & Pakuranga Times, 21/9/98, p. 1; 'Asbestos Secret AngersMayor', Manukau Courier, 22/9/98, p. 3; Asbestos Investigation Methodology: Flat Bush Area, Manukau City,Manukau City Council, September 1998; 'Watchdog Examining Asbestos Pollution', NZ Herald, 30/9/98, A9; CouncilHunt for Toxic Spots', NZ Herald, 2/10/98, A6; 'Ratepayers to Pay $200,000 in Hunt for Killer Asbestos', ManukauDaily News, 5/10/98, p. 3; 'Residents to be Briefed on Asbestos Surveys', Manurewa Week, 17/11/98, p. 4; 'AsbestosCosts Escalate', Manurewa Week, 1/12/98, p. 1; 'Tests Show Asbestos in Soil at Flat Bush', NZ Herald, 16/12/98, A7;'Asbestos Level in Soil "Low Risk", NZ Herald, 17/12/8, A12; 'Asbestos Crisis Deepens', Manurewa Week, 22/12/98,p. 1; 'MP Blasts Govt Attitude', Manurewa Week, 22/12/98, p. 5; 'Flying Asbestos Has Flat Bush out for the Count',Daily News, 15/1/99, p. 1; 'Asbestos Air Tests Begin this Week', Papatoetoe & Otahuhu Week, 20/1/99, p. 1; 'TestingTimes for Flat Bush Householders', Manukau Courier, 21/1/99, p. 3; 'Concern over Asbestos Inquiry', ManurewaWeek, 16/2/99, pp. 1, 5; 'Healthcare Actions Criticised', Papatoetoe & Otahuhu Week, 3/3/99, p. 9; 'Asbestos Impactson House Transfer', Howick & Pakuranga Times, 11/3/99, p. 3; 'Council Halts Danger Survey', NZ Herald, 18/3/99,A8; 'Asbestos Decisions in Limbo ...', Manukau Courier, 30/3/99, pp. 8-9; 'Anger Boils over in Asbestos Country',Weekend Herald, 10/4/99, A3).

After some delays and controversy, a massive five-volume report was issued in March 1999 (Asbestos InvestigationReport: Flat Bush Study Area, Manukau City, Manukau Consultants, March 1999 [summary volume plus fourvolumes of appendices]).

At this stage the matter was not helped by what was in some views an alarmist 'Sixty Minutes' television report,'Dumping Ground', screened on 11 April 1999. (For comment see: Owen McShane, 'Who is Responsible in the GreatAsbestos Scare?', National Business Review, 16/4/99, p. 27; 'Asbestos Acceptability' [letter], National BusinessReview, 23/4/99, p. 17; 'Manukau City Explains How it Dealt with Asbestos' [letter], National Business Review,30/4/99, p. 17.)

Perhaps because of this, expert reassurances failed to allay residents' fears over the potential dangers to health. Someresidents also objected to Manukau City Council's initial decision to put asbestos warnings on property LIMs, thuswarning future buyers. A Manukau Asbestos Action Group was formed to seek remediation and compensation forresidents ('MP Finds Asbestos in Her Backyard', NZ Herald, 13/4/99, A7; 'Developer Agrees to Asbestos Probe',Manurewa Week, 13/4/99, p. 5; 'Testing Time in Flat Bush Asbestos Zone', Manukau Courier, 15/4/99, p. 1;'Residents Join Legal Battle against Council', Manukau Courier, 16/4/99, p. 7; 'Housing NZ Gets Asbestos Advice',[Manukau] Daily News, 19/4/99, p. 3; '"Buy Us out Call" for Flatbush', Howick & Pakuranga Times, 19/4/99, p. 3;'State Tenants Want out if Asbestos on Properties', Daily News, 21/4/99, p. 5; 'Asbestos Risk "Over-rated"',Papatoetoe & Otahuhu Week, 21/4/99, p. 1; 'Asbestos Health Fears Allayed', Papatoetoe & Otahuhu Week, 28/4/99,p. 1; 'No Asbestos in Our Backyard', Howick & Pakuranga Times, 6/5/99, p. 1; 'Homeowners Vent Anger at Council',NZ Herald, 11/5/99; 'Tags on Homes Worry Owners', NZ Herald, 13/5/99, A7; 'Fearful Residents March for AsbestosClean-up', Manukau Courier, 13/5/99, p. 3).

Page 1 of 2Inmagic DB/Text WebPublisher PRO: 1 records

11/07/2013http://manukau.infospecs.co.nz/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?BU=http%3A%2F%2Fm...

http://manukau.infospecs.co.nz/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?BU=http%3A%2F%2Fm...

Additional testing was undertaken in May 1999 (Flat Bush Study Area, Manukau City: Asbestos Investigation,Additional Testing, Manukau City Council, July, 1999; 'Asbestos Plan', Howick & Pakuranga Times, 17/5/99, p. 5;'Developer Offers Asbestos "Free" Land', Manukau Courier, 18/5/99, p. 2; 'Asbestos Treatment Could Be Harmful',Howick & Pakuranga Times, 20/5/99, p 1).

In June 1999 a Parliamentary select committee began an inquiry into the matter ('Govt Visit to Flat Bush', ManukauCourier, 25/5/99, p. 1; 'Local Hearing on Asbestos', NZ Herald, 4/6/99, A7; 'Residents Tell Committee of AsbestosFear', NZ Herald, 10/6/99, A9; 'QC Seeks Asbestos Scoping Report', Howick & Pakuranga Times, 10/6/99, p. 3;'Emotions High at Asbestos Probe', Manurewa Week, 15/6/99, p. 5; 'Asbestos Probe Draws Tears, Fears', Papatoetoe& Otahuhu Week, 16/6/99, p. 1.)

The select committee's report was delayed by a change of government, and in the meantime the controversy continued('Flat Bush Draws Battle Lines', Manukau Courier, 6/7/99, p. 3; 'Residents in Walkout over Cleanup', NZ Herald,26/8/99, p. 11; 'Asbestos Decision Due', Manukau Courier, 7/12/99, p. 3; 'Asbestos Risk "Low" but Fear Continues',NZ Herald, 7/12/99, A6; 'Trapped in Asbestos Scare', Papatoetoe & Otahuhu Week, 15/12/99, p. 1; "Asbestos RisksSmall", Howick & Pakuranga Times, 9/12/99, p. 1; 'Walkout group rejoins main asbestos team', Manukau Courier,3/2/2000, p. 14; 'War of words on asbestos tags: Flat Bush LIM worry eased', Manukau Courier, 14/4/2000, p. 5;'Residents not at risk says asbestos report', NZ Herald, 15/8/2000, A7).

Although studies found that in the majority of affected areas, the health risk was small, Manukau City Council agreedto physically remove asbestos from the worst affected properties, and it developed a set of protocols for dealing withfuture developments in the Flat Bush area ('Locals slate city report on asbestos', NZ Herald, 18/8/2000, A6; 'Asbestos"not a health risk"', Manukau Courier, 18/8/2000, p. 3; 'Threat lies in Rakaia Rise soil', Manukau Courier, 31/8/2000,p. 9; 'Asbestos found in new area', Eastern Courier, 13/9/2000, p. 15; 'MP riles residents', Howick & PakurangaTimes, 5/10/2000, p. 11; 'Asbestos cover fails to meet legal levels', Howick & Pakuranga Times, 19/10/2000, p. 1;'Council considers asbestos area problems', Manukau Courier 20/10/2000, p. 5; 'Top soil to cover dumped asbestos',Howick & Pakuranga Times, 9/11/2000, p. 3; 'Caution not panic on asbestos', Manukau Courier 5/12/2000, p. 1; 'FlatBush to be cleared of asbestos', Papatoetoe & Otahuhu Week, 18/4/2001, p. 1; 'Asbestos for landfill', Eastern Courier,27/4/2001, p. 1).

The long-awaited select committee report was released on 31 May 2001, with a follow-up on 9 August 2001 - theseprovide a convenient summary of the whole process ('Local Government and Environment Committee Report onPetition 1996/1628 of Rosemary Godwin and Others', AJHR, 1999/2002, vol. 9, pp. 1063-75; 'Inquiry into theResponse of the Manukau City Council ...', ibid., pp. 1106-1121; see also 'Asbestos: the killer in the soil', NZ Herald,20/6/2001, A13).

The clean-up of the worst areas finally got underway in October 2002 ('Loophole on asbestos land', Manukau Courier,7/6/2001, p. 1; 'Asbestos blitz needs cash', Manukau Courier, 14/6/2001, p. 1; 'A call for guidelines to deal withasbestos contamination', Papatoetoe & Otahuhu Week 20/6/2001, p. 5; 'Govt. says no to $1m for Manukau', EasternCourier, 7/9/2001, p. 6; 'Asbestos deal signed', Manukau Courier, 11/7/2002, p. 1; 'Asbestos removal gets approval',Manukau Courier, 17/10/2002, p. 3; 'Asbestos clean up at long last', Papatoetoe & Otahuhu Week, 23/10/2002, p. 3;'Relief as asbestos dump removal work begins', NZ Herald, 14/1/2003, A7; 'Asbestos mop-up bill now $14m',Papatoetoe & Otahuhu Week, 5/3/2003, pp. 1-2; 'Asbestos purge clears the way', Manukau Courier, 27/5/2003, p. 1).

Suggestions for corrections, amendments and additional entries are welcome. Please contact Bruce Ringer.About Manukau's Journey | Digital Library | Auckland Libraries

Page 2 of 2Inmagic DB/Text WebPublisher PRO: 1 records

11/07/2013http://manukau.infospecs.co.nz/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?BU=http%3A%2F%2Fm...

http://manukau.infospecs.co.nz/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?BU=http%3A%2F%2Fm...

Link to Herald article referencing Asbestos report below:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=104691

Excerpt from Bonds Report:

Manukau East MP Ross Robertson presented a petition to Parliament in September 1998. An inquiry followed to investigate how the asbestos was dumped in the East Tamaki-Flat Bush area, establish the council’s responsibilities and suggest remedies. In 2001, the Government issued a report from the local government and environment select committee. Amongst other things, the committee report recommends that the Manukau City Council undertake the following:

• offer help to Flat Bush property owners wanting their properties tested for asbestos contamination,

• help residents gain a clean bill of health on the land information memorandums (LIM reports) for their properties,

• remove the asbestos contaminating the Rakaia Rise properties as long as it can be done without releasing further fibres into the air,

• undertake the same sort of remedial work it would expect of any future developer, so landowners can have asbestos warnings removed from their LIM reports, and

• include restrictions or conditions to regulate and control any excavation on contaminated sites in the district plan.

According to Thomas (2003), in January 2003, six Flat Bush residents abandoned their homes for 8 to 10 weeks to let contractors remove asbestos. Five-hundred truckloads of bulk asbestos and soil were excavated and carted to an approved landfill. The work, including restoring grounds with clean soil, cost Manukau City ratepayers $800,000. About 1600 cubic metres of material was removed from the old dump. However, a major disappointment for residents was that although all asbestos material was supposed to be removed, the property's Land Information Memorandum (LIM) would not be amended to state that it was asbestos-free. For council, their major disappointment was that the Government refused to consider a council request for $1 million compensation for its pioneer work.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=104691

RECEIVED: 30 Jul2012 SCANNED: 30 Jul2012 BOX: 22 BATCH: 93921 DOC: ACLAAFYG~

Print Preview

100m This plan is suitable for infonnatlon only. The Council accepls no Produced by 10.1.212.162 at 14:07 on 17/05/2002

http:/ /nt 15 gis/ gis/tools/printmcc/pri nt_preview_landscape.asp

Page 1 of2

Closed Landfill - Hilltop Road/Redoubt Rd., Manukau Central

@ ManhOle

0 Fire Hydrant

1::::1 Cesspit

Latld I nfrumatlotl RQ9ister

Sanitary Sew&

~

Te Kaun iltera o

MANUKAU Cit}• C.mtn-c#

---- Stormwatat

- -·

3 E 1/

Wat.-tr Main ~1!;111 <;ESTl'IC:liOUS ...,PI.Y

CaU Tronspower {D7 8300677

Main Overhead Powertines Outer l irnit ReslricliQils

- WSL -- Contact Watercare Services Ltd (W) 634 7840

- HPGAS Contact Natl.ll'al Gas COfp (0800)734 567

HPOI!. - Contact Natural Gas Corp (0800} 734 !i67

- LPG ConU!d LiqlJig~ {09) 277 7(}<12

Copyright© 2001 Manukau City Council

17/05/2002

• •

-

RECEIVED: 30 Jul 2012 SCANNED: 30 Jul 2012 BOX: 22 BATCH: 93921 DOC: ACLAAFYG -~

• •

PD ~-Jflff

~~ ~~ .

J.)J ~ kf~·

RECEIVED: 30 Jul 2012 SCANNED: 30 Jul2012 BOX: 22 BATCH: 93921 DOC: ACLAAFYG

Print Preview

F8/54 150

1: 18(])0

100m

'

156

' ' ' .. .. .. .. .. .. .. '

167

.... .. .. ' '

.. .. .. .. ..

' .. '

', ...

',,

' ......

' .. ' ' ', .. ... .. ..

', ......

' ... ' ' ... .. ...

160

' ' ...

' ..

.. , ...

.. .. .. .. .. .. ..

.. ' .. .. "

.. 17"1-.. ..

.., ..

....

.. .. .. ..

..,

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

.. ..

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' •

.. ....

'

.. .. " ' '

~ 181 • ' ' ' • ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' .

This plan is suitable fOf information only. The Council accepts no Produced by 10.1.212.162 at14:09 on 17/05/2002

http:/ /nt 15 gis/gis/tools/printrncc/print_preview _landscape.asp

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

168

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

Page 1 of2

Closed Landfill - Hilltop Road/Redoubt Rd., Manukau Central

@ Manhole

~ Fire H)'Urant

t::J Cesspit

LaMII'IfO(matlon ReqisiElr

Sanilary Sewi!1'

---- Stotmwatet

--- ... Water Main

T~ Kftullihero o

MANUKAU City Omllt:il

"EI~HT liES'l'IC:TillNS o\Pf't. v

Call Transpower {07 8380677

M<tin Overheed Pow:eJii!le$ Ouler t imil Restric(ions

-·WSL -- Contact Watera~1e Services Ltd (09) 634 7840

- HPGAS

- HPOll. -

--~·· ···· LPG -·-·•

Contacl Natutal Gas Corp (0800) 734 567

Contact Natural Gas Corp (0800} 734 567

Cooti.\CI Liquig.3s (09) 277 7()4;t

Copyright© 2001 Manukau City Council

17/05/2002

• •

RECEIVED: 30 Jul2012 SCANNED: 30 Jul2012 BOX: 22 BATCH: 93921 DOC: ACLAAFYG

Attributes for Parcels Bdy Page 1 of 1

P I Bd arce s IY House 160

Road name REDOUBT ROAD

Roadcode 4508

Suburb MANUKAU CENTRAL

Owner1 SPECTRUM CARE TRUST BOARD ,.

Owner2 Prefix

Parcel type LOT

Parcel no 2

Plan prefix DP

' Plan no 41071

' Plan txt

r

. Legal area 8094 - ~

I.

• " Valuation - 34500-867-00 .

; f

Assessment. 4508/160/0

C value 347000 .

L value 215000

Building consents 1892

Lir 1 f~:ue ~~ 4...!7-~, Holding 4508/160

Maphold 4508/160

Mapable 45081160

ld 71980

http:/ /nt15 gis/gis/custom/linkalc.asp ?profile=Services&topic=Services&priority= 130&subpriority=20&keyvalue=71980&runonload=top.... 17/05/2002

r

•

•


<RISLINK5 .LIR.v0.1u Info Register Details Prop 450 8/160 (Acl 8)

Card 16197 Detail 16199 INVESTIGATION OF ASBES DP Number *

Updat ed on 10 .05.02 Generated by PLANNING Fi le Ref * Register C.2328

By s t renear

23.05 .

On 14.06.0

Consultant REE ANDERSON Contact J AMES CORBETT Report LIR STATEMENTS & REPORTS RE.ASBESTOS. Ref. * Information Category 10SITE CONTAMINAT Access Category

02)Ln 1

Sc

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

Instructions POTENTIAL BULK ACM - FURTHER S I TE ASSESSMENT REQUI RED . SITE CATEGORY; RURAL LIFESTYLE & UNDEVELOPED AREAS TYPE 1 -GREEN-THIS SITE WAS I N AN AREA INVESTIGATED FOR THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS I N SOILS (COMMENCING IN 19 98). INVESTIGATIONS OF THE SITE AS PART OF THE GENERAL OVERALL FLAT BUSH ASBESTOS INVESTIGATION HAVE NOT IDENTIF I ED ANY BULK ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERI ALS (ACM) . FURTHER SITE ASSESSMENT IS NECESSARY TO CONFIRM THAT NO BULK ACM IS PRESENT BEFORE MAJOR EARTHWORKS OR MAJOR S ITE DEVELOPMENT IS UNDERTAKEN. AN INDIVIDUAL SITE ASSESSMENT PREPARED BY AN

- ref (nn ) , LIST, Return to redo xref or EX : ....................... ... .

•


' ' 'RI SLINK5 .LIR. v0.1u Info Register Details Prop 4508/160 (Ac l 8)

Card 16 1 97 Detail 16214 INVESTIGATION OF ASBES DP Number *

Updated on 22.05.02 Generated by PLANNING File Ref * Register C.2328

By strenear

23.05.

On 14.06.0

Consultant REE ANDERSON Contact JAMES CORBETT Report LIR STATEMENTS & REPORTS RE.ASBESTOS. Ref. * Information Category 10SITE CONTAMINAT Access Category

02)Ln 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Instructions AS A RESULT OF THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION ON JUNE 1 8 2001 OF PROPOSED VARIATI ON No.13 - FLAT BUSH TO THE PROPOSED DI STRICT PLAN THERE ARE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS ON CERTAIN ACTIVITIES HAVING REGARD TO THE POSSIBILITY OF ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL ON THE SITE.A COPY OF THE PROPOSED VARIATION No.13 - FLAT BUSH IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT THE CITIZEN & CUSTOMERS SERVICE CENTRE,KOTUKU HOUSE,MANUKAU CITY.

s n -ref(nn) , LIST, Return to redo xref or EX : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AECOM



C.3 Former Papakura District File Search

AECOM



Appendix D

Historic Certificates of Title

Terranet Document Ordering Service

Historic Title: 1C/202

Billing Code: 60250009Terralink Reference: 1042981/1

Processed: 09 July 2013

Sourced from www.terranet.co.nz a service provided by Terralink International Limited. For queries aboutthis document or this service please call 0508 483 772 or email [email protected].

http://www.terranet.co.nz/

mailto:[email protected]

Identifier

Historical Search Copy

Land Registration DistrictDate Issued 08 May 1963

North Auckland

COMPUTER FREEHOLD REGISTERUNDER LAND TRANSFER ACT 1952

NA1C/202

Prior ReferencesNA1058/135

InterestsD561406.3 Mortgage to Bank of New Zealand - 29.11.2000 at 9.00 am5926028.1 Discharge of Mortgage D561406.3 - 9.3.2004 at 9:00 am5926028.2 Transfer to Tzu-Tien Chin (1/2 share) and Fu Wang (1/2 share) - 9.3.2004 at 9:00 am6193385.1 Mortgage to ASB Bank Limited - 26.10.2004 at 9:00 am

Original ProprietorsGeoffrey William Hutcheson

Estate Fee SimpleArea 4.1210 hectares more or lessLegal Description Lot 1 Deposited Plan 49293

Transaction Id 37380688Client Reference jjina001

Historical Search Copy Dated 9/07/13 12:38 pm, Page 1 of 1


Historic Title: 5A/1412

Billing Code:Terralink Reference: 1042973/1





Identifier


Land Registration DistrictDate Issued 02 February 1965

North Auckland


NA5A/1412

Prior ReferencesNA529/293

InterestsD655042.5 Mortgage to ASB Bank Limited - 7.11.2001 at 3.46 pm5820929.1 Discharge of Mortgage D655042.5 - 2.12.2003 at 9:00 am5820929.2 Transfer of the 12/25 share of Timothy John Burcher and Lyn Diane Harland to Lyn Diane Harland,Timothy John Burcher and Philip John Harland - 2.12.2003 at 9:00 am5820929.3 Mortgage of the 12/25 share of Lyn Diane Harland, Timothy John Burcher and Philip John Harland toASB Bank Limited - 2.12.2003 at 9:00 am6357701.1 Discharge of Mortgage 5820929.3 - 24.3.2005 at 9:00 am6357701.2 Transfer to Yujie Sun - 24.3.2005 at 9:00 am6384395.1 Mortgage to ASB Bank Limited - 15.4.2005 at 9:00 am

Original ProprietorsTimothy John Burcher and Lyn Diane Harland as to a 12/25 shareChristopher Robert Lockhart as to a 2/5 shareLisa Joan Harland as to a 3/25 share





Historic Title: 105B/641

Billing Code: 60250009Terralink Reference: 1042979/1





Identifier


Land Registration DistrictDate Issued 23 October 1996

North Auckland


NA105B/641

Prior ReferencesNA99C/380

InterestsSubject to Section 241(2) Resource Management Act 1991C608576.1 Compensation Certificate by Watercare Services Limited - 3.6.1994 at 12.17 pmSubject to rights of way and a right to convey water (in gross) over part marked H on DP 173008 in favour ofManukau City Council created by Transfer D059804.14 - 23.10.1996 at 2.58 pm (affects Lot 24 DP 173008)The easements created by Transfer D059804.14 are subject to Section 243 (a) Resource Management Act 1991Subject to a right to convey water marked H on DP 173008 specified in Easement Certificate D059804.15 -23.10.1996 at 2.58 pm (affects Lot 24 DP 173008)The easements specified in Easement Certificate D059804.15 are subject to Section 243 (a) ResourceManagement Act 1991Land Covenant in Transfer D083110.1 - 23.12.1996 at 9.40 amFencing Covenant in Transfer D083110.1 - 23.12.1996 at 9.40 am7113422.4 Transfer of the easementscreated by Transfer D059804.14 to Manukau Water Limited - 14.11.2006 at9:00 am7459474.1 CAVEAT BY CHUNG SING UNIVERSAL TRADING LIMITED - 12.7.2007 at 9:00 am8270945.1 Withdrawal of Caveat 7459474.1 - 31.8.2009 at 3:10 pm

Original ProprietorsHsing-Chieh Lin


Original ProprietorsHsing-Chieh Lin

Estate Fee Simple - 1/2 shareArea 586 square metres more or lessLegal Description Lot 24 Deposited Plan 173008



AECOM



Appendix E

Site Photographs

Redoubt Road / Mill Road Corridor

Preliminary Site Investigation

K:\_PROJECTS\ATTH ACT Mill Rd Corridor 60250009\6. Draft Docs\6.1 Reports\PSI - Contamination\App E Site Photos\Appendix E Site Photos.docx Revision - 12 July 2013

1

E.1 Site Inspection Photographs




2

Plate 1 Redoubt Rd Near SH1, Residential Land Use – view to west, start of alignment.

Plate 2 Residential Properties on South Side of Redoubt Rd, approximately 500 m from SH16 – view to the east.




3

Plate 3 Holroyd Street near Redoubt Road Intersection – view to the north showing roadside verge.

Plate 4 Rural Properties on Redoubt Road Adjacent Totara Park - view to the east.




4

Plate 5 Redoubt Road Approach to Murphy’s Road – view to the south.

Plate 6 130 – 136 Mill Road Property – view to the northeast.




5

Plate 7 Murphys Road, Adjacent Thomas Farm (83 Thomas Road) – view to the south.

AECOM



Appendix F

Preliminary Remedial Plan

AECOM

Mill/Redoubt Road

Preliminary Site Investigation – Preliminary Remedial Plan

D R A F T

C:\Users\dangerfieldd\Documents\Work\Transportation\Mill Road\60250009 App F PRP Draft Mill Road 8Aug13.docxDocument1 Revision 0 – 07-Aug-2013 Prepared for – Auckland Transport – ABN: N/A

F-1

1.0 Introduction

AECOM was engaged by Auckland Transport (AT) to prepare a Preliminary Remedial Plan (PRP) for the

proposed upgrade of Redoubt Road/Mill Road.

The PRP outlines the environmental controls and the testing programme anticipated to be required for the

upgrade project.

AECOM notes that the contamination status of the proposed up-grade areas has not been assessed through

intrusive investigation, sampling and analysis (i.e. a Phase 2 assessment). Accordingly, the data provided herein

is provided for planning purposes only and may require revision based on Phase 2 assessment data.

1.1 Objectives

The objectives of this PRP are to provide:

- Information necessary to minimise and mitigate potential adverse effects that could arise through disturbing

contaminated soil, road construction and/or demolition materials.

- Guidance to assist with classification of disturbed soil.

- Requirements for sampling and analysis, reporting, and regulatory notification.

1.2 Scope of Work

The scope of the PRP is as follows:

- Provide a methodology for the management of soil and/or groundwater contamination during construction

and future operation of the road up grades. Categorise different types and concentrations of identified

contaminants in order to identify the sampling regime and management processes needed.

The methodology will supplement the NoR to enable stakeholders to understand how contamination will be

addressed during and after the upgrade.

The scope of works are based on the following considerations:

Management of occupational health and safety to personnel working on the project.

Management of public health to nearby residents and the general public.

Management of soil classification and disposal from the excavation activities.

Development of management methods based on the identified contaminants of potential concern

(CoPC).

Development of a decision-making flow chart for the management of spoil.

This document should be considered a living document which should be updated as more information is made available.

AECOM

Mill/Redoubt Road


D R A F T


F-1

2.0 Health and Safety

2.1 Worker Health and Safety

Worker health and safety is addressed through development of health and safety plans, worker training and

oversight by a qualified environmental professional. Health and safety plans and training should address the steps

to be taken to minimise the potential hazards, including, but not limited to:

- Identification of likely contaminants to be encountered based on the PSI (i.e. asbestos, pesticides and

hydrocarbons) and any subsequent environmental investigations.

- Identification of potentially contaminated materials, such as from odour (organic compounds such as

hydrocarbons), fibrous material (asbestos), refuse, or debris.

- Areas where asbestos is known to be present.

- Proper soil management and classification.

- Dust, odour, and erosion control measures as specified in relevant plans.

- Personal protective equipment (PPE), such as coveralls, safety glasses/goggles, boots, and gloves to limit

dermal contact and respiratory protective equipment to limit inhalation, particularly of asbestos.

- Instruction on removing outer work clothing (coveralls, boots) before leaving the site.

- Restricting site access and restricting eating, drinking, or smoking to defined locations only.

- Establishing hand and face wash stations and a policy of washing face and hands before eating, drinking, or

smoking.

- Establishing wheel wash facilities and other measures required to prevent contaminated soil from leaving the

site.

2.2 Public Health and Safety

Public health and safety will largely be protected by:

- access controls (no unauthorised site entry);

- proper soil classification, management, and disposal; and

- implementation of dust, odour, and erosion control plans.

The risk of exposure to the public from contaminated soil and groundwater is low provided these measures, along

with site health and safety measures, are implemented.

AECOM

Mill/Redoubt Road


D R A F T


F-1

3.0 Soil Classification and Management

The classification and management of soil is required to conform with the ACRP:ALW and the MfE Hazardous

Waste Guidelines and Cleanfill Management Guidelines. It is also required for protection of human health and the

environment.

3.1 Preliminary Soil Classification

The assessment of soils for beneficial reuse within the construction footprint, or disposal to a licensed facility, is

based around the standard classification of soils into cleanfill, managed fill or contaminated fill. A brief definition of

each is given below.

3.1.1 Cleanfill

Cleanfill is defined in Rule 5.5.48(a) of the ACRP:ALW, by reference to the MfE document, “A Guide to the

Management of Cleanfills” (2002) as:

“..material that when buried will have no adverse effect on people or the environment; and includes virgin

materials such as clay, soil and rock, and other inert materials such as concrete or brick that are free of:

- Combustible, putrescible, degradable or leachable components

- Hazardous substances

- Products or materials derived from hazardous waste treatment, hazardous waste stabilization or hazardous

waste disposal practices

- Materials that may present a risk to human health

- Liquid waste.”

Cleanfill therefore includes materials such as uncontaminated soils, cured asphalt, bricks, unreinforced concrete,

fibre cement building products (excluding asbestos) and glass. Materials that cannot be classified as cleanfill

include soils with analytical results showing elevated concentrations of hydrocarbon compounds and/or

exceedance of Auckland regional background concentrations of metals, asbestos containing material (ACM),

greenwaste, and household refuse.

3.1.2 Managed fill

Disposal of managed fill must be to a landfill authorised to receive the material or be consented by Auckland

Council if the material is to be retained onsite. Landfill acceptance criteria vary between waste facilities and these

should be confirmed during the consenting phase.

Managed fill is defined as:

- Soil containing concentrations of metals above Auckland Region background concentrations.

- Soil containing detectable hydrocarbon compounds.

- Soil containing concentrations of contaminants of concern above ecological risk based guideline values.

- Soil that does not contain hazardous substances or materials in the form of household and industrial waste,

organic waste or asbestos containing material.

3.1.3 Contaminated fill

Disposal of contaminated fill must be to a landfill authorised to receive the material or be consented by Auckland

Council if the material is to be retained onsite. Landfill acceptance criteria vary between waste facilities and these

should be confirmed during the consenting phase.

Contaminated fill comprises:

- Hazardous materials in the form of household and industrial waste, organic waste or ACM.

AECOM

Mill/Redoubt Road


D R A F T


F-1

- Soil with contamination present above human health guideline values.

3.2 Soil Management

Given the nature of the project, the management of soil will largely revolve around the management of potentially

contaminated material associated with the excavation and disposal/reuse of spoil material.

The flow chart shown below will assist in determining the sampling strategies for spoil based on the identified risk

profile as well as standard approaches for managing these risks.

As described above, managed or contaminated material is defined as soil that has chemicals of concern present

above recognised background concentrations or risk based guideline values. It should be noted that many of the

risk based guideline values are not necessarily fixed action limits, but are trigger values that indicate that

additional investigation and evaluation is required. In some instances, the guideline values are considered

remedial action goals or are indicative that remedial action is required.

There are four basic categories for the spoil material on the project:

- Contaminants present at concentrations above human health guideline values.

- Contamination present at concentrations above ecological guideline values.

- Possible contamination present at concentrations above the adopted human health and ecological guideline

values.

- No contamination present at concentrations above the adopted human health and ecological guideline

values.

Management of each category is addressed below however, in general, cleanfill can be reused on site with no

restrictions with regard to contamination. Material classified as managed fill may be re-usable on site provided

placement is not within ecologically sensitive areas. For example, managed fill may be usable beneath structures

which will effectively cap the contamination and prevent leaching into groundwater or eroding and impacting

stormwater or surface water. In some cases, it may be possible to reuse contaminated fill on site, depending on

the characteristics of the site and the contamination present however, a resource consent would be required.

For offsite disposal, materials classified as managed or contaminated fill must:

- Be transported to a suitable landfill which has resource consent to take the soil based on waste classification

results,

- Provide an on-site location survey and waste tracking log including volume estimates, truck registration and

date/time of dispatch to landfill.

- Retain tip dockets when disposed.

AECOM

Mill/Redoubt Road


D R A F T


F-1

Material Classification Flow Chart

Material source >2mbgl

Visually inspect spoil

material

Is there evidence of

contamination or

uncontrolled fill in

the spoil?

Material to be treated as

clean fill. Inspect every

10,000 m3 as a

minimum.

Spoil Material

Is the material

contaminated?

Define and characterise material

based on Stage 1 and 2 ESA

Is material uncontrolled

fill or likely to be

contaminated based on

ESA information?

Sample at 1/500m3

Sample at 1/50m3Sample at 1/100m3

Is it identified as a

HAIL site based on

Stage 1?

YES NO

YESNO

YES

NO YESNO

YES NO

Review available soil &

groundwater data and proximity

of source to HAIL sites

Review characterisation and

extent of potential contamination,

characterise if necessary.

AECOM

Mill/Redoubt Road


D R A F T


F-1

4.0 Soil Sampling Data Collection

Soil sampling is required to cover three key aspects related to the effective management of contaminated and

potentially contaminated materials associated with the Project works, including:

- Characterisation and classification testing: targeted assessment of materials within the surface works,

sections of cut (to a controlled/consented disposal site). Additional characterisation testing is required in

areas where the extent and magnitude of identified contamination has not been delineated. Additional

classification testing may be required where there is no adequate data available to satisfy landfill acceptance

criteria.

- Validation testing: targeted at documenting the concentrations of contaminants within the materials

underlying the excavation works that remain in situ.

- Discovery testing: in response to the identification of previously unidentified (“unknown”) and/or unexpected

finds.

An explanation of each type of testing is provided below.

4.1 Soil Characterisation/Classification

Prior to consenting, additional environmental investigation will be necessary to characterise the soil contamination

status in the upgrade area, specifically in areas of environmental concern identified in the PSI . This investigation

will provide additional information to assist with the confirmation of lateral and vertical extent of contamination as

well as assist with soil classification.

Soil testing should be conducted in accordance with MfE Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 5.

Samples may be collected on either a systematic (grid-based) or judgemental basis, depending on the

requirements for the particular area and suspected contaminant type. Analytes should be selected based on the

potential contamination present. All samples will be analysed by an International Accreditation New Zealand

(IANZ) accredited laboratory, and results compared with appropriate risk based human health and ecological

guideline values.

4.2 Soil Validation

At locations where contaminated soil has been excavated, samples of material should be collected at the base

and the sides of the excavation. The samples will be submitted for analyses for the identified CoPC. This

sampling and testing would provide validation of removal of any contamination of in situ soils underlying and

surrounding the excavation works.

The testing of material being left in situ located at the subgrade layer may, in some locations, indicate that

remaining soil is contaminated. It is noted that it is not intended that the works aim to remediate any such soils. It

is recognised that if the soil quality at the subgrade depth indicates that contamination above risk based guideline

values is left in place, a Long Term Management Plan (LTMP) may be required for these soils. The LTMP will

address worker and environmental protection during maintenance operations that may disturb the in situ

contaminated soils.

4.3 Soil Discovery

In the event that any “unexpected finds” including potential soil contamination are identified during the excavation

works, additional sampling and laboratory analyses may be warranted. Such a decision will be made in

consultation with the appointed project contaminated land specialist (CLS) (or equivalent position with

contaminated land expertise). Management of contamination discovered during construction is further described

in Section 5.0.

AECOM

Mill/Redoubt Road


D R A F T


F-1

5.0 Management of Unexpected Contamination and Hazardous Materials

To date, no site investigation works have been undertaken. Available information indicates that the majority of the

material to be excavated will be cleanfill or managed fill, although some will be contaminated fill. It is possible that

unexpected contaminated soil or hazardous materials could be discovered during the excavation works. These

may include but are not limited to the following:

- Fibrous material (such as asbestos).

- Intact or broken drums and containers.

- Unusual odours.

- Discoloured or stained water seeps and soils.

- Hydrocarbon contaminated soil.

- Debris, liquid waste, putrescible waste, household refuse and any material that normally would be sent to a

licensed landfill.

- Gas bubbles or sheen on standing/pooled water.

Note that elevated metals and pesticides from orchid/intensive agricultural activities will not be visibly identifiable.

These areas will require assessment prior to soil disturbance activities.

During the excavation works on site, the Contractor and CLS shall actively monitor for the conditions/materials

specified above. In the event that one of these is identified, the Contractor shall take the following actions:

- Stop all earthworks within a 10 m radius of the area where the suspect material, emission, or discharge has

been recorded.

- Immediately notify the Contractor site supervisor.

- Cordon off the area as practicable with a suitable barrier.

- Contact the appropriate AT Project Manager who will advise on the appropriate course of action in

consultation with the CLS.

- The AT Project Manager shall notify the regulatory authorities (Auckland Council).

- Work shall not resume or commence within a 10 m radius of the area unless authorised by the AT Project

Manager and CLS.

- Record all details on an incident form, including GPS of location.

- If the CLS considers it appropriate, the suspected contaminated material may be excavated into a covered

bin or stockpile to allow works to continue with minimum delay.

- If excavation into a covered bin or stockpile is inappropriate, construction work should proceed to an area

clear of contamination indicators until sampling and analytical results are obtained and interpreted (by a

CLS).

- When the contamination status has been established, to the extent practicable, unsuitable material will be

directly loaded into trucks for disposal at a licensed landfill, assuming it can be accepted without prior

stabilisation.

- All appropriate information such as location, quantity and off-site weighbridge dockets must be recorded.

- Should asbestos be observed or suspected during the excavation works, all work shall cease and Guidelines

for the Management and Removal of Asbestos (revised 1999) for the Department of Labour, and the Health

& Safety in Employment (Asbestos) Regulations (1998) will be followed. Works can recommence once all

asbestos has been removed safely. Any such asbestos works (assessment, delineation, removal and

verification) would be undertaken by a specialist asbestos contractor under supervision of the CLS.

Stockpiling of contaminated material should be avoided to the extent possible. If stockpiling of contaminated

materials cannot be avoided, the following steps should be taken:

AECOM

Mill/Redoubt Road


D R A F T


F-1

- Samples of the soil underneath the proposed stockpile area shall be collected for contamination testing to

document baseline concentrations of contamination.

- The stockpiled material should be placed on plastic sheeting, such as high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or

similar, to prevent contamination of underlying material.

- The stockpile shall be covered at all times except when material is being added to prevent dust and odour

emissions and rainfall contact.

- A bund shall be installed around the stockpile to prevent runoff from leaving the area and stormwater from

other areas entering the stockpile area. Stormwater accumulating within the bund will be considered

contaminated and managed appropriately, unless shown by sampling to be uncontaminated.

- Stockpiles shall not be placed near drains or watercourses.

- Dust control measures will be put in place to ensure that contaminated dust does not travel off-site or

present a potential risk to human health or the environment. Additions to the stockpile will not be made

during high wind events.

- Following removal of the stockpile, the soil underneath the stockpile areas shall be tested to verify that the

stockpiling activities have not caused ground contamination.

AECOM

Mill/Redoubt Road


D R A F T


F-1

6.0 Methods for Handling and Disposal of Potentially Contaminated and Contaminated Materials

Examples of actions to be taken to manage issues associated with potentially contaminated or contaminated material include:

- The Contractor shall prepare a site-specific Health and Safety Plan for the earthworks. The Health and

Safety plan shall address worker health and safety in regard to hazardous materials, as well as to related

construction hazards. All workers will be inducted and trained in accordance with the Plan.

In some cases, workers will require specific permits/licenses to work where contamination is present – such

as for asbestos. The Health and Safety Plan will reflect the necessary controls required in accordance with

the NZ Health and Safety in Employment Act, 1982. Currently there are no guidelines in New Zealand for the

management of asbestos in soils. The Western Australian Guidelines will be adopted in the interim.

- Access to the site shall be restricted to authorised, inducted personnel.

- Dust suppression, erosion and sediment controls will be installed prior to earthworks commencing.

- All staff involved in the excavation works shall immediately report to the CLS any visual or olfactory evidence

of previously unidentified contamination.

- The Contractor shall maintain daily records of where excavations have occurred, the type and volume of

material excavated and where the material has been disposed of, stored or stockpiled.

- The CLS and AT Project Manager will consult when evidence of contaminated material is reported and

decide on the best option for managing these materials in accordance with this PRP.

- Stockpiling of excavated material, with appropriate erosion and sediment controls, shall be limited to

confirmed cleanfill to the greatest extent possible.

- Contaminated materials should be either loaded directly into trucks for off-site disposal or loaded into a

covered bin, designed to prevent rainfall contact with the material, for later disposal. If stockpiling of

contaminated soil is required, the practices described in Section 5.0 for stockpile establishment and

management will be followed.

- Material disposed at a landfill must be to a facility licensed to accept such material.

- Contaminated material (such as that above ecological risk based guideline values) will be properly emplaced

in a manner that does not present a threat to the environment. For example, it may be placed under a

structure, or in a fill disposal area where it can be capped with cleanfill material. When utilised or disposed in

this manner, the contaminated material is classified as managed fill. The material will be managed so that

stormwater runoff is treated in accordance with conditions of consent.

- The Contractor shall maintain a register of landfill disposal activities and record the location of excavation,

disposal location, quantity of material and off-site weighbridge documents.

- The Contractor shall maintain a register of managed fill and will record the location of excavation, disposal

location, quantity of material, and any off-site weighbridge documents (i.e. cradle to grave material tracking

registers). The Contractor should consider use of WasteTrack, a system developed for the tracking of waste

materials leaving a site.

- Upon completion of excavation works, all plant and equipment shall be cleaned and decontaminated in an

appropriate manner. Water from wheel washes shall be collected and disposed of appropriately.

- Any fill imported from unknown sources not certified clean that is imported to reinstate shall be tested at a

rate of one sample per 1,000 m3 of fill (approximate) for identified CoPC to demonstrate acceptability as

cleanfill.

- The CLS (or equivalent position) will be responsible for compliance with all landfill disposal permit

requirements prior to excavation works commencing.

- If property acquisitions are to take place prior to or during construction, consideration must be given to assessment of environmental liabilities and appropriate demolition of buildings in accordance with Department of Labour (DoL) requirements.

AECOM

Mill/Redoubt Road


D R A F T


F-1

7.0 References

Auckland Council, 2012. Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water, 30 April 2012.

Ministry for the Environment (MfE), 2011a. Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 1, (Reporting on

Contaminated Sites in New Zealand), revised October 2011.

MfE, 2011b. Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 5, (Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils),

revised October 2011.

MfE, 2011c. Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing

Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011.

MfE, 2011d. Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 2, (Hierarchy and Application in New Zealand of

Environmental Guideline Values), revised October 2011.

MfE, 2011e. Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New

Zealand, revised October 2011.

MfE, 2004. Guidelines for the Management of Hazardous Waste, May 2004.

MfE, 2002. A Guide to Management of Cleanfills, January 2002.

MfE, 1992. Resource Management Act.

Council Search Information · p. 1; 'No Asbestos in Our Backyard', Howick & Pakuranga Times,...

Documents

Transcript of Council Search Information · p. 1; 'No Asbestos in Our Backyard', Howick & Pakuranga Times,...