final report and decision of the board of inquiry into the tauhara … · j campbell counsel for...
TRANSCRIPT
Final Report and Decision of the
Board of Inquiry into the
Tauhara II Geothermal Development Project
Final report and decision produced under section 149R of the
Resource Management Act 1991
Volume 1 of 2
ii
Prepared in December 2010
By the Board of Inquiry into the Tauhara II Geothermal Development Project
iii
BOARD OF INQUIRY TAUHARA II GEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT In the Matter of the Resource Management Act 1991 And In the Matter of a referral to a Board of Inquiry under section 147 of the Act of an application
for resource consents by Contact Energy Limited for the Tauhara II Geothermal Development Project
THE BOARD OF INQUIRY Judge R Gordon Whiting (Chairperson) Dr Patrick Browne (Member) Mrs S Glenice Paine (Member) Mrs Jenni Vernon (Member) Mr Brian White (Member) HEARINGS at Taupo on the 13th, 14th, 20th and 21st of September and the 5th and 6th of October 2010 APPEARANCES T Robinson, K Smith and T Ryan Counsel for Contact Energy Limited S Hickman Counsel for Taupo District Council K Feint Counsel for Ngā Hapū o Tauhara R Feary Counsel for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority H Te Nahu and E Rongo Counsel for Harvey Karaitiana, Moyra Bramley, Natalie Healey,
Joseph Karaitiana, Christine Karaitiana-Kidwell, Nigel Baker, Arapiu (Abe) Seymour
S Ongley Counsel for the Department of Conservation
R Devine Counsel for Opepe Farm Trust J Campbell Counsel for Mighty River Power Limited and Rotokawa Joint Venture C Whata and J Kirby-Brown Counsel for Wairakei Hapū Collective and Tauhara Moana Trust M Brockelsby for Waikato Regional Council
FINAL REPORT AND DECISION OF THE BOARD OF INQUIRY
This final report is made under section 149R of the Resource Management Act 1991
iv
A. The application for resource consents under the jurisdiction of the Taupo District
Council is granted generally in accordance with the application documents, subject to
the terms and conditions of consent contained in Volume 2 of this decision.
B. The application for resource consents under the jurisdiction of the Waikato Regional
Council is granted generally in accordance with the application documents, subject to
the terms and conditions (including General Conditions) contained in Volume 2 of this
decision.
C. The application to change the General Conditions is granted as per the terms and
conditions contained in Volume 2 of this decision.
D. The application to change the consent conditions of Waikato Regional Council
Consent 961044 is granted by the insertion of the following additional condition:
“Water taken from the Waikato River pursuant to this consent may only be used for
purposes associated with Tauhara I and Tauhara II Geothermal Development
Projects. Those Projects include the Tauhara I Binary Plant on Centennial Drive, the
Tauhara II Power Station north of Mount Tauhara and existing and future direct heat
supply utilising resource consents held by the consent holder”.
v
Contents
VOLUME 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
REFERRAL BY MINISTER TO BOARD OF INQUIRY AND COMMENTS ON THE
DRAFT REPORT ....................................................................................................... 4
BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 7
Geology ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Sources of High Enthalpy Fluid ........................................................................................................ 8
Surface Features .............................................................................................................................. 9
Renewability of the Resource ......................................................................................................... 9
System Development .................................................................................................................... 10
Potential Adverse Effects of Development ................................................................................... 11
THE PROPOSAL ..................................................................................................... 12
The Overall Project ........................................................................................................................ 12
Power Station, Switchyard and Transmission Line ....................................................................... 15
Steamfield Infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 17
Power Station Technology ............................................................................................................ 17
Proposed Conditions of Consent ................................................................................................... 18
CONSENTS APPLIED FOR .................................................................................... 19
Taupo District Council – Landuse Consents .................................................................................. 19
Waikato Regional Council – Regional Consents ............................................................................ 20
Activity Status ................................................................................................................................ 24
STATUTORY REPORTS ......................................................................................... 25
Section 149G Reports .................................................................................................................... 25
Section 42A Report........................................................................................................................ 25
SUBMISSIONS ........................................................................................................ 26
FACILITATED PRE-HEARING MEETINGS ............................................................ 28
THE HEARING AT TAUPO ..................................................................................... 29
STATUTORY BASIS FOR DECISION ..................................................................... 31
PRINCIPAL ISSUES IN CONTENTION ................................................................... 33
THE PERMITTED BASELINE AND THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ................... 34
The Permitted Baseline ................................................................................................................. 34
vi
The Existing Environment .............................................................................................................. 35
EFFECTS OF THE TAUHARA II PROPOSAL ON THE ENVIRONMENT .............. 38
Approvals Gained .......................................................................................................................... 38
Positive Effects .............................................................................................................................. 38
Potential Adverse Effects .............................................................................................................. 39
Maori Matters ....................................................................................................................... 39
Effects on Sustainability of the Geothermal Resource .......................................................... 52
Efficient Use of the Resource ................................................................................................ 57
Effects on Other Users of the Geothermal Resource ............................................................ 58
Effects on Users of Neighbouring Assets and Infrastructure ................................................ 60
Effects of Subsidence ............................................................................................................. 61
Effects on Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 73
Amenity Effects...................................................................................................................... 74
CONSIDERATION OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ............................................ 84
Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 ........................................ 84
National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission ................................................................. 85
National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission ................................................... 86
Regional Planning Instruments ..................................................................................................... 86
Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement ............................................................................ 102
Taupo District Plan ...................................................................................................................... 103
Overall Conclusion on the Relevant Planning Instruments ......................................................... 113
PART 2 OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 ................................... 114
Section 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 114
Section 6 ...................................................................................................................................... 114
Section 7 ...................................................................................................................................... 115
Section 8 ...................................................................................................................................... 116
Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 116
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ................................................................................ 119
DETERMINATION ................................................................................................. 123
Appendix 1: Plan of Tauhara II Geothermal Development Project .................................... 124
Appendix 2: Comments received pursuant to s149Q from Contact Energy Limited ......... 126
Appendix 3: Comments received pursuant to s149Q from Taupo District Council ........... 134
Appendix 4: Comments received pursuant to s149Q from Tauhara Moana Trust ............ 137
Appendix 5: Comments received pursuant to s149Q from Mr Jack Waters ...................... 139
vii
Appendix 6: Wairakei Naming Conventions ....................................................................... 141
Appendix 7: Tauhara Naming Conventions ........................................................................ 143
Appendix 8: Map of Proposed Development Areas with Indicative Production &
Reinjection Areas ................................................................................................................. 145
Appendix 9: Diagram of Dual Pressure (Double Flash), Condensing Steam Turbine Plant 147
Appendix 10: List of Witnesses ........................................................................................... 149
Appendix 11: Stratigraphy .................................................................................................. 153
VOLUME 2: Terms and Conditions of the Consents Granted
1
INTRODUCTION
[1] Contact Energy Limited (Contact) seeks resource consents to develop a power
station on a site located east of Taupo and north of Mount Tauhara along with a
steamfield development covering a broad area of the Tauhara Geothermal Field,
collectively referred to in this document as the Tauhara II Geothermal Development
Project.
[2] The power station and associated steamfield development will require a range of
resource consents. Contact already holds a number of existing resource consents
for geothermal development on the Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System, of which
the Tauhara Field forms part. These include suites of consents authorising the
operation of:
The existing Wairakei and Poihipi Power Stations and Steamfield;
The existing Tauhara I Geothermal Development Project (which includes a
Binary Plant and associated direct heat supply infrastructure); and
The yet to be constructed Te Mihi Power Station Project consented in 2008.
[3] In order to achieve integrated management of the Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal
System, it is proposed that the General Conditions governing the overall geothermal
system management of Contact‟s existing resource consents above are fully
integrated with any resource consents granted for the Tauhara II Geothermal
Development Project. Contact therefore seeks to change some of the key General
Conditions applying to the Wairakei (including Poihipi), Tauhara I and Te Mihi
resource consents in order to ensure integrated and consistent management.
[4] For the same reason, Contact is also seeking that the regional resource consents
authorising the ongoing operation of Tauhara I be combined with the new Tauhara II
Geothermal Development. If granted, both projects would be administered under
one overall set of consents. This would align the duration of the Tauhara I consents
with the 35 year term sought for this application.
2
[5] The Tauhara II Geothermal Development Project is graphically illustrated in the figure
attached as Appendix 11. There are six key components for which authorisations are
sought:
i. The Construction, Operation and Maintenance of the Tauhara II Power
Station and Steamfield Works
Landuse consents for the construction, operation, maintenance, replacement,
renewal and minor upgrading of the proposed Tauhara II Power Station and
associated steamfield works. Given that construction of the Tauhara I Power Station
is completed it is impractical and unnecessary to include the Tauhara I landuse
consents in an overall bundled Tauhara consent application.
ii. Tauhara II Switchyard and Transmission Line Realignment
The switchyard and the realignment and modification of a section of the existing 220
kV Wairakei to Whirinaki A transmission line required for connection of the Tauhara II
Power Station to the National Grid are the subject of separate landuse applications to
transfer these assets to Transpower New Zealand Limited which will ultimately own
and operate this equipment.
iii. Production Take and Reinjection/Injection Consents
Resource consents are sought for the take and reinjection/injection of geothermal
fluid at volumes sufficient to enable operation of both the Tauhara I and II Power
Stations and ongoing direct heat supply (i.e. continuation of the existing Tenon heat
supply and new industrial supply arrangements) over the proposed 35 year consent
term. If those consents are granted, the existing Tauhara I consents for take and
reinjection/ injection of geothermal fluid will be surrendered.
iv. Air Discharge Permits
Contact seeks a new resource consent for its discharges to air associated not only
with the proposed Tauhara II Power Station and steamfield, but also to renew and
replace the existing consent for discharges to air from the Tauhara I Power Station
and the steamfield supplying it. Again, if this resource consent is granted, the
intention is that the existing Tauhara I resource consent will be surrendered.
1 Resource Consent and section 127 Applications, Plan 1
3
v. Steamfield Consents
The resource consent application includes a range of consents necessary for the
ongoing development and operation of the Tauhara I and Tauhara II steamfields. A
small number of the existing Tauhara I resource consents will be retained in whole or
in part. A change is sought for the water take from the Waikato River to clarify the
basis on which an existing resource consent is used for the Tauhara II Geothermal
Development Project.
vi. Change to Existing General Conditions
Contact has sought a change to the General Conditions applying to its Wairakei
(including Poihipi), Tauhara I and Te Mihi resource consents with the objective of
ensuring that a common set of General Conditions is in place for the ongoing
geothermal system management.2
2 Assessment of Environmental Effects at 1 and 2.
4
REFERRAL BY MINISTER TO BOARD OF INQUIRY AND
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT
[6] The application was lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) by
Contact, under section 145 of the Act, on 19 February 2010.
[7] The EPA commissioned the Regional Council and District Council to review the
application for completeness and report their findings. That process was completed
on 4 March 2010 with the application being deemed complete under section 88 of the
Act.
[8] Following the section 88 assessment, the need for further information on the
application was determined. No request for further information was made under
section 92 of the Act.
[9] On 16 March 2010 the Secretary for the Environment recommended to the Minister
for the Environment, under section 146 of the Act, that Contact‟s Tauhara II proposal
was a matter of national significance and that the Minister should direct the
application to be heard and determined by a Board of Inquiry in accordance with Part
6AA of the Act.
[10] On 17 March 2010 the Minister, under section 147(1)(a) of the Act, made a direction
referring the matter to a Board of Inquiry. The Minister‟s direction was publically
notified under section 149C of the Act on 17 April 2010.
[11] The Minister‟s reasons for referring the matter to a Board of Inquiry were:
(a) ―The matter involves, or is likely to involve, significant use of natural and
physical resources:
Geothermal systems are a natural resource limited to a relatively small
area of New Zealand. The Tauhara II proposal for a power station
with a generating capacity of 240 to 250 mega watts will involve
significant use of the Wairakei-Tauhara geothermal resource. The
Tauhara field represents probably [the] largest developable
geothermal resource in the Taupo Volcanic Zone.
5
(b) The matter affects or is likely to affect or is relevant to New Zealand‘s
international obligations to the global environment:
The proposal is relevant to New Zealand‘s international obligations to
the global environment under the Kyoto Protocol because it will
develop a renewable energy generation resource that will reduce the
emission of green house gas per unit of electricity produced in New
Zealand.‖
[12] The public notice of the Minister‟s direction invited interested persons to make
submissions on the application. Submissions closed on 14 May 2010. The EPA
received 60 submissions.
[13] Following a hearing at Taupo between the 13th of September and the 6th of October
2010 we issued a draft report and decision on the 20th of October 2010 pursuant to
section 149Q of the Act. In that draft report and decision the resource consents
applied for were granted subject to terms and conditions.
[14] Pursuant to section 149Q(3) of the Act the EPA provided a copy of the draft report
and decision to all those persons required by that section. Pursuant to section
149Q(4) of the Act the EPA invited persons to whom it sent the draft to send any
comments on minor or technical aspects of the draft report to the EPA no later than
20 working days after the date of the invitation.
[15] The following persons made comments:
Contact Energy Limited;
Taupo District Council;
Tauhara Moana Trust; and
Mr Jack Waters.
We attach as Appendices 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively the comments received.
[16] We have considered the comments made and have incorporated them into this final
decision, save for the amendment requested by Contact to condition 18 of consent
EPA 10/1.007. Contact requested that an Advice Note be inserted to clarify what is
meant by “atmospheric discharge testing”. The Advice Note was:
6
Atmospheric discharge testing in this context is intended to refer to direct
discharges (i.e. not through a silencer) from a well head while it is being
tested. The purpose of the condition is to control unreasonable noise.
[17] Our reasons for refusing the request by Contact are:
i. The effect of the Advice Note narrows the meaning of “atmospheric discharge
testing”.
ii. The condition itself should define its own limits. It is inappropriate to use
Advice Notes to limit the meaning of a condition.
iii. The Advice Note, on the face of it, limits the effect of the condition in a different
way to the condition proposed at the Hearing. We consider it inappropriate to
change the effect of the condition without giving other parties the opportunity to
comment.
iv. As the Advice Note, on the face of it, limits the effect of the condition, it goes
beyond a comment as permitted by section 149Q(5)(a). It changes the scope
and meaning of the condition.
7
BACKGROUND [18] The Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System is one of fifteen large geothermal
systems in the Waikato Region. It comprises two areas which are referred to as the
Wairakei Field and the Tauhara Field. The Wairakei Field covers an area of some 25
km2 to the west of the Waikato River. The Tauhara Field is generally to the east and
north of Taupo town covering an area of some 50 km2. There is no precision in the
delineation between the Wairakei and Tauhara geothermal fields. The cross over is
considered to occur in the area of the Waikato River.
[19] Attached as Appendices 6 and 73 are maps delineating the system, as defined by
resistivity surveys and conventional names, based on both development patterns and
the current interpretation of boundaries and features within the field.
Geology
[20] The Taupo Volcanic Zone (TVZ) comprises a northeast trending graben 30 to 80 km
wide extending from volcanoes of the Tongariro Group in the south to Whakaari
(White Island) and beyond. The graben is mostly filled with geologically young (up to
about 1.1 million years old) volcanic deposits of rhyolite lavas and pyroclastics but
also andesite, dacite (this includes Mount Tauhara) and rare basalt lavas. Locally
interbedded with the volcanic deposits are lake and river deposited sediments largely
derived from older volcanic deposits. These all overlie much older metasediments of
greywacke that are the basement of the TVZ.
[21] The TVZ is tectonically active and is pulling apart at measurable rates (~10 mm/yr in
places). This has resulted in widespread tensional (i.e. „normal‟) faulting that affects
the hydrology of the region and its geothermal systems. Major and many minor faults
are oriented in a northeast-southwest direction, but some northwest oriented faults
are also recognised.
[22] The geology of the Wairakei Field is now reasonably well known down to a depth of
about 2.5 km through study of drill cores recovered by Contact and its predecessors.
The stratigraphic sequence comprises a series of volcanic rocks - rhyolite lavas,
ashes and ignimbrites (including the Waiora Formation), and minor andesite lava and
3 From the Draft System Management Plan – February 2010 at 12 and 13.
8
lake deposited sediments (Huka Falls Formation). These overlie the greywacke
basement which has been reached in only a single well (TH17) in the eastern part of
the Tauhara Field.
[23] While the geology of the Wairakei Field is quite well known, until recently the
Tauhara Field was much less so. However, as a result of recent drilling by Contact,
and reported in the evidence of Mr Rosenberg, we now know much more about its
geology. The Tauhara Field hosts many of the same formations that occur in the
Wairakei Field but also others, such as some rhyolite and andesite lavas whose
occurrence was not known previously.
Sources of High Enthalpy Fluid
[24] Within the Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System there are at least two distinct
upflows of high enthalpy fluid. The upflows lie under and within the area of the
Wairakei and Tauhara Fields. The boundary of the system (delineated by resistivity),
outlines the Wairakei and Tauhara Fields as one system at depth. Pressure
measurements made in the deeper northern Tauhara wells provide evidence of a
hydrological linkage between the two fields.
[25] Pressure and temperature measurements in recently drilled wells4 confirm a hot
upflow in the vicinity of Mount Tauhara. There is some evidence5 that suggests
another source of geothermal fluid upflow in South Tauhara, around and south of the
Napier-Taupo Road. Alternatively, there is a single upflow extending across a wide
area of the Tauhara Field.
[26] In North Tauhara the maximum measured temperatures in the deeper wells have
been relatively stable over decades. The average well output and discharge
enthalpy are higher than for the Wairakei Field. It is this source of high enthalpy fluid
that Contact is seeking to use.
4 TH10 and TH12.
5 An elevated pressure profile at depth in TH10 and more especially the continuation of discharges in the south
despite pressure effects elsewhere in the Field.
9
Surface Features
[27] Prior to development, the Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System had an impressive
surface expression. Surface manifestations included at least 22 geysers, hot springs
and numerous fumaroles, including Karapiti fumarole. There were also large areas
of steaming ground, mud pots and hydrothermal eruption craters. The geysers and
hot water pools at Wairakei were supplied by water ascending from the reservoir and
it is this water that is tapped by production drill holes supplying the Wairakei Power
Station. However, the thermal water is believed to be mainly ancient rain water that
penetrated to great depth, but is now ascending via interconnected fractures as a
result of its becoming heated by a magmatic source, well below depths reached by
drilling.
[28] The thermal manifestations in the Tauhara Field were generally less well known than
those at Wairakei, but were substantial and impressive none the less. They included
hot water discharges at Waipahihi, at Spa Sights (e.g. Crows Nest Geyser) and along
the shore of Lake Taupo. There were large areas of steaming and hot ground in
several places, notably at the Broadlands Road Reserve and the Crown Road
Reserve accompanied by thermally stressed vegetation, particularly prostrate
kanuka.
[29] These surface features have been utilised by Maori for centuries. Together with
Mount Tauhara (Tauhara Maunga) they have been woven into the fabric of their
mythology and have been utilised by Maori for many uses such as bathing, washing,
cooking, heating, ritual ceremonies and healing. Trade developed around the use of
byproducts such as red ochre (kokowai). Maori thus have a strong connection to
Mount Tauhara, the geothermal features and the geothermal resources that sustain
them. They are important taonga.
Renewability of the Resource
[30] Under the Act, geothermal resources are defined as being renewable energy
resources. There have been discussions around the renewability of geothermal
resources, given that the development of a resource alters and depletes the
reservoir(s). We recognise that there is a near infinite source of geothermal energy
within the magma at depth, and that this slowly releases its heat through the
overlying strata and associated aquifers.
10
[31] This magmatic heat source is likely to be at a depth of 8-10 km beneath this part of
the TVZ. Geothermal fields are driven by both the underlying magma bodies, and
through fluids circulating through deep fractures and along rock contacts to bring
convective forces into play. Even when depleted through development, a significant
portion of heat remains unmined from the resource, such that continued use is
possible in a modified form.
[32] Should a geothermal resource be developed and its aquifers depleted, then resting of
the field will eventually see it return to a state similar to its undeveloped state,
through a combination of conduction and convection, from the bottom up. The
evidence of Professor O‟Sullivan6 was that the time for this restoration is a function of
the ratio of extraction rate to natural through-flow or recharge. For the Wairakei-
Tauhara Geothermal System this would mean a recovery period of approximately
seven times the operational period.
System Development
[33] For many years the resource has been utilised by small bore holders for domestic
and commercial uses. There are a large number of existing bore users who utilise the
resource for heating their homes and swimming pools. There are also a number of
commercial users who utilise the resource for such purposes as heating public
swimming pools and spa pools; heating hotels and motels; prawn farming and drying
timber.
[34] Large scale development of the Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System commenced
before the commissioning of the Wairakei Power Station in 1958 by the New Zealand
Government. Additional generation capacity has been developed on the Wairakei
Field with the commissioning of the Poihipi Power Station in 1996 and the Wairakei
Binary Plant in 2005.
[35] Exploration of the Tauhara Geothermal Field started in the 1960‟s and identified that
a productive geothermal resource was located in North Tauhara. Resource consents
were granted in 2001 for a 20,000 tonnes per day development in the North Tauhara
sector. These resource consents were utilised initially for direct supply of process
6 O‟Sullivan EiC at [9.43]
11
heat to local industry augmented by the commissioning of the Tauhara I7 Geothermal
Power Station in 2010.
Potential Adverse Effects of Development
[36] Geothermal development for large scale electricity production or direct heat use
inherently creates pressure and temperature change within a geothermal resource.
This has impacts on the state of a geothermal reservoir and its surface features. Of
particular relevance are the following effects:
i. Potential property damage through differential subsidence – the removal of
large volumes of fluid from a geothermal reservoir can compact strata once they
dewater. This has occurred at Ohaaki and the Wairakei-Tauhara System where
differential subsidence has affected buildings and structures.
ii. Changes to surface thermal manifestations – extraction for development can
decrease pressure and form more steam. This will initially increase the volume of
steam discharging in thermal areas, as has occurred at the Karapiti (Craters of
the Moon) thermal area. Lowering of reservoir pressure may also increase the
likelihood of hydrothermal eruptions that can cause damage.
iii. Sustainability of the resource – the use of the resource over time has the
effect of controlled depletion (reduction of temperatures and/or pressures) of the
reservoir.
iv. Effect on Maori – the resource is a taonga tuku iho to Maori. Thus its depletion
over time and other development effects are considered by Maori to be culturally
inappropriate.
7 Now known as Te Huka.
12
THE PROPOSAL
[37] The application is detailed and thorough. It is contained in nine volumes of
documentation. The proposed technology and numerous reports (in many cases
peer reviewed) addressed the potential environmental effects of the proposal.
Detailed draft conditions of consent together with draft management plans were also
provided.
The Overall Project
[38] The Tauhara II Geothermal Development Project comprises the following main
components:
A power station and ancillary facilities that uses geothermal energy to
generate approximately 240 MWe net;
A new switchyard and modifications to the transmission lines to connect the
power station to the nearby national electricity transmission network;
Cross-country pipelines with separator stations connecting well pads to the
power station and reinjection wells;
Geothermal wells for production and reinjection/injection; and
New vehicle access to the consent application area from local roads and state
highways and the provision of internal service roads and other infrastructure
such as water, power, and telecommunications.
[39] Contact proposes an adaptive management approach for flexibility. The application
explains that such an approach:8
“... is driven by the fact that information from each new well drilled (production or
reinjection) can materially influence the physical location of the next well and
therefore the physical location of the connecting pipelines and other equipment.
Geothermal systems under development also slowly deplete the geothermal
resource being tapped by production wells, and make-up wells in new areas need to
be drilled progressively over the life of the project to maintain the required steam flow
to the power plant. Ongoing monitoring of the geothermal reservoir is undertaken
and the geothermal operator needs to be able to adapt production and
8 Steamfield Design Protocol at 1
13
reinjection/injection to ensure sustainable use of the geothermal resource is
maintained”.
[40] Contact asserts that it is not practical to accurately identify the location and extent of
much of the infrastructure required on the steamfield at this stage. Contact proposes
that a planning framework to enable progressive development of the steamfield with
the required flexibility would be achieved by way of a Steamfield Design Protocol
(SDP).
[41] The SDP is provided as part of the application and defines objectives, requirements
and practices, and performance criteria and standards for the development of the
steamfield infrastructure in terms of engineering, landscape and visual, noise,
archaeology and cultural matters.
[42] An important part of the SDP is its differentiation between “fixed elements” and
“flexible elements” within the overall development. The fixed elements are “locked in”
and comprise:
The power station and associated equipment;
The switchyard, transmission connection and modification of an existing
transmission line;
The main pipeline corridors, including associated equipment. Contact seek a
pipeline corridor up to 100 m wide; and
The separator stations including associated equipment.
[43] The flexible elements that Contact seeks are:
Production wells;
Reinjection/injection wells;
Above ground piping other than the main pipelines;
Below ground piping for conveying raw water for use in the power station and
drilling, and condensate;
Installation of a surface irrigation system;
Other ancillary steamfield equipment;
Access roads along pipelines;
Above ground 11 kV power reticulation and steamfield control and
communication cables;
14
Below ground control and communication cables serving equipment such as
pumps;
Communication towers less than 15 m high, radio antenna and solar panels;
and
Security and stock fencing.
[44] The details of the establishment of the project are set out in the Assessment of
Environmental Effects (AEE)9. Appendix 810 graphically depicts the project.
[45] Some areas of exclusions and setbacks are contained within the consent application
area11. These include:
A total activity exclusion area covering the rural-residential properties on
Centennial Drive to the west of the power station site and the area covered by
Mount Tauhara both above and below the ground surface;
Surface structure exclusion areas adjacent to Mount Tauhara, the Waikato
River, Bonshaw Park lifestyle area and Maunganamu, the airport and
covering significant geothermal areas such as the Broadlands Road Reserve;
A 20-25 m building buffer from two faults oriented roughly east-west directly to
the south of the power station site; and
A 500 m separation distance between the Tauhara II consent application area
and the Rotokawa Geothermal Field boundary, apart from where the two field
boundaries are physically closer.
[46] Contact proposes draft conditions of consent for the district and regional consents
required for the authorisation of the proposal, as well as proposing amendments to
the General Conditions governing the Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System. The
district conditions reflect the differentiation between fixed and flexible elements set
out above.
[47] The consent application area takes in 7,064 hectares held in several hundred
separate land titles. Contact own some of the sites in the application area in fee
simple, have surface and subsurface easement rights over most sites, and
subsurface easement rights with the ability to acquire ownership via encumbrances if
9 See in particular Tauhara II Geothermal Development Project, Project Description Revision 0, February 2010.
10 Project Description Figure 3.
11 See Appendix 1
15
required over a small number of sites12. There are some sites however where
Contact currently has no legal interests registered.
[48] Most of the production wells would be located in the East and Central Tauhara areas,
while the majority of the reinjection would be in the North and East Tauhara areas.
Some production and reinjection would eventually occur in South Tauhara. Targeted
shallow reinjection may be undertaken in a defined area adjacent to the eastern
boundary of Taupo town and to the west of the Eastern Taupo Arterial route. The
wells would be located on sites where Contact has existing, or would negotiate,
access rights. Directional drilling would be used to access the geothermal resource
under sites where Contact has only subsurface easement rights.
[49] The Tauhara II consent application area takes in all of the Tauhara I Binary Plant
consent area.
Power Station, Switchyard and Transmission Line
[50] The power station site is about 20 ha. A sealed access road is proposed from Off
Road Highway to the power station site. This would be used for construction and
ongoing access purposes. All roads, parking areas and other hard-standing areas
would be paved with asphalt. The site would be surrounded by a security fence and
some areas (e.g. switchyard) would be surrounded by safety fencing.
[51] The primary buildings at the power station site would be the turbine hall, cooling
towers and a steam separation plant. Various secondary structures would be
required. A large electrical switchyard is proposed to be located 700 m northeast of
the turbine hall. An existing 220 kV transmission line (Wairakei - Whirinaki A) would
be diverted and reconstructed to connect to the new switchyard taking the electricity
generated from the power station to the national grid.
[52] Contact seeks consent for either of two proposed layouts for the power plant location.
The architecturally designed building is proposed to be of concrete foundations with
steel portal framing and long-run pre-painted aluminium cladding. One of the
proposed site configurations sees the turbine hall orientated east-west, while the
other configuration has the turbine hall orientated north-south.
12
See Figure 1.3 in the AEE at 13.
16
[53] The cooling tower structures would be 155 m long by 20 m wide and 20 m high from
a site level of 460 m asl (same as for the turbine hall). Three cooling tower blocks
are proposed, one for each turbine, each comprising ten cells. The cooling towers
would be similar in appearance to the Poihipi Power Station cooling tower.
[54] To reduce recirculation of the cooling tower plumes back to the cooling tower inlets,
the orientation of the cooling towers is required to be parallel to the prevailing wind
direction. Thus, where the turbine hall is orientated east-west, the three cooling
towers are also orientated east-west and set out in a triangular formation to the south
of the turbine hall. Under the alternative configuration, where the turbine hall is
orientated north-south, the three cooling towers remain orientated east-west but are
set out in a line running north-south.
[55] The formation of the power station, cooling tower and switchyard building platforms
would require approximately 500,000 m3 of earthworks, with batters of up to 6 m in
height around the power station. This material would be used to form two large bunds
designed to screen the power station and switchyard from certain viewpoints. These
bunds would be shaped to reflect the landforms of the area.
[56] Stormwater runoff from roofs and sealed areas at the power station site would be
collected and directed to a lined stormwater pond with a capacity of 83,900 m3 and
an area of 2.6 ha. The stormwater pond would be able to store runoff from a 10 year
storm event. If a 100 year storm event occurs the pond would overflow in a
controlled manner via a weir and discharge into an ephemeral stream flowing
northeast toward Off Road Highway. Appropriate bunding and separators are
proposed to be installed at the power station site to ensure that any runoff containing
oil or other hazardous contaminants does not enter the stormwater pond. Runoff
around the new access roads, wellpads and the switchyard would be discharged via
overland flow to adjacent ground areas.
[57] A switchyard would be located approximately 700 m to the northeast of the power
station to combine the outputs from the three turbines and connect them (via a
transmission circuit) to the 220 kV Wairakei – Whirinaki A transmission line that runs
approximately north-south. The approximate height of the switchyard equipment is
35 m with lightening poles extending to 41 m. Concrete monopoles up to 35 m in
height would be erected to support the lines taking the power from the station to the
17
switchyard. The existing transmission line would need to be realigned slightly to enter
and exit the switchyard, and the new steel lattice pylons required will be up to 45 m
high.
Steamfield Infrastructure
[58] In the remainder of the consent application area, away from the power station/cooling
tower/switchyard location, a range of infrastructure is proposed. This includes
production and reinjection wellpads, pipelines, steamfield access roads and other
ancillary equipment.
[59] Contact proposes to initially establish approximately 33 production wells, 17
separated geothermal water (SGW) reinjection wells and two condensate reinjection
wells. Other wells may be required as development proceeds.
[60] Pipelines would be above ground, except where they cross roads, due to insulation
and thermal expansion requirements and to facilitate maintenance and inspections.
The major pipelines would range in diameter from 0.4 m to 1.2 m. All the pipelines
would be covered with recessive coloured aluminium cladding, to mitigate their visual
effects.
Power Station Technology
[61] The proposal would draw geothermal fluid mainly from the Central, South and East
Tauhara areas. A schematic diagram of the proposed power generation process is
shown in Appendix 9.13
[62] „Double flash‟14 technology would generate about 20 – 25% more power from the
same amount of fluid currently extracted for the Wairakei Power Station (A & B).
Double flash technology provides for the use of steam at different pressures in a dual
admission turbine.
[63] At the separator stations, geothermal fluid is separated into intermediate pressure
(IP) steam and SGW. Both would be piped to the Tauhara II Power Station where the
13
AEE Figure 4.3 at 66. 14
Double flash is where the geothermal fluid is flashed twice at different pressures and separated into steam and SGW with the steam being expanded in the steam turbine.
18
SGW is again flashed to generate low pressure (LP) steam. The IP and LP steam
expand through steam turbines to generate electricity. Steam vents near the power
station would provide start up and pressure control.
[64] After passing through the turbines the steam would be condensed using direct
contact. The water for condensation would be sourced from condensate cooled in
mechanical draft cooling towers and recirculated with assistance from pumps. After
the steam is condensed in the condenser, some non condensable gases remain and
would be removed by gas extractors and discharged to the atmosphere above the
cooling tower stacks. The power station would be a conventional steam turbine
plant. A full description of it is contained in the AEE.
[65] The draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) stated that the
power station would take 38 months to commission. A construction programme was
provided.
Proposed Conditions of Consent
[66] The draft conditions of consent filed with the application went through several
iterations, as Contact addressed issues raised by submitters during the facilitation
process and the Hearing. On 6 October 2010, the last day of the Hearing, Contact
lodged the latest amended version. It is these conditions of consent, as amended by
us, that we take into account. These are contained in Volume 2.
19
CONSENTS APPLIED FOR
[67] The consents applied for are:
Taupo District Council – Landuse Consents
EPA 10/1.001 (TDC RM100227): To construct, operate, maintain, replace, renew, and
undertake minor upgrading of a geothermal power
station and all associated structures, facilities, signage,
220 kV grid connection, and associated steamfield
activities on the Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System
within the Consent Application Area, including all
ancillary activities and equipment, but excluding:
the landuse activities authorised by a landuse
consent granted by Order of the Environment
Court on 17 January 2001 relating to the Tauhara
I Geothermal Development Project (Tauhara
20,000 tonnes/day Project); and
a new switchyard and the realignment and
modification of a section of the existing 220 kV
Wairakei to Whirinaki A transmission line
described in separate but associated landuse
applications lodged by Contact.
EPA 10/1.002 (TDC RM 100228): To construct, operate, maintain, replace, renew, and
undertake minor upgrading of a new switchyard (and
all ancillary equipment, facilities, structures and
signage) associated with a new geothermal power
station on the Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System.
EPA 10/1.003 (TDC RM 10029): To construct, operate, maintain, replace, renew and
undertake minor upgrading of a section of 220 kV
transmission line, associated support structures,
equipment and facilities linking a new switchyard (the
subject of separate consent) with the existing National
Grid 220 kV Wairakei to Whirinaki A transmission line,
20
to realign a section of that existing line and to carry out
modification works (including strengthening and the
addition of new towers, earthpeaks and earthwires)
necessary to enable connection of the new line to that
existing transmission line.
[68] Contact sought lapse periods of 10 years for all of these consents.
Waikato Regional Council – Regional Consents
EPA 10/1.004 (WRC 120544): Water permit to take and use up to 213 kilotonnes per
day of geothermal water and associated energy and
heat within the Consent Application Area for any
purpose directly or indirectly associated with the
generation of electricity or the direct supply of steam,
water or heat including well and aquifer testing and well
maintenance.
EPA 10/1.005 (WRC 120545): Discharge permit to discharge up to 194 kilotonnes per
day of water including geothermal water, steam
condensate, cooling water blowdown, suspended
material, and added chemicals and tracers into land
and underground water through reinjection and/or
injection wells within the Consent Application Area.
EPA 10/1.006 (WRC 120546): Discharge permit to discharge up to 6,500 tonnes per
day of cooling water blowdown and steam condensate
including added contaminants onto or into land by
irrigation (and by seepage into underground water)
within the Irrigation Consent Application Area.
EPA 10/1.007 (WRC 120547): Discharge permit to discharge contaminants to air from
two geothermal power stations and any direct use of
heat and associated structures and steamfield activities
within the Consent Application Area, including from
21
geothermal wells (including during drilling, testing and
maintenance), separation plants and silencers, pipeline
drains, vents and condensate traps and all associated
geothermal steamfield equipment.
EPA 10/1.008 (WRC 120548): Landuse consent to construct and/or alter wells drilled
below the groundwater table within the Consent
Application Area.
EPA 10/1.009 (WRC 120549): Discharge permit to discharge water, including
geothermal water, steam condensate, cooling tower
blowdown, drilling muds and drilling fluids, all
containing various solids, added chemicals and other
contaminants during well drilling, well and aquifer
testing and well commissioning onto and into land and
underground water, within the Consent Application
Area.
EPA 10/1.010 (WRC 120550): Water permit to divert stormwater and to take and/or
divert groundwater within the Consent Application Area
for the purposes of constructing, operating and
maintaining a geothermal power station (Tauhara
Stage II), steamfield plant and structures (including
steamfield equipment, access roads, and structures
relating to the Tauhara Stage I Binary Plant), and all
associated electrical equipment and infrastructure.
EPA 10/1.011 (WRC 120551): Discharge permit to discharge stormwater and
groundwater including contaminants onto or into land
by way of soakage (including in circumstances which
may result in those contaminants entering water) within
the Consent Application Area.
EPA 10/1.012 (WRC 120552): Discharge permit to discharge up to 15,000 tonnes per
day of water including geothermal water, steam
condensate, cooling tower blowdown and added
contaminants directly onto and into land (including in
22
circumstances which may result in contaminants
entering water) from lined holding ponds located at the
Tauhara Stage II Power Station site and separation
plants including during well and/or power station start
up or shut down, fault conditions or planned equipment
maintenance outages within the Consent Application
Area.
EPA 10/1.013 (WRC 120553): Discharge permit to discharge silica, geothermal water,
steam condensate, and water including added
contaminants during normal steamfield operation and
maintenance onto and into land (including in
circumstances that may result in contaminants entering
water) within the Consent Application Area.
EPA 10/1.014 (WRC 120554): Discharge permit to discharge up to 150 tonnes per
annum of inorganic antiscalants into land via wells
(including in circumstances which may result in
contaminants entering water) within the Consent
Application Area.
EPA 10/1.015 (WRC 120555): Discharge permit to discharge up to 10 cubic metres
per day of water including contaminants and sewage
onto and into land (in circumstances which may result
in contaminants entering water) through on-site
treatment systems and associated subsurface land
disposal facilities within the Tauhara Stage II Power
Station site and within the switchyard site located
immediately to the east of the power station site.
EPA 10/1.016 (WRC 120556): Discharge permit to discharge stormwater to the
existing natural waterway running under the Off Road
Highway within the power station site.
EPA 10/1.017 (WRC 120557): Landuse consent to construct, operate, maintain, and
upgrade culverts and bridges, including any associated
streambed disturbance and depositing of minor
23
amounts of substances such as construction material,
fill and slash at locations along the main pipeline route.
EPA 10/1.018 (WRC 120558): Landuse consent to undertake earthworks, roadworks,
and land and vegetation disturbance, at the bridge and
culvert locations along the main pipeline route, and
within the bed of an ephemeral stream within the
Tauhara Stage II Power Station site.
EPA 10/1.019 (WRC 120559): Landuse consent to undertake surface and near
surface earthworks and land and vegetation
disturbance associated with the construction of
geothermal pipelines and ancillary activities within, and
within 20 metres of, Significant Geothermal Features
located north of State Highway 5, between the Miro
Street Industrial area and the eastern edge of the
designated corridor for the Eastern Taupo Arterial
Highway.
EPA 10/1.020 (WRC 120560): Landuse consent to undertake soil disturbance
associated with the subsurface construction, operation
and maintenance of geothermal wells and ancillary
activities within, and within 20 metres of, Significant
Geothermal Features located north of State Highway 5
and immediately to the east of the designated corridor
for the Eastern Taupo Arterial Highway, within the
Consent Application Area.
[69] Contact sought lapse periods of 10 years, and consent terms of 35 years, for all of
these consents.
Waikato Regional Council – Section 127 Applications
[70] Contact has also lodged applications under section 127 of the Act to change a
number of the General Conditions, relating primarily to the Discharge Strategy and to
monitoring requirements, attached to particular resource consents relating to the
operation of the Wairakei Geothermal Power Station and the consented Te Mihi
24
Geothermal Power Station. The resource consents to which the General Conditions
are attached are as follows:
Wairakei Geothermal Power Station Consents 104706 (take of geothermal
water), 104707 (take of geothermal water), 104711 (discharge to Waikato
River), 104712 (discharge to Waikato River) and 104718 (discharge into land
and underground water via injection/reinjection);
Te Mihi Geothermal Power Station Consents 116786 (discharge into land and
underground water via injection/reinjection) and 116787 (discharge onto land
via irrigation).
[71] The changes sought by Contact are intended to ensure that as far as possible, a
common set of General Conditions applies to all major production and
reinjection/injection consents held by the consent holder on the Wairakei-Tauhara
Geothermal System, including those related to the Tauhara II Geothermal
Development Project. Aside from variations to the conditions governing the
discharge strategy and monitoring, these changes also include additional
requirements for hapu representation on a peer review panel, amended requirements
for reporting to the Regional Council and the addition of a new section of the General
Conditions setting out requirements to identify and remedy effects the Tauhara II
Project may have on third party shallow bore users.
[72] Contact has also applied to change the conditions of the existing consent 961044 (to
take water from the Waikato River) to limit the use of that water to the Tauhara I and
Tauhara II Geothermal Development Projects.
Activity Status
[73] The most onerous activity status of the consents is discretionary. By applying the
bundling rule, all consents must be considered under the statutory provisions that
apply to discretionary consents. Under section 149P(3)(a) of the Act the application
to change conditions of existing consents is to be treated as a discretionary activity.
25
STATUTORY REPORTS
Section 149G Reports
[75] Where a matter that is deemed nationally significant is referred to a Board of Inquiry,
section 149G(3) of the Act stipulates that the EPA must:
―…commission the local authority to prepare a report on the key issues in relation to
the matter that includes-
(a) any relevant provisions of a national policy statement, a New Zealand coastal
policy statement, a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy
statement, and a plan or proposed plan; and
(b) a statement on whether all required resource consents in relation to the
proposal to which the matter relates have been applied for; and
(c) if applicable, the activity status of all proposed activities in relation to the
matter.‖
[76] Both the Regional Council and the District Council were commissioned by the EPA in
accordance with section 149G(3). Those reports were made available to the Board,
the applicant and all submitters to the application.
[77] The section 149G reports provided by the Regional Council15 and the District
Council16 both contained advice confirming that the consents lodged by Contact were
complete and in compliance with section 88 of the Act. We agree.
Section 42A Report
[78] The Board commissioned Mr Grant Eccles, Planning Consultant, to prepare a report
on the application under section 42A of the Act17. The report provided was sent to
Contact and all the submitters who indicated a wish to be heard.
15
Tauhara II Geothermal Development-Contact Energy Ltd, Key Issues Report by Waikato Regional Council, May 2010. 16
Local Authority Report – Section 149G Resource Management Act, Contact Energy Limited – Tauhara II, Taupo District Council, 14 May 2010. 17
Tauhara II Geothermal Development Project – Report on applications under s42A Resource Management Act, AECOM, 20 July 2010 and 08 September 2010.
26
SUBMISSIONS
[79] Following notification, the Board appointed Mr Hamish Hey, an independent Planning
Consultant, to act as a „Friend of Submitters‟, to advise on process.
[80] Submissions closed on 14 May 2010 and the Board waived the time for 7
submissions filed late. A Summary of Submissions report, dated 21 May 2010, was
sent to all parties on 27 May 2010.
[81] Of the 60 submissions received the outcomes sought were:
6 Support
1 Support in Part
34 Oppose
5 Oppose in Part
3 Neutral
11 Mixed
[82] The topics and issues raised in the submissions fell broadly into the following
categories – some submissions fell under more than one category:
Shallow Bores – 27 submissions
Subsidence and Hazards – 20 submissions
Generation – 4 submissions
Surface Features – 1 submission
Amenity – 14 submissions
Air Quality – 6 submissions
Cultural Values – 16 submissions
Resource Ownership – 6 submissions
Benefits – 4 submissions
Policy/RMA – 5 submissions
Economics – 11 submissions
Flora and Fauna – 4 submissions
Consultation – 14 submissions
Water – 6 submissions
Sustainability – 9 submissions
27
Other Matters – 8 submissions
None Stated – 1 submission
28
FACILITATED PRE-HEARING MEETINGS
[83] At the direction of the Board a series of facilitated pre-hearing meetings were held
between Contact and submitters throughout July, August and September 2010.
Independent facilitators were appointed to facilitate these meetings. Various hui were
held with tangata whenua submitters. Contact also independently undertook other
meetings with submitters.
[84] As a result of agreements reached during the pre-hearing meeting process, and
during the hearing period, the following parties withdrew their submissions (the
numerical reference in brackets represents the relevant submission number as
referenced in the Summary of Submissions report dated 21 May 2010):
Phillip and Gaye Greaves (38)
Richard Abraham (49)
Harold Bowers and Hendrica Ardern (48)
Lorraine and Todd Marston (37)
Cornelius and Anna Pol (39)
Sherie McHardy (41)
Chris Blyth (46)
Colin Lloyd and Antonia Hooper (57)
Donald Flight (58)
Mike Pol (42)
Lorna Maloney and John Young (43)
John Cumming (47)
Tauhara Middle 11 Trust (22)
Robert Pol (40)
Fatherheart Ministries Trust (44)
Lakes District Health Board (20)
The Trustees - Patuiwi Reserve Trust (10)
Tauhara College Board of Trustees (55)
Chelmswood Park Ltd (34)
Keith Wilson (50)
Noel Olsson (3)
Phoenix Timeshare Resort (15)
Robert Pitcairn (4)
Taupo DeBretts(33)
29
THE HEARING AT TAUPO
[85] The Board made an extensive site visit as a group on 15 July 2010. This assisted us
to understand the evidence and issues.
[86] The hearing commenced with opening submissions at Taupo on 13 September 2010.
The following parties took part in the hearing:
Contact Energy Limited
Taupo District Council
Waikato Regional Council
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority
Opepe Farm Trust
Department of Conservation
Mighty River Power Ltd
Rotokawa Joint Venture
Mr (Arthur) Jack Waters
Ngā Hapū o Tauhara
Mr Harvey Karaitiana (Tauhara Whanau Whanui Working Party)
Ms Christine Kidwell (Tauhara Whanau Whanui Working Party)
Mr Ian Thain
Mr Tom Walters
Wairakei Hapu Collective
Tauhara Moana Trust
[87] A number of submitters who had not withdrawn their submissions did not appear at
the hearing. Notwithstanding, when considering the evidence we had regard to their
submissions.
[88] During the hearing, negotiations continued and a number of the parties reached an
accord with Contact. The genuineness of any consultation is not measured by the
extent to which it results in agreement18. Nor does agreement necessarily mean that
a proposal meets the purpose of the Act. But, in this case, in the context of a
nationally significant project, we were pleasantly surprised at the extent to which
agreement had been reached.
18
Crest Energy Ltd v Northland Regional Council, Environment Court Decision A132/2009 at [197].
30
[89] By the last day of the hearing, just three of the submitters who took part in the
hearing remained opposed to the proposal:
i. Opepe Farm Trust maintained its opposition to the project and alternatively
sought a series of significant amendments to the proposed conditions of
consent;
ii. Mr Thain maintained his opposition to the project based on efficiency issues
and Contact‟s lack of progress in replacing the aging Wairakei Power Station
with the Te Mihi Power Station; and
iii. Mr Mack Clarke filed a short submission criticising the process (a matter
outside our jurisdiction) and his opposition to the proposal because of its effect
on Maori.
Mr Waters also appeared at the hearing and sought a change to one aspect of the
General Conditions dealing with subsidence mitigation.
[90] In coming to our determination we have considered all of the evidence put before us.
In total we have received evidence, either written or oral, from 41 witnesses. A list of
witnesses is set out in Appendix 10. We have also had regard to all of the
submissions, both written and oral. The volume of evidence and submissions is such
that it is just not practicable to refer to all of the evidence and all of the submissions
in this decision.
31
STATUTORY BASIS FOR DECISION
[91] As a Board of Inquiry we are required to consider the relevant matters set out in
section 149P of the Act:
(1) A board of inquiry considering a matter must –
(a) have regard to the Minister‘s reasons for making a direction in relation to the
matter; and
(b) consider any information provided to it by the EPA under section 149G; and
(c) act in accordance with subsection (2), (3) ...
(2) A board of inquiry considering a matter that is an application for a resource
consent must apply sections 104 to 112 and 138A as it if were a consent
authority.
(3) A board of inquiry considering a matter that is an application for a change to or
cancellation of the conditions of a resource consent must apply sections 104 to
112 as if-
(a) it were a consent authority and the application were an application for
resource consent for a discretionary activity; and
(b) every reference to a resource consent and to the effects of the activity were
a reference to the change or cancellation of a condition and the effects of
the change or cancellation, respectively.
[92] Earlier in this decision we stated the reasons of the Minister for exercising his
discretion to refer the proposal, and to the section 149G reports prepared by the
Regional Council and District Council for the EPA. Under sections 149P(1)(a) and
(b) we must have regard to the Minister‟s reasons and consider the information in the
Council reports. We must also have regard to any other information provided to us
by the EPA.
[93] The application, being of a discretionary activity status, requires us to consider it
within the framework of section 104 of the Act. Of particular relevance to our
considerations, subject to Part 2 of the Act, are:
a) Any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activities for
which consent is sought; and
32
b) The relevant provisions of the:
(i) Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010
(ii) National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission
(iii) National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission
(iv) Waikato Regional Policy Statement
(v) Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement (notified on 3 November
2010)
(vi) Waikato Regional Plan
(vii) Taupo District Plan
[94] As some of the consents applied for are for the discharge of contaminants, sections
105 and 107 of the Act apply.
33
PRINCIPAL ISSUES IN CONTENTION
[95] From the application, the submissions filed, the evidence and the written and oral
submissions, we identify the following principal issues:
1. The potential effects of the proposal on the environment
a. Positive effects
b. Negative effects
Effects on Maori
Effects on the sustainability of the geothermal resource
Effects on the efficient use of the resource
Effects on other resource users
Effects on users of neighbouring assets and infrastructure
Effects of differential subsidence
Effects on groundwater
Effects on amenity
2. The application of the relevant statutory instruments
3. The application of the relevant statutory framework
34
THE PERMITTED BASELINE AND THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
The Permitted Baseline
[96] The ability to apply the permitted baseline to assess an application is a discretionary
power under the Act19.
[97] The Regional Council, in its section 149G report, analysed in some considerable
detail the permitted baseline that would apply to the regional consents. The report
concluded:20
Based on the above analysis of the relevant permitted activities that apply to the
subject site, the following conclusions are drawn:
(a) with regard to the applications for:
a. irrigation of condensate (120546);
b. discharge from well drilling and testing activities (120549);
c. discharge of stormwater and groundwater to land (120551);
d. minor discharges to land (120553);
e. sewage discharge (120555);
f. overflow stormwater discharge to water (120556);
- the ―permitted baseline‖ consideration has significant relevance (ie
many of the effects of these activities could be disregarded under s104(2));
(b) with regard to the applications for:
a. groundwater take and diversion and stormwater diversion (120550);
b. stream crossings (120557);
c. earthworks within High Risk Erosion areas (120558);
- the ―permitted baseline‖ consideration has some relevance (ie some of
the effects of these activities could be disregarded under s104(2));
19
section104(2). 20
Regional Council Key Issues Report at 125 - 126
35
(c) with regard to the applications for:
a. the main geothermal take (120544);
b. the main reinjection discharge (120545);
c. the emissions to air (120547);
d. the construction of geothermal wells (120548);
e. the discharges from the power station pond and separation plants
(120552);
f. the antiscalant discharge (120554);
g. the earthworks associates with SGFs (120559)
h. the wells beneath SGFs (120560);
- the ―permitted baseline‖ consideration has little or no relevance (ie
there are few if any relevant permitted effects that might be disregarded under
s104(2)).
[98] In the exercise of our discretion under section 104(2) we consider the consents in the
round. We elect not to exercise our discretion to apply the permitted baseline to the
regional consents, because of the scale, complexity and nature of the proposal as
compared to the permitted activity provisions of the Regional Plan.
[99] The District Council, in its section 149G report, emphasised the difficulties in
accurately applying the permitted baseline under the District Plan to the proposal,
given the size of the consent application area21. We elect not to exercise our
discretion to apply the permitted baseline to the district consents, because of the
scale, complexity and nature of the proposal as compared to the permitted activity
provisions of the District Plan.
[100] As will become clear in our analysis on potential adverse effects, applying the
permitted baseline would make no difference to the outcome of our decision.
The Existing Environment
[101] The consent application area takes in 7,064 hectares largely on the eastern side of
the Waikato River, and to the north, east and south of Taupo town. The power station
21
At [7.3].
36
site itself is located about 4.5 km northeast of Taupo town, and directly north of
Mount Tauhara which is the dominant landform in the area.
[102] The landscape is representative of the predominant land use activity in the area,
pastoral farming. Pasture grasses and exotic tree shelter belts exist. Mount Tauhara
consists of second generation forest, some mature forest, old plantation and wilding
pines.
[103] In the vicinity of the consent application area, the following commercial activities and
associated infrastructure exists:
Taupo Racecourse;
Taupo Motorsport Park;
Taupo Waste Transfer Station;
Landfill on Broadlands Road;
Winstones Quarry on the north spur of Mount Tauhara;
Truck stop (Stag Park) and storage depot on SH5;
Taupo sewage land discharge;
Tenon Timber Mill – a direct user of geothermal energy; and
Miro Road Industrial Park.
[104] Residential dwellings in the consent application area are mostly associated with
lifestyle properties in an area west of the consent application area on Centennial
Drive, and in Bonshaw Park southeast of the application area accessed from SH5.
[105] There are currently six geothermal power stations within 11 km of the proposed
Tauhara II power station. These are:
Wairakei - 6.4 km NNW;
Wairakei Binary - 6.4 km NNW;
Poihipi - 10.7 km WNW;
Rotokawa - 6.7 km NNE;
Nga Awa Purua - 6.1 km NNE; and
Tauhara I - 3 km W.
37
In addition there are two consented, but yet to be built, power stations:
Te Mihi – 10.8 km NW; and
Ngatamariki – 20 km N.
[106] Part 3 of the section 149G report from the Regional Council22 provides a detailed and
thorough description of the existing physical environment of the Wairakei-Tauhara
Geothermal System, with emphasis on the Tauhara Field. In the absence of any
evidence to the contrary we adopt that description. We do not therefore reproduce it
here. It provides an overview and a conceptual understanding of the existing
environment. It addresses such matters as:
(i) Watersheds and streams;
(ii) Air quality;
(iii) The utilisation of the Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System;
(iv) Geological and geophysical structure;
(v) High enthalpy fluid;
(vi) Reservoir pressure;
(vii) Surface features;
(viii) Ecology;
(ix) Surface use;
(x) System management;
(xi) Reinjection/injection;
(xii) Subsidence;
(xiii) Shallow groundwater;
(xiv) Cascade users;
(xv) Direct users such as public swimming pools, hotels/motels and hospitals; and
(xvi) Shallow well owners – mostly for private domestic use.
[107] The section 149G report from the District Council23 explains the existing environment
with a focus on any relevant resource consents associated with geothermal
exploration and development within the consent application area. This is restricted to
the Tauhara I consent and a certificate of compliance to construct a geothermal
pipeline from Tauhara I to reinjection wells TH16 and TH15.
22
At 77 – 97. 23
At 11 and 12.
38
EFFECTS OF THE TAUHARA II PROPOSAL ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Approvals Gained
[108] One written approval to the Contact application was provided by the District Council
in its capacity as landowner of the property containing the Taupo Motorsport Park,
that fronts Broadlands Road in the vicinity of the Off Road Highway. Pursuant to
section 104(3)(a)(ii) of the Act, in assessing and deciding upon the Contact
application we have taken no account of the actual or potential effects on the
Motorsport Park property of the activities for which consents are sought.
Positive Effects
[109] There was no dispute that implementing the proposal and its ongoing operation
would have a number of positive effects. Mr D Hunt, an Economic Analyst, gave
undisputed evidence outlining the expected benefits from a national perspective of
the proposal24. These, and other undisputed benefits, include:
i. Additional energy supply – the project is expected to generate around 2,050
GWh/year of electricity, once it is fully commissioned. This level of annual
generation output would:
Meet around 37% of the projected growth in New Zealand‟s total
electricity demand by 2017, the year when the project could be fully
operational; or
Meet the annual needs of approximately 270,000 households
(estimated to be approximately 100% of Waikato and Bay of Plenty
households in 2017);
ii. Value – avoid the need to develop an alternative supply option that is
expected to be more expensive;
iii. Diversity of supply – New Zealand‟s electricity supply is currently dominated
by hydro and thermal generation. The development will help diversify this
supply;
24
Hunt EiC at [5] and Exhibit DTH1 at 9 and 10 and following.
39
iv. Security of supply – the project would generate base load electricity, aside
from plant closures to address maintenance requirements;
v. Renewable target – the project would contribute to generating 90% of New
Zealand‟s electricity from renewable sources by 2025 without compromising
security of supply, a target that is identified in the New Zealand Energy
Strategy;
vi. Greenhouse gas emissions – the net impact on greenhouse gas emissions
from the project ranges from a reduction of approximately 500,000
tCO2e/year to an increase of 270,000 tCO2e /year from 2017, depending on
the nature of the alternative generation that would be displaced;
vii. Roading improvements; and
viii. A net positive impact to the local and regional economy during both the
construction and operation phases of the project.
[110] We have regard to these positive effects.
Potential Adverse Effects
Maori Matters
[111] The Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System lies within the traditional rohe of Ngati
Tuwharetoa; the mana whenua iwi. Ngati Tuwharetoa and Nga Hapu o Ngati
Tuwharetoa consider the Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System as a significant
taonga tuku iho. Nga Hapu o Ngati Tuwharetoa or more specifically, the Tauhara
hapu have a long association and relationship with the Tauhara geothermal resource.
The Tauhara hapu are mana whenua in the Wairakei-Tauhara rohe with kaitiaki
obligations to protect and sustain the Tauhara geothermal resource. This
relationship is partially illustrated by the following whakapapa and ngeri25.
‘The sky reverberates, the land shakes and trembles
Ruaūmoko the heated child awakens
The world knows fear.’
25
Hall EiC at 4.
40
From Traditional Ngeri
Song of Derision
In the bosom of the earth, in the bed of the rock
lies the awesome gift of Rakahore - the unseen fire that smolders and burns
for eternity.
It is a covered heat, like a lidded pot that boils,
that heats the waters that bubble and steam.
The curative waters that soak the weariness from my muscles.
The regenerative waters that soothe old wounds; that re-knit old joints;
that bring sleep to old eyes.
Steaming waters that coax the healing aromas from the leaves.
Oven waters that cook my food;
that steam and pressure, powered from the earth.
It heats the world beneath me, it heats the babe still in arms
suckling at the breast of Papatūānuku - Ruaūmoko the lastborn.
Who kicks and shouts, and shakes the world
in his fiery tantrums of revenge.
Mountains explode, geysers erupt, mud pools boil.
Ruaūmoko stamps his haka.
[112] Maori view of development includes a strong emphasis on sustainability26 and this
has been reflected in the evidence. In the case of the Tauhara Field, this is strongly
influenced by the view that the geothermal resource is linked to Tauhara Maunga and
is intimately linked to Ngatoroirangi27,28, a man of great stature and tupuna of Ngā
Hapū o Tauhara29.
[113] The geothermal resource is a taonga30 made available through him and having
provided benefits to the generations of people of the region since his arrival on the
Te Arawa canoe, and which should be available for future generations. According to
Ngā Hapū o Tauhara whakapapa, Ngatoroirangi is descended from Io along with the
gods of puia (volcanoes), waiariki (geysers) and ngawha (hot pools).
26
Johns EiC at [12]. 27
Hall EiC at [15,16]. 28
Rameka EiC at 2,3. 29
Johns EiC at [6], 12. 30
Johns EiC at [3].
41
[114] The hapu of this area relate to their physical environment as they would to another
relative. The hapu will always remain on the ancestral land in a collective sense, so
must weigh up immediate benefits for those living today with those of future
generations31.
[115] The Patuiwi Reserve Trust is an Ahu Whenua Trust with land situated on the eastern
side of the Waikato River and within the area of the Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal
System. The Trust has over 1700 beneficial owners. The Trust submission outlined
concerns about the amount of geothermal take being asked for by Contact and the
possible effects of that take on subsidence on Trust land and its possible effects on
native flora and taonga.
[116] Before the hearing, Patuiwi Reserve Trust‟s concerns were addressed and as a
result it withdrew its submission.
[117] The Tauhara Middle 11 Trust is an Ahu Whenua Trust with responsibility for land
located at the base of Tauhara Maunga. Tauhara Middle 11 represents the interests
of 11 beneficial owners. The Tauhara Middle 11 Trust made a submission to this
proposal. The submission outlined concerns with the lack of consultation with
Contact, the possible adverse visual effects of the proposal on Tauhara Maunga, the
risk of subsidence and the sustainability of the geothermal resource if the proposal
was to go ahead.
[118] The Trust‟s concerns were addressed by Contact at a subsequent facilitation meeting
and as a result Tauhara 11 Trust withdrew its submission.
[119] The Tauhara Moana Trust is an Ahu Whenua Trust which has land located on the
northern slopes of Tauhara Maunga toward the Waikato River. The Trustees are the
registered owners of the Tauhara North No. 3B Block and the Parariki Block, a total
area of approximately 1,250 hectares. The Trust represents the interests of 1,822
beneficial owners. The Trust submission to this proposal covered sustainability,
subsidence, landscape and visual effects and cultural effects, especially in relation to
Tauhara Maunga.
31
Johns EiC at [12].
42
[120] As a result of discussions, the Trust and Contact agreed to a set of conditions to
mitigate Tauhara Moana Trust concerns. These conditions, among other things,
included measures to give effect to the Trust‟s role as kaitiaki32:
(a) Provision for Tauhara Hapu to be represented on the Peer Review Panel; and
(b) Revised Kaitiaki consent conditions which provide for a Geothermal Kaitiaki
Reference Group with specific responsibilities with respect to the Tauhara II
Project.
[121] The Wairakei Hapu Collective represents the interests of the Wairakei hapu. The
Collective was formed in 2001 to consider the re-consenting of the Wairakei
geothermal power station. Since then the Collective has continued to represent the
interests of the Wairakei hapu. The Collective has a long standing relationship with
Contact and this relationship is given effect to in the Heads of Agreement signed by
both parties in 2004 and a Deed of Variation to the Heads of Agreement in 2010.
Although the Collective made a neutral submission to this proposal, continued
engagement with Contact enabled mutual agreement on further conditions to protect
the taonga of the Collective.
[122] As a result of discussions and following a review of the conditions of consent and
receiving independent technical advice, the Collective was satisfied that the
combination of adaptive management conditions and mitigation measures would
assist in the mitigation of further effects on the taonga of Wairakei33.
[123] The Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board is the Iwi Advocate for Ngati Tuwharetoa. The
Trust Board reinforced that Ngati Tuwharetoa is linked by whakapapa to the taonga
tuku iho in the Wairakei-Tauhara rohe. The Trust Board‟s submission makes
comment on all parts of the Contact proposal but was especially concerned that there
appeared to be no meaningful consultation between Contact and Nga Hapu o Ngati
Tuwharetoa. The Trust Board indicated that this lack of engagement would not allow
cultural, spiritual and environmental issues to be considered by Contact as part of
their proposal.
32
Tauhara Moana Trust synopsis of submissions at 7, at [4.4]; General Condition 2.1. 33
Wairakei Hapu Collective Synopsis of Submissions at 1, at [1.5].
43
[124] Latterly and as a result of facilitation meetings and ongoing dialogue, the Trust Board
was satisfied that Contact was now positively engaged with Nga Hapu me Nga Ahu
Whenua o Ngati Tuwharetoa. Accordingly, the Trust Board no longer wished to
appear before the Board of Inquiry but wished to place its letter outlining its concerns
and subsequent satisfaction on record34.
[125] Tauhara Mountain Trust and Tauhara Middle 15 Trust made a joint submission to the
Contact proposal. The Tauhara Mountain Trust is a Maori reservation comprising
Tauhara Middle 4A2A and Tauhara Middle 18 blocks. Maori reservations are set
apart, pursuant to section 338 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, for places of
cultural, historical or scenic interest, and for waahi tapu being places of special
cultural significance according to tikanga Maori35. Tauhara Maunga is situated on the
Tauhara Mountain Trust blocks.
[126] Tauhara Middle 15 is an Ahu Whenua Trust with land located adjacent to Tauhara
Mountain Trust land. Tauhara Middle 15 land was partitioned off as a separate Trust,
from the Tauhara Mountain Trust, to allow the Trust to carry out commercial
activities. Both the Tauhara Mountain Trust and the Tauhara Middle 15 Trust have
largely common ownership.
[127] For both Trusts, Tauhara Maunga is the ancestral maunga of Ngā Hapū o Tauhara
and of great spiritual significance to the hapu36. The primary concerns of both Trusts
relate to the potential adverse effects of the proposal on the cultural and
environmental values of the hapu, the taonga that is Tauhara Maunga and the mauri
or sustainability of the geothermal resource.
[128] As a result of discussion between Contact and both Trusts, agreement was reached
on a range of matters which included:
(i) A process for preparation of a steamfield management agreement with respect
to potential future development of the land vested in the Trusts; and
(ii) Proposed amendments to General Condition 8 in relation to multiple operators37.
34
Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board letter dated 2 September 2010. 35
Tauhara Mountain Trust and Tauhara Middle 15 Trust Submission at [3.3]. 36
Tauhara Mountain Trust and Tauhara Middle 15 Trust Submission at 2, at [3.4]. 37
Simon Berry letter dated 7 September 2010 at 1, at [3(a)] and [3(b)].
44
[129] Accordingly, both Trusts sought leave which was granted, to withdraw from the
proceedings. The Tauhara Mountain Trust and the Tauhara Middle 15 Trust
submission was not withdrawn.
[130] The formation on 3 July 2010 of the Tauhara Whanau Whanui Working Party was
principally to provide a vehicle to facilitate communication and understanding
between Contact and Nga Hapu o Ngati Tuwharetoa regarding the Contact proposal.
The July 2010 hui also confirmed the Working Party membership which comprises
eight members from Tauhara Whanau Whanui38 and four members from Contact.
[131] Acting under the umbrella of the Working Party, seven members of the Tauhara
Whanau Whanui; Mr Harvey Karaitiana, Ms Karaitiana-Kidwell, Ms Healey, Mr Baker,
Mr Seymour, Mr Hohepa Karaitiana and Ms Bramley made individual submissions to
the Contact proposal. Mr Harvey Karaitiana and Ms Karaitiana-Kidwell gave
evidence at the Hearing on behalf of themselves, the Working Party and six other
members of the Tauhara Whanau Whanui.
[132] Since the formation of the Working Party, several hui with the Tauhara Whanau
Whanui were called and various matters discussed and agreed. As a result, the
Working Party developed and signed a Terms of Reference and adopted the
following resolutions:
1. To reaffirm the Tauhara policy statement developed in 1997 regarding Tauhara
geothermal resources; and
2. To establish a working party to unify Tauhara interests in development of
geothermal resources39.
[133] The Working Party identified issues of cultural, spiritual and environmental concern
and as a result a mitigation package was offered by Contact. This mitigation
package was conditionally accepted by Tauhara Whanau Whanui and subsequently
ratified at a hui on 2 October 2010.
[134] The Tauhara Whanau Whanui now formally acknowledge that the agreement
addresses, to the extent possible in the framework of the Act, the concerns raised by
them on cultural issues40.
38
„Whanui‟ meaning the wider Tauhara whanau. 39
Karaitiana (Harvey) EiC at 3, at [6], Exhibit B.
45
[135] Ngā Hapū o Tauhara is the collective term used to describe the hapu who are
tangata whenua of the Tauhara area of northern Taupo, namely Ngati Hinerau, Ngati
Hineure, Ngati Te Urunga, Ngati Tutemohuta, Ngati Tutetawha and Ngati Rauhoto.
They are hapu of Ngati Tuwharetoa.
[136] Ngā Hapū of Tauhara are the tangata whenua and kaitiaki of the Tauhara field, which
includes the area the subject of the application41. A hui was called at which the hapu
representatives42 resolved to make a submission opposing the proposal.
[137] Ngā Hapū o Tauhara principal areas of concern were to preserve the sanctity and
mauri of Tauhara Maunga, the geothermal resource and to fulfil their kaitiaki
obligations. The submission also included the view that: 43
The relationship of Ngā Hapū o Tauhara with the geothermal resource, as a
taonga of the Hapu, and the need for that relationship to be recognised and
provided for. As will be expanded below, this relationship creates obligations, to
act as kaitiaki of the resource, but also confers the right to benefit from it
[138] After a request from Ngā Hapū o Tauhara, part of the Hearing was held on Waipahihi
Marae on 5 October 2010, to hear evidence from their kaumatua. Mr Mataara Wall,
Mr Johns and Mr Rameka gave evidence about the relationship of the hapu with
Tauhara Maunga, the geothermal resource and the surrounding environment.
[139] Mr Rameka said: 44
The key here lies within the word ―relationships‖. The hapu of Tauhara share an
inherent relationship with their maunga (Tauhara) and the environment as a whole.
Each, stream, valley, puia, ngawha and waiariki has a name; a specified use, a role
to play and were often used as reference points as well. They form part of the
greater picture and contribute to the survival of all that exists within. Like a family
photo, we grieve when there are missing members. In essence, this is no different.
40
Memo Tauhara Whanau Whanui Working Party at 1, at [1.3]. 41
Ngā Hapū o Tauhara submission at 2, at [4] and [5]. 42
Those elected to represent their hapu on the Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum, which is the body mandated to negotiate a settlement of Ngati Tuwharetoa‟s Treaty claims. 43
Ngā Hapū o Tauhara opening submission at 1, at [3.1]. 44
Geoff Rameka EiC at 5.
46
[140] Ngā Hapū o Tauhara and Contact continued to engage with each other prior to and
during the Hearing. An agreement was reached that is to provide for a cooperative
approach to development and management of the system by Contact and the
Hapu/Land Trusts. Accordingly, Ngā Hapū o Tauhara withdrew their opposition to
the proposal.
[141] Te Hapu o Ngati Tutetawha is one of the mana whenua hapu of the Tauhara region.
A submission was made in opposition to the proposal. The issues of concern related
to their kaitiaki responsibilities, especially the sustainability of the geothermal
resources, the protection of taonga such as the sacred places handed down from
their ancestors, and the possible adverse environmental effects of the proposal.
[142] Ngati Tutetawha is one of six signatories to the submission by Ngā Hapū o Tauhara.
Broadly speaking, the issues of concern in both cases were similar, with the
protection of places of spiritual significance and the sustainability of the geothermal
resources being of primary importance.
[143] Ngā Hapū o Tauhara reached an agreement with Contact and subsequently
withdrew their opposition45. This agreement was ratified by the signatories of Ngā
Hapū o Tauhara, which included Ngati Tutetawha. Consequently we consider Ngati
Tutetawha concerns are addressed.
[144] Mr Robert Pihema, a resident of Taupo, made a submission opposing the proposal.
Mr Pihema‟s concerns relate to the validity of the processes used by both the EPA
and the District Council in dealing with the proposal. Both are matters outside our
jurisdiction.
[145] The Hikuwai Hapu Lands Trust is a trust set up to facilitate the return of state-owned
enterprise lands to local hapu and economic authorities, and generally to promote the
social and economic well-being of local Maori46. The Hikuwai Hapu Lands Trust
submission raised concerns regarding inadequate consultation, lack of clarity around
the extent of the application/proposal area, ownership issues and possible barriers
prohibiting local Maori from developing the geothermal resource in their own right.
45
Memo of Counsel on behalf of Ngā Hapū o Tauhara, dated 20 September 2010 at [2]. 46
Hikuwai Hapu Lands Trust Submission at 5, at [1.1] and [1.2].
47
[146] In considering the Hikuwai Hapu Lands Trust concerns, we note that prior to and
during the Hearing, facilitation meetings and ongoing engagement between the
parties resulted in agreements. Further to this, the application was specific in what
area its proposal covered and these details are in Mr Kilty‟s evidence in chief47.
Agreements have also been reached regarding a cooperative approach to the
development and management of the geothermal resource.
[147] To the extent possible within the framework of the Act, the concerns raised by the
Hikuwai Hapu Lands Trust are addressed.
[148] Mr Clarke, a Taupo resident, affiliates to six of the hapu of Tauhara. His submission
asserted that the proposal is culturally insensitive and disadvantages hapu land
owners. Mr Clarke also contended that consultation between Contact and hapu was
inadequate, ownership of the geothermal resource is yet to be determined and he
questioned the validity of the Board of Inquiry process.
[149] On the eve of the final day of the Hearing, the Board received a written submission
from Mr Clarke who was critical of those Maori parties who had reached agreement
with Contact. He maintained that those parties did not have an appropriate mandate.
[150] We have no evidence challenging the mandate of the parties. Without evidence to
the contrary, we accept the evidence that in each case the Maori parties had
appropriate mandate either from their respective hapu or land Trust.
[151] Mr Clarke was also critical of the consent process and of the timeframes associated
with it. Both matters are outside our jurisdiction.
[152] The Maori cultural issues raised by Mr Clarke reflected the issues raised by other
Maori parties. All of those parties, other than Opepe Farm Trust, have reached
agreement with Contact that address their concerns. We accept on the evidence,
that the agreement reached does satisfy the provisions of the Act relating to Maori.
We find that Mr Clarke‟s concerns are addressed.
[153] Mr Clarke also made a submission of behalf of six hapu to which he affiliates; Ngati
Tutemohuta, Ngati Tutetaawha, Ngati Hinerau, Ngati Hineuri, Ngati Te Urunga and
47
Kilty, EiC, Exhibit JK6, at page 98.
48
Ngati Rauhoto. These hapu have reached an agreement with Contact that
addresses their issues.
[154] Mr Walters is the Chairperson of the Wairakei Hapu Collective Geothermal Working
Party and a member of Te Kapa o te Rangiita. Mr Walter‟s submission wanted to
ensure that the Wairakei-Tauhara hapu were consulted. The submission expressed
concern about the mauri of the geothermal resource, the provision of a plan to cope
with unforeseen events, amenity values and the ability for neighbouring landowners
to develop the geothermal resource in the future. Mr Walters also asked that Contact
consult with the current Trustees of Tauhara Middle 15 Trust.
[155] In regard to Mr Walters‟ concerns, we note that extensive consultation has occurred
with the Tauhara hapu and the Middle 15 Trust resulting in several agreements. All
hapu and Trust landowners were concerned about the mauri or sustainability of the
geothermal resource and the taonga that is Tauhara Maunga. The measures put into
place, such as additional conditions and mitigation packages, by Contact have gone
some way to addressing spiritual, cultural, environmental and economic concerns of
the hapu and land Trusts.
[156] On 9 September 2010, the Wairakei Hapu Collective signed a Deed of Variation to
the 2004 Heads of Agreement with Contact. Te Kapa o te Rangiita Whenua Komiti is
part of that Collective and one of the signatories to the Deed of Variation. Mr Walters
gave a closing submission thanking parties involved in the Hearing. During the
closing submissions, counsel for the Collective, Mr Whata advised that Mr Walters‟
submission was not at odds with the Collective‟s position.
[157] Opepe Farm Trust represents the interests of over 4,000 beneficiaries who have
whakapapa links to the mana whenua hapu of Tauhara. Opepe Farm Trust owns
three blocks of land. Tauhara Middle No 4A and Tauhara Middle No 2B and No 2C
being Maori freehold land, and the third known as Tauhara North Block or Tauhara
North 3A Block. The Tauhara North 3A Block is jointly owned with Tauhara Middle
15, with Opepe Farm Trust holding an 80% shareholding. Contact holds
comprehensive encumbrances over this third block.
[158] Counsel for the Opepe Farm Trust submitted that as kaitiaki it is committed to the
sustainable management and development of the Project area and beyond for
49
present and future generations 48. For the Trust, evidence was given by Mr Hall and
Dr Severne. They told us of the relationship that the beneficiaries have with the area,
citing their cultural and spiritual connection through whakapapa and the
responsibilities this imposes on them as kaitiaki.
[159] To satisfy these responsibilities, Counsel for the Trust lodged a set of amended
conditions. These, in summary, included:
(a) Specific recognition for Opepe principles. To:
Ensure the protection of Tauhara Maunga which holds „te mana me te
Mauri o nga hapu o te Hikuwai‟;
Ensure the holistic cultural connection to the taonga tuku iho is
maintained for current and future generations;
Ensure sustainability of the geothermal resource and the environment;
and
Allow economic use of the resource in a form that demonstrates both local
and national benefit while also providing for the Opepe principles;
(b) Progressive abstraction of the main geothermal fluid take in accordance with a
proposed Adaptive Management Plan;
(c) An additional position on the Peer Review Panel for Opepe to appoint a
representative, or alternatively that the hapu and land owning Maori Trusts
appoint half of the representatives on the panel (proposed General Condition
1.1);
(d) A reduction in the number of representatives on the Geothermal Kaitiaki
Reference Group (proposed General Condition 2.1);
(e) A Cultural Monitoring Framework report (proposed General Condition
1.1(g)(iii)(m));
(f) An area of land to be set aside by Contact, of an appropriate location and size
(and provide shelter), to enable tangata whenua to continue to maintain their
ancestral connection to their taonga (proposed General Condition 2.11); and
48
Opepe Farm Trust opening submission at 2, at [2].
50
(g) A condition seeking a staged and reduced development of the proposal
(proposed General Condition 10) 49.
[160] It was unfortunate that the proposed amendments lodged on behalf of the Trust were
received so late. Little time was given to the other parties, particularly Contact and
the other Maori parties, to respond. None of the conditions were put to any witness
in cross-examination. This was unsatisfactory as it meant that we have no evidence
before us as to whether the requested changes could be accommodated, or whether
they would be viable.
[161] In his closing submission, Mr Robinson for Contact submitted that the Board should
give little weight to the proposed changes in the absence of any evidence. We
agree.
[162] Mr Robinson also identified difficulties relating to the proposed changes, which
included:
The Opepe principles would be difficult to apply in practice because they are
drafted in a high level of generality – Mr Whata on behalf of the Tauhara Moana
Trust, also opposed the inclusion of the Opepe principles as it would give
preference to one particular group without consultation – Mr Brockelsby, for the
Regional Council, supported Mr Robinson‟s submission;
There is no evidence as to the interrelationship between the Opepe principles
and the hierarchy of purposes of the Discharge Strategy contained in the
Conditions of Consent and which reflect the Objectives and Policies of the
Regional Policy Statement;
There is no evidence before us to support a staged development of the proposal
or a reduction in the take. The effects of such a condition on the economic
viability, and on the technical feasibility of utilising the resource in such a way,
are unknown – Mr Whata and Mr Brockelsby supported this submission; and
The suggested changes to the membership of the Peer Review Panel, which
would give Maori collectively a 50% representation, may undermine the Panel in
its technical role.
49
Tauhara Moana Trust closing submission.
51
[163] These criticisms have merit. In the absence of any evidence to support the
requested changes we cannot accept them, other than where agreed by the other
parties.
[164] Many of the concerns raised by the Opepe Farm Trust have been raised by nga hapu
me nga ahu whenua o Tauhara. Prior to the close of the Hearing, all hapu and land
Trusts apart from the Opepe Farm Trust, negotiated agreements with Contact to
mitigate their cultural concerns and future economic development aspirations. We
were told that the agreements included a clause, whereby Contact would not oppose
any future resource consent application for geothermal development by any hapu or
land Trust, provided the agreed separation provisions were adhered to. Mr
Robinson, Counsel for Contact, also advised in his closing submission that these
agreements would apply to the Opepe Farm Trust, if it takes advantage of the
provisions offered to other hapu and land Trusts50.
[165] The General Conditions of consent were also amended to address Maori concerns
about their kaitiaki responsibilities by an additional appointment of a Tauhara hapu
representative to the Peer Review Panel, and the creation of the Geothermal Kaitiaki
Reference Group. This, together with other amendments to the conditions, applies
equally to the beneficiaries of the Opepe Farm Trust.
[166] We acknowledge that the Opepe Farm Trust has the mandate to speak for its
beneficiaries. Those beneficiaries whakapapa to the mana whenua hapu of
Tauhara. The same mana whenua hapu of Tauhara have reached agreement with
Contact to mitigate their concerns. The Trust is able to access the same
arrangements. If the Trust‟s changes were accepted, they would be in a better
position than the other Maori parties. This would be unfair. We find that the Opepe
Farm Trust‟s concerns have been adequately addressed.
[167] In summary, we conclude that the arrangements made between Contact and the
Maori parties, and as reflected in the conditions of consent and Heads of Agreement
address, to the extent possible within the framework of the Act, the concerns of
Maori.
[168] We note that while accords have been reached by Contact with many Maori interest
groups, these accords do not undermine the ongoing claims that Maori have to their
50
Transcript at 222 and following.
52
geothermal taonga under the Treaty of Waitangi. Such Treaty issues are outside our
jurisdiction.
Effects on Sustainability of the Geothermal Resource
[169] Contact may commit $1 billion51 to develop the Tauhara resource, and needs to be
confident of its sustainability. Contact has outlined its sustainability philosophies in a
number of places. Its Sustainability Report for 2009 states:52
To reflect the significance of the concept of sustainability across our entire business,
the following definition is most relevant and applicable to Contact: ―Operating our
business with a focus on the future. We will protect our environment for future
generations and build a strong, profitable and safe business through relationships
based on trust with all people we interact with.‖
[170] To understand the sustainability of the resource under the proposed development
regime, the Board needed to understand the broad nature of the resource, and we
received useful evidence on this. Because of the indirect nature of evidence,
knowledge of the field must always be incomplete, such that every successive well or
measurement leads to a refinement of field concepts and models.
[171] The Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System links the Tauhara and Wairakei Fields at
an unknown depth. Pressure draw down at Wairakei has drawn in hot fluids at depth
and some shallow recharge. The combination of shallow and deep draw down at
Wairakei caused pressure reduction at Tauhara, especially to the north of Tauhara.
There is evidence for an entirely separate upflow of hot fluid in the south of Tauhara,
such that fluid flows, at least in the Waipahihi area, are not obviously affected by this
historical draw down.
[172] The stratigraphy of the Tauhara field is summarised in graphic form in Appendix 1153.
The sequence is as follows:
Magmatic heat source – this is at a depth of 8 to 10 kilometres and underlies
Wairakei, Tauhara, Rotokawa and a much wider area through the Taupo
Volcanic Zone;
51
Zink EiC at [4.8]. 52
Kilty EiC at Exhibit page 8. 53
Rosenberg EiC Exhibit MDR6.
53
Greywacke basement – these ancient marine meta-sediments were intersected54
in well TH17 at a depth of 2 km and will be found at increasing depths towards
the northwest of the field due to the spreading (“rifting”) environment, being part
of a depression tens of kilometres wide55. Fluids can flow through this via
fractures, though the reservoir modelling by Professor O‟Sullivan56 assumes that
the deep (-3,500 mRL) heat flow in the Tauhara area is primarily by conduction
through this greywacke rock rather than by convection via water circulating in
fractures;
Tahorakuri Formation, Wairakei Ignimbrite and Waiora Formation57 – these are a
series of ignimbrites and rhyolites, interspersed with other rhyolite and andesite
units. The Waiora Formation58, in particular hosts a major geothermal production
aquifer in the Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System;
Huka Falls Formation59 – this consists of Upper, Middle and Lower units which in
combination help to act as a leaky cap to the system and, while variable in
thickness, extend to depths down to sea level. The Upper and Lower units are
aquicludes while the Mid-Huka Falls unit acts as an aquifer, tapped by some of
the shallow bores under Taupo township; and
Oruanui Formation and Recent alluvium and tephra – these are relatively shallow
young strata that can host groundwaters and some hot water60 tapped by
shallow bores.
[173] Some formations extend well beyond the boundaries of the system, including through
Rotokawa. Boundaries of the system, at least at shallow levels, have been
determined by geophysical methods, but can be fixed by rock-water interaction
through the deposition of minerals and clays to effectively seal the margins. This
deposition can seal major fractures, such as the Aratiatia61 and Rotokawa62 Faults,
54
Rosenberg EiC at [6.40]. 55
Rosenberg EiC at [6.17]. 56
Resource Consent Application Suite, Wairakei-Tauhara Modelling Report, Fig 3.14 and 3.15. 57
Rosenberg EiC at Exhibit Page 6. 58
Rosenberg EiC at [6.36]. 59
Rosenberg EiC at [6.35]. 60
Rosenberg EiC at [6.34]. 61
Rosenberg EiC at [6.23]. 62
Rosenberg EiC at [6.24].
54
as evidenced by the lack of pressure connection between the Tauhara and Rotokawa
Fields.
[174] Fluid chemistry leads to further refinement of the understanding of fluid flow through
the reservoirs. Overall subtleties are not discussed here, however, the chemistry
clearly indicates a separate upflow and source63 of Tauhara fluid compared with
Wairakei or Rotokawa. They also show that the source temperature of the fluid
exceeds 300 oC64 and the recent drilling at Tauhara encountered temperatures of
around 300 oC65 in well TH12 in the northeast of the field and well TH10 in the south
of the field.
[175] The Tauhara field is seen as composed of the following sectors:
Possibly two upflows66, both in the vicinity of Mount Tauhara through structures
untested by drilling, though some areas west of it have not been drilled deep
enough to show temperature inversions, suggesting the upflows may be more
expansive in nature. This hydrology is supported by high temperatures in the
south of the field clearly independent of Wairakei. This is coupled with the
recognition that some sectors are clearly affected by draw down from Wairakei,
while other southern sectors linked to Waipahihi are relatively unaffected. Mr
Bromley67 opined that even the area in the south of the field near well TH10 has
experienced about 14 bars of draw down;
An unspecified deep connection between the Wairakei and Tauhara Fields,
which from pressure measurements, is assumed by Mr Bixley68 to be greater
than 2000 m depth;
An outflow towards Wairakei Field and Taupo township, with a connection to
Wairakei Field69 at about 500 – 700 m depth, largely within the Waiora
Formation. Pressures within this outflow have already been affected by the draw
down at Wairakei Field with Mr Bromley70 assuming a 17 bar pressure reduction.
63
Bromley EiC at [1.2]. 64
Bromley EiC at [3.9]. 65
Stanfield EiC, Tauhara II Geothermal Development Project, Project Description at Exhibit Page 37. 66
O‟Sullivan Response to Questions Figure MJO Extra 9.1 at 12. 67
Bromley Response to Questions at [2.4]. 68
Bixley EiC at [4.2]. 69
Rosenberg EiC at [6.11]. 70
Bromley EiC at Exhibit page 8.
55
There is no exact boundary between the Wairakei and Tauhara Fields71 although
for most purposes the Waikato River can be considered as a reasonable proxy;
An outflow at least partly within the Crowbar Rhyolite at a depth of around
200 m72 from the southern upflow towards the Waipahihi Springs and shore
discharges in Lake Taupo; and
Shallow outflows, especially through the mid-Huka Falls Formation, under the
town partly accessed by some shallow bore users, the draw down of which is
contributing to the development of some subsidence bowls. Outflows in the
vicinity of the Spa Sights have now been replaced with cold recharge of the
reservoir from the surface73.
[176] Boundaries and characteristics of this system have been ascertained by scientists
and engineers over 60 years. The recent drilling program has further defined the
characteristics of the Tauhara Field, including the shallow resources available to, and
used by, the local population. All of this information has been condensed into a
numerical reservoir simulation model under the direction of Professor O‟Sullivan. We
notice that no one has directly challenged inputs to this model or its conclusions in its
latest version, and that the model has been the subject of external review and
consequent revision over its many years of development.
[177] Professor O‟Sullivan‟s model drew on the significant amount of information obtained
from geoscience, drilling, well testing and development over a period of 60 years for
both the Wairakei and Tauhara Fields, and also drew on some information for the
Rotokawa Field. The model was calibrated to approximately match the natural state
before any development. It was then further calibrated to ensure that temperatures
and pressures approximately match the current state of the combined fields, now that
they have been subject to development.
[178] Professor O‟Sullivan recognises some weaknesses of the model, particularly with
respect to its poor match to shallow conditions and therefore its weakness in terms of
modelling subsidence. However, as an overall model assessing energy available in
the reservoir, because of the extent of calibration possible due to the interaction
71
Bixley EiC at [4.2]. 72
Bromley Response to Questions at [2.5]. 73
Bixley EiC at Exhibit page 9.
56
between Wairakei and Tauhara Fields, the Board is satisfied that this is a model with
powerful predictive ability.
[179] There are still areas of uncertainty around the definition of the Tauhara Field,
especially in the south. Mr Bromley has given a measure of confidence in the field
boundaries in the south and southeast. These have not been a focus for the Contact
evidence as that was outside their area of land interest and possible development.
The current boundaries are defined by resistivity measurements, coupled with
extensions by the Regional Council to include warm springs in the Pueto Stream
catchment74. Magneto-telluric resistivity surveys, which are deeper penetrating, may
define the top of a southern upflow and its outflow in this region. This type of survey
may be of interest to Opepe Farm Trust.
[180] We conclude from the reservoir modelling that a development in the order of 250
MWe should be sustainable for 50 years75 with sensitivity calculations indicating only
slightly reduced production is possible for at least 100 years76. After that period, heat
will still be available. Dr Grant77 undertook a review for the Regional Council. He
noted the sustainability of the project and the manner in which temperatures will
decline.
[181] Based on evidence, the resource appears to be large. It is therefore possible that
other parties may choose to be investors in additional generation, or direct use, at
some future time.
[182] As we have said, should a geothermal resource be developed and its aquifers
depleted, then resting of the field will eventually see it return to a state similar to its
undeveloped state, through a combination of conduction and convection, from the
bottom up. The evidence of Professor O‟Sullivan78 was that the time for this
restoration is a function of the ratio of extraction rate to natural through-flow or
recharge. For the Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System he considered this would
mean a recovery period of approximately seven times the operational period. We
note that Mr Bromley told us that recovery of the production reservoir is likely to
74
Bromley EiC at [3.6]. 75
O‟Sullivan EiC at [1.7(a)]. 76
O‟Sullivan EiC at [9.38 and 9.39]. 77
Tauhara II Geothermal Development-Contact Energy Ltd, Key Issues Report by Waikato Regional Council, May 2010 at 41-46. 78
O‟Sullivan EiC at [9.43]
57
occur in a similar order to the time scale of depletion79. In either case, the resource
will be available for future generations.
[183] Reinjection and injection have been specified for the proposed development, and we
agree that such practice is useful for a range of reasons potentially including
assisting the sustainability of the resource. We note that the evidence established
that this is a useful means to control subsidence and to dispose of Separated
Geothermal Water and condensate. The end result is that a large portion of the fluid
(that which is not lost to atmosphere from the cooling towers or irrigated on to land) is
being returned to the reservoir along with its residual heat.
[184] We support an adaptive management approach to the development, recognising the
need to adapt to the field as it responds to production and injection. An adaptive
management approach locked into conditions ensures that the field can be managed
in an efficient manner.
[185] We find that the proposed development is sustainable, based especially on the
evidence presented by Professor O‟Sullivan.
Efficient Use of the Resource
[186] Mr Thain challenged Contact‟s past performance in the area of use of efficient
plant80, in that Contact has consents for the Te Mihi project, which could eventually
replace the less efficient Wairakei Station, while generating more electricity from the
same fluid take. Mr Thain‟s concerns require us to consider two matters:
Contact‟s failure to utilise its existing consents more efficiently; and
Thermodynamic efficiency.
[187] The granting of consents places no obligation on the consent holder for immediate
implementation, and a range of factors will influence that implementation decision,
and the timing to invest. Contact advised81 that it has called international tenders for
plant construction with a view to a decision on investment by the end of 2010. We
79
EiC [4.2] 80
Thain EiC at [3]. 81
Kilty Rebuttal at [3.3], Robinson closing submission at [2.2].
58
have no jurisdiction, in this case, to direct Contact on its management of the Wairakei
Field, or when it implements other existing consents.
[188] Mr Thain‟s concern relating to thermodynamic efficiency was that converting
geothermal energy to electricity is relatively low at the Wairakei Station because of its
outdated infrastructure. He also considered that direct use heating was a more
efficient use of the resource.
[189] Addressing the first issue, Contact has applied for consents to take and reinject fluid.
It proposes a double flash configuration which will ensure a higher level of efficiency
than for single flash. While the efficiency will depend on the plant selected, we are
satisfied on the evidence that the double flash technology is efficient.
[190] Addressing the second issue we accept that direct use of the resource for heating is
more efficient than generating electricity. However, we recognise that there is a need
for renewable electricity generation, and that the Tauhara resource is a prime
opportunity for low cost electricity generation of this type. Contact82 has indicated
that direct uses are part of their application. Opportunities for this can be assisted by
the intended installation of pipes for the shallow targeted reinjection.
[191] We find that the proposal is an efficient use of the Tauhara Field.
Effects on Other Users of the Geothermal Resource
Bore Owners
[192] There may be several hundred83 owners of shallow geothermal bores within Taupo.
Some of these are commercial (swimming pools, hotels etc) but the majority are
residential. Many of these bores are unregistered, partly for historical reasons.
[193] Twenty seven submissions raised concerns about the potential for Contact‟s
proposed take and reinjection to adversely affect existing takes. These submissions
were wide ranging and came from local domestic and commercial users. These
submissions reflect the diversity of other users of the Tauhara Field.
82
Robinson closing submission at [2.4]. 83
Stephenson EiC at [8.14].
59
[194] The Tauhara II Development is expected to change the aquifers that the proposal
would tap and consequential changes to adjoining aquifers. There may be effects
around some domestic and commercial bores.
[195] The evidence84 established that adverse effects on shallow bore users can be
adequately managed. The draft conditions of consent, as notified, proposed that
Contact would remediate any bore user, subject to signing an agreement, for
damage arising as a consequence of the development. The submissions raised two
issues:
Causation; and
Timing.
[196] As for causation, submitters were concerned that the onus should be on Contact to
establish that its activities are not the cause of any adverse effect. Contact has
addressed this concern with General Condition 4.29(d) of Volume 2, which now
states that Contact is only absolved of responsibility if “It is clear that the adverse
effect is not due to the operation of the Tauhara II Power Station.”
[197] As for timing, the General Conditions of consent85 as lodged give existing bore
holders until 31 December 2010 to register with the Regional Council their bores
providing the following information:
The name and address of the bore owner;
The condition of the bore(s);
The existing level of use, what the output from the bore is actually used
for and the heat energy output range which the bore operates ((b) and (c)
together „the baseline position‟); and
Confirmation (with details) that the use advised is occurring in accordance
with the Act.
[198] The submitters concern was the registration date of 31 December 2010. This is of
particular concern as, due to a mistake, the Regional Council does not have a
registry of bore holders and consequently those not registered are currently deemed
to be illegal. Mr Brockelsby, for the Regional Council, told us that for those that
register, the Council would waive any irregularity.
84
Stephenson EiC at [8.15]. 85
General Condition 4.24.
60
[199] We consider that further time should be allowed for shallow bore holders to register
with Council and thus come within the compensatory provisions of the General
Conditions. We fix the date at 30 September 2011 and General Condition 4.24 is
amended accordingly. The following consequential amendments are made to
General Conditions 4.24 and 4.26:
deleting „31 January 2011‟ and substituting „31 October 2011‟;
deleting „31 December 2010‟ and substituting ‟30 September 2011‟; and
deleting ‟31 March 2011‟ and substituting ‟31 December 2011‟.
Effects on Maori Commercial Interests
[200] We are aware from the evidence that local Maori hapu and commercial land trusts
have an interest in geothermal development. As an example, Opepe Farm Trust has
commissioned reports86 on the geothermal resource under their land, though it is not
clear that concepts have been developed beyond that. In some cases Maori
commercial interests may be in partnership with others, while some may seek
independent developments. Through the process of this Inquiry, many of the
interested Maori parties have reached accords with Contact, suggesting that
commercial and wider concerns have been addressed.
[201] We have already referred to Opepe Farm Trust‟s multiple land interests, including
sole unfettered interests in land to the south of Tauhara Maunga, which is in the
vicinity of the postulated southern upflow and its associated outflow. Our assessment
of the evidence suggests that the resource can sustain this proposal for at least 50
years and potentially for 100 years. There may well be opportunity for other
developments.
Effects on Users of Neighbouring Assets and Infrastructure
Aratiatia Dam
[202] The Aratiatia hydro dam and associated power station are located on the Waikato
River. The Contact consent area boundary is 200 m from the dam itself and 500 m
86
Dr Severne, Transcript 21 September 2010 at 139, Lines 44 – 45.
61
from the Aratiatia Power House. The dam and power station are operated by Mighty
River Power.
[203] Mighty River lodged a submission opposing the proposal. It cited concerns around
the potential for shallow and deep reinjection/injection creating possible adverse
effects on the Aratiatia dam and facilities from changes in ground level and induced
seismic activity.
[204] On 7 September 2010 Mighty River formally advised that it and Contact had agreed a
set of consent conditions that addressed its concerns.
Rotokawa Joint Venture
[205] Rotokawa Joint Venture operates a geothermal power station on the Rotokawa
Geothermal Field. This field is located northeast of the northern areas of the
Tauhara Field, and the two field resistivity boundaries come within a few hundred
metres of each other at their closest point.
[206] Rotokawa Joint Venture lodged a submission opposing the proposal. It was
concerned about possible adverse effects on its activities and assets, and effects on
others arising from:
Reinjection/injection close to the Rotokawa Geothermal System boundary;
Cumulative effects of hydrogen sulphide emissions (i.e. odour complaints being
wrongly attributed to Rotokawa Joint Venture activities); and
Ground subsidence, including subsidence complaints being wrongly attributed to
Rotokawa Joint Venture activities.
[207] By memorandum dated 9 September 2010 Rotokawa Joint Venture formally advised
that the parties had agreed a set of consent conditions that addressed its concerns.
Effects of Subsidence
[208] Evidence was presented about differential ground subsidence from several
witnesses. From Contact these included Mr Stanfield, Mr Stephenson, Dr Dunstall,
Mr Rosenberg, Mr Bixley, Professor Horne, Professor O‟Sullivan, Mr Currie,
Professor Pender, Mr Bromley, Dr Allis, Mr Booth, Mr Beattie and Mr Daysh.
62
Submissions expressing concern about the effects of differential ground subsidence
were made by, among others, Mr Hickman for the District Council, Mr Waters and
Mr Clarke. Mr Bromley and Dr Allis answered questions we put about differential
subsidence and targeted injection intended to control it.
Contact’s subsidence programme
[209] As a consequence of earlier consents, Contact was required to investigate the
magnitude and cause of ground subsidence, especially differential subsidence, in
the Taupo area. This has resulted in a comprehensive, multi-disciplined programme
of ground and building surveys and extensive drilling. The technical evidence
presented by participants in the programme is of very high quality and has assisted
us.
The subsidence bowls
[210] The results of successive comprehensive ground and building level surveys, both
vertical and horizontal, in the Wairakei, Tauhara, Aratiatia and Taupo areas were
produced in evidence by Mr Currie. These surveys identified four subsidence bowls
whose occurrence is not in dispute. These are referred to as the Wairakei, Spa,
Rakaunui and Crown Road bowls. The Wairakei bowl was the first one identified and
has been deepening for many years but the other three bowls have developed more
recently.
[211] We accept Mr Currie‟s evidence that the bowls have not widened recently and that
their rates of subsidence, except for that of the Spa bowl, have declined. The rate of
subsidence at the Spa Bowl has been consistent since 200587.
[212] Contact has considered whether or not there may be other bowls present and so
has had INSAR satellite imagery surveys undertaken88. These images have not
highlighted any additional areas of subsidence.
[213] Undisputed evidence demonstrated that the subsidence bowls formed as a result of
loss of pore pressure support, that was itself caused by water draw down in the
reservoir, as a consequence of over 50 years of withdrawing fluid from the Wairakei-
87
EiC at [1.4] 88
Tauhara Stage II Geothermal Project: Subsidence Report at 27, 29.
63
Tauhara Geothermal System. The resulting loss of pressure has caused preferential
compression of some thin soft units that has been transmitted to the surface.
[214] The detailed evidence of Mr Booth and Mr Beattie addressed ground settlement and
potential damage to structures from differential subsidence. The overall
consequences of subsidence are regarded as being minor and mainly confined to
the Wairakei Hotel and the kerb and pavement damage in the Crown Road area89.
We accept this conclusion and note that, in any case, there are compensatory
provisions for any future damage that may be caused.
[215] The extensive drilling programme undertaken is summarised in the evidence of Dr
Dunstall. About 4,000 m of cores were recovered from 13 drill holes, photographed,
described and processed90. The progress and conclusions of the investigation
programme were reviewed and commented upon by expert reviewers with
international reputations. The results greatly improved knowledge of the geology
and hydrology of the Tauhara Field and they also revealed the cause of subsidence,
a matter previously uncertain and disputed.
[216] We agree with Dr Allis91 that the GNS report is a world-class case study and in our
opinion this investigation is probably the most detailed and comprehensive ever
undertaken of induced ground subsidence in a geothermal environment.
[217] We also agree with the comment of Dr Allis92 that the cores now preserved by
Contact represent a significant resource for future research projects. We go even
further to say, that the results of the drilling will reveal important information about
the early history of the Taupo Volcanic Zone itself and the evolution of geothermal
systems generally.
Predicting and modelling subsidence
[218] We accept Mr Rosenberg‟s evidence that predicting the magnitudes, locations,
dimensions and formation of subsidence bowls requires understanding the
stratigraphy, lithology and physical properties of the subsurface rock formations93.
89
Booth EiC at [12.25]. 90
EiC at [1.7]. 91
EiC at [4.2]. 92
EiC at [4.2]. 93
EiC at [4.1].
64
[219] The stratigraphy of the Tauhara Field is described in detail in the evidence of Mr
Rosenberg. This formed the basis for other evidence addressing the issue of
differential ground subsidence. Professor Pender‟s evidence was very helpful in
explaining the immediate cause of subsidence whereby compression of altered
rocks reduced pore pressure support from water loss. We note his conclusion, that
based upon his study, injecting fluid into a subsidence bowl to attain a full pressure
recovery would not allow the receiving formation to inflate by more than 20%94.
[220] A weakness with the assessment is that despite continuous coring to sample rock
matrix, some formations within the subsidence bowls are very weak95 so core
recovery is necessarily incomplete. Unfortunately these are the very formations
most likely to be affected by dewatering.
[221] Based upon Professor Pender‟s measurements96 of 153 high quality samples, both
Mr Bromley and Professor O‟Sullivan attempted to address subsidence
quantitatively. Modelling of subsidence in such detail in a geothermal system has
not been attempted elsewhere so far as we know. The method Professor O‟Sullivan
used shows considerable promise for future monitoring and predicting the rates and
magnitudes of subsidence. However, as Professor O‟Sullivan pointed out, that
although he predicts the maximum amount of subsidence for the Rakaunui and Spa
bowls, his modelling is unable to predict accurately the rates of subsidence. The
modelling does not predict a rate of subsidence for the Crown Road bowl that is
presently matched by survey measurements.
[222] Professor O‟Sullivan‟s model is primarily intended to model reservoir response to
exploitation and has an admittedly poor response to matching shallow pressures
which are the cause of subsidence. For this to be an effective technique the
modelling may need to focus on shallow levels.
[223] Never the less we recognise that subsidence modelling is a „work in progress‟ and
expect that the accuracy of predictions would improve if more measurements are
made.
94
EiC at [1.15.] 95
Pender, EiC at [10.5]. 96
EiC at [1.3].
65
[224] Mr Bromley made one dimensional models of subsidence, assuming targeted
injection, using the results of Professor Pender‟s measurements. He predicted
maximum additional subsidence values for the Rakaunui, Spa and Crown Road
bowls of 0.8, 0.5 and 0.56 m respectively97, together with a qualitative comment on
whether these values were likely to be under or over estimates.
Spa and Rakaunui Bowls
[225] Evidence reporting the results of the comprehensive subsidence study undertaken
shows that the cause of subsidence within these two bowls is due to the collapse of
units within the deep Huka Falls Formation98. In the case of the Spa bowl this is a
fine sandstone-siltstone sub-unit from 140 to 165 m depth. In both bowls the
collapsing horizons are now at least partly steam filled99 but some of the shallower
pressures measured are of liquid and lie on the pressure trend of the aquifer in the
Waiora Formation100.
[226] This being the case, we accept the evidence presented, that maintaining, or even
increasing, the deep reservoir pressure across the entire Wairakei-Tauhara
Geothermal System should reduce the rate of ground subsidence at the Spa,
Rakaunui and Wairakei bowls. This is indeed already happening.
[227] We agree with the concept of trigger levels in general for implementing injection
schemes and, in particular, with the trigger levels suggested101 by Mr Bromley for
the Spa and Rakaunui Bowls.
Crown Road Bowl
[228] This bowl has been the subject of detailed study since 2001 and Mr Currie, for
example, reports that it has been levelled 19 times since then with a high degree of
precision102. Since 2004, as a result of the work of the District Council, the Crown
Road network has been expanded to 3 km2 103.
97
Bromley EiC at [6.38]. 98
Bromley EiC at [6.7]. 99
Bromley EiC at [6.8]; Grant report at 31. 100
Grant report at 31. 101
EiC at [7.2, 7.4, 7.5]. 102
EiC at [4.22]. 103
EiC at [4.12].
66
[229] We accept the evidence of Mr Bromley, Mr Rosenberg, Dr Allis and Dr Grant104 that
the cause of subsidence of the Crown Road bowl differs from that of the Spa and
Rakaunui bowls. We note no subsidence in the Crown Road bowl originates below
a depth of 200 m105 i.e. above the deep Waiora Aquifer.
[230] The shallow aquifer at Crown Road is perched and thus not directly connected to
the deep aquifer. The alteration of the Crown hydrothermal eruption breccia in the
bowl was produced by steam condensate106. Evidence presented107 demonstrated
that this altered breccia is compressing, whereas at the other subsidence bowls it is
the deeper mid Huka Falls Formation that is compressing.
[231] Since the Crown Road bowl hosts a perched aquifer, then we agree with evidence
presented by Dr Grant108 which predicts that pressure changes in the deep reservoir
will have no immediate effect on those in the Crown Road bowl itself. Raising the
deep pressure would reduce neither the magnitude nor the rate of ground
subsidence of this bowl.
Reinjection and Injection to control subsidence of the Crown Road Bowl
[232] As a consequence of the considerable information obtained over recent years from
exploration, Contact proposed that subsidence be managed by targeted injection109
to depths below about the base of the hydrothermal eruption breccia (about
+300 m). If this is not successful then Mr Bromley recommends that fluid be injected
into the Crown Road bowl at depths between 50 and 70 m below ground surface110.
The trigger subsidence rate at which injection would be undertaken at this bowl
would be if the maximum subsidence rate exceeded 50 to 60 mm per year111.
However because, as Mr Bromley112 points out, the maximum rate of subsidence at
Crown Road bowl is declining no injection may be required to slow the subsidence.
104
Tauhara II Geothermal Development-Contact Energy Ltd, Key Issues Report by Waikato Regional Council, May 2010. 105
Bromley EiC at [6.7]. 106
Rosenberg EiC at [8.36]. 107
Pender EiC at [13.2]. 108
Tauhara II Geothermal Development-Contact Energy Ltd, Key Issues Report by Waikato Regional Council, May 2010 at 31. 109
For example Bromley EiC at [6.4]. 110
EiC at [7.6]. 111
EiC at [7.2]. 112
EiC at [6.43].
67
[233] We recognise that generally reinjection and/or injection have been successful in
slowing the rate of differential ground subsidence as well as being a good system
management practice to sustain a resource. We accept the evidence that deeper
targeted injection will reduce the rates of subsidence at the Wairakei, Spa and
Rakaunui bowls.
[234] Never the less we have some reservations about the merit of shallow injection into
the Crown Road bowl and regard this as a procedure to be used only after careful
consideration. Our reasons for this concern are:
1. From the evidence of Dr Grant It is not clear that subsidence in this area can be
controlled by shallow injection113
2. Reinjection into a steam/water zone will cause the steam there to condense and
lower the surrounding pressure, at least initially. There would thus likely be a
loss of pore support in the compressing formation (Crown hydrothermal eruption
breccia)114 since the rocks comprising this formation have been altered by
steam condensate to kaolin. The presence of this mineral means that the rocks
subject to injection are unlikely to reinflate when the pressure resulting from
reinjection eventually increases i.e. what pore space remained within the
breccia will be lost permanently.
3. The fate of the injected water is not entirely predictable, although we accept that
Contact would establish a comprehensive monitoring programme, and the
maximum amount of water that would be injected would only be about 1000
tonnes per day115 at a temperature of less than 40 0C. Even so, either the
injected, or more likely, ground water displaced by it, could discharge at the
surface as far as several hundred metres away. We are conscious that Dr
Dunstall116 stated that injection would be controlled so closely that this would
not happen;
4. Should the diameter of the Crown Road bowl increase notably, however, then
we accept that very carefully targeted shallow reinjection may become an option
to be considered by the Peer Review Panel; and
113
Grant report at 31. 114
Rosenberg EiC at [8.36]. 115
Dunstall at [14.5]. 116
EiC at [14.5].
68
5. Our view is that the Peer Review Panel should look carefully to address the
effects of differential subsidence and whether there are other forms of mitigation
that could be considered.
[235] Notwithstanding our concerns, we consider the adaptive management regime,
which is subject to the Peer Review Panel‟s considerations, is the appropriate
method to address the issue.
[236] We asked Dr Allis about the effect of injecting water into a steam zone, to which he
replied that this is warranted where compaction is occurring117 and that in his
opinion the initial loss of pressure due to condensation would be quickly
compensated for by a pressure increase.118 Dr Allis quoted Dr Karsten Pruess119 to
the effect that there is a theoretical basis for expecting that injection will at least
reduce subsidence rates although we feel this situation may not necessarily apply to
the Crown Road bowl where the shallow aquifer is perched.
[237] In answer to a written question from the Board120, Mr Bromley accepted that some
adverse effects may result from targeted shallow reinjection into the Crown Road
bowl, but said this issue is best addressed through the constraints he recommends
which are included in the Discharge Strategy. We agree.
Potential for new bowls to form
[238] As there are a large number of survey stations and frequent surveys are planned,
we accept the evidence of Mr Bromley121 that other subsidence bowls will not form
without being noticed. However as subsidence is related to dewatering, the most
likely exception to this is in the southern part of the consent application area where
Wairakei pressures have not been transmitted122. This may mean either that the
pressure decline in the reservoir initiating at the Wairakei Field about 50 years ago
has not yet reached south of Mount Tauhara, or that this part of the Wairakei-
Tauhara Geothermal System is fed from a separate upflow.
117
Allis at [1.1] in answer to written questions. 118
Allis at [1.1] in answer to written questions. 119
Allis at [1.4] in answer to written questions. 120
EiC at 9, at [3.6] and at [3.7]. 121
EiC at [6.25]. 122
Allis EiC at [5.1].
69
[239] In either case it is important to monitor ground deformation with the object of
detecting an early sign of the formation of a subsidence bowl in southern Tauhara.
This will require continued diligence by the Peer Review Panel.
Potential widening of subsidence bowls
[240] We heard evidence, most importantly from Mr Currie, that none of the subsidence
bowls has widened appreciably since they were first recognised. This observation
has been important in deducing that subsidence is largely lithologically controlled
and in addressing its consequences. In particular, Mr Bromley and Mr Rosenberg
gave evidence that the Crown hydrothermal eruption breccia, which is the main
compressing formation in the Crown Road bowl, has a funnel shape outside of
which there has been no differential subsidence.
[241] In answer to written questions from the Board123, Mr Bromley stated that Crown
Road bowl will not widen either with or without targeted shallow reinjection124
whatever is the future subsidence rate125 of this bowl. We accept these answers but
believe that the diameter of the subsidence bowls should be measured, as required
in the consent conditions, and as recommended by the Peer Review Panel.
Changing the pressure target
[242] A present consent condition specifies a pressure target in the deep reservoir
intended to minimise ground subsidence. Contact is required to achieve a pressure
of 56 barg at a depth of -400 m within the Waiora aquifer in wells TH1 and TH3 by
August 2011. This pressure was to be attained by deep injection or reinjection.
However, both Mr Bixley126 and Dr Grant127 judged that this goal is unlikely to be
attained by the stated date.
[243] Mr Bixley further pointed out128 that both these wells were drilled many years ago
and that their casings are corroded, although not to the extent of this being a well
123
EiC at [4.1]. 124
EiC at [4.2]. 125
EiC at [4.3]. 126
Answer to written questions at [1.15]. 127
Answer to written questions. 128
Answer to written questions at [1.5] and [1.8].
70
security issue129. Wells TH1 and TH3 were chosen as pressure monitor wells
because they are close to the margin of the Taupo township.
[244] We agree with Dr Allis130, that there is no particular significance about the 56 barg
pressure value. We accept that the same purpose can be achieved by monitoring an
equivalent pressure in the same aquifer at shallower depths in other wells. We
accept the evidence of Mr Bromley, Mr Bixley and Dr Grant, that wells drilled more
recently now offer better opportunities to monitor pressure in the deep reservoir
close to the areas of concern. The proposed conditions seek that the monitor
pressure in THM16 be 22.2 barg at sea level and in THM17 it be 10.5 barg at
+144m depth131.
[245] We agree that wells THM16 and THM17 should serve as good monitor wells in
place of TH1 and TH3, as the lateral pressure gradient between THM16 and TH1 is
slight and both THM16 and THM17 are closer to Taupo township. THM16 is better
located for measuring pressure to monitor subsidence than either TH1 or TH3.
[246] We noted that Dr Grant and Mr Bromley suggested different monitor target
pressures for THM16 but the 2 bar difference is more apparent than real. As a
result of Dr Grant‟s letter submitted in reply to a written question from the Board we
agree that the target pressure in THM16 should be 22.2 ± 1.0 barg, as
recommended in the evidence of Mr Bixley132. We accept that pressure
measurements may be in error by up to 1.0 bar133.
[247] No technical evidence was submitted in opposition to the proposed monitoring plan,
nor indeed to Contact‟s technical evidence about the cause of differential ground
subsidence and its effects. However, we recognise the concern of the District
Council and others about the effects of differential subsidence134 and the
requirement that Taupo town be adequately protected by consent conditions. This
position was confirmed by Mr Hickman in answer to a question from Judge
Whiting135.
129
Answer to written questions at [1.5] and [1.8]. 130
EiC at [5.2]. 131
Bixley EiC at [7.19]. 132
EiC at [7.16]. 133
Bixley EiC at [7.19]. 134
For example closing submission of Mr Hickman at 6 and 7. 135
Transcript of 6 October 2010.
71
[248] Under the adaptive management plan, the Peer Review Panel has the ability to alter
this pressure monitoring requirement during the life of this consent in order to
address issues of differential ground subsidence.
Potential for hydrothermal eruptions
[249] The potential for hydrothermal eruptions was given in the evidence of Mr Bromley136
and is described more fully in the excellent Tauhara Stage II Geothermal Project
Geoscience Report137. Hydrothermal eruptions occurred in the Broadlands Road
Thermal Reserve in 1974 and 1981 (Pony Club eruptions). A small eruption
occurred in 1974 in the Spa Park thermal area138 and clearly a larger one occurred
in the Crown Road area in prehistoric times.
[250] The evidence of Mr Bromley139 and the discussion in the Geoscience Report140
indicates that the most likely locations for a future hydrothermal eruption are from
features now thermally active or dormant such, as those in the Broadlands Road
Thermal Reserve. However, as the magnitude of heat flow in the Tauhara area has
been declining141 for the past few years, Mr Bromley thinks that the potential for
further eruptions has also declined and would be reduced further with reinjection
should consent be granted.
[251] In this regard we note that production at Wairakei resulted in a net increase in heat
output at Tauhara from about 100 MWt to 200 MWt between 1960 and 1980 followed
by a gradual decline to about 85 MWt this year142. In addition, Professor O‟Sullivan‟s
reservoir model143 predicts a further decline in heat flow before a slow recovery to
present levels. In any case, the risk of hydrothermal eruptions can be assessed by
regular monitoring of active and dormant manifestations.
[252] We considered the possibility that some of the injected water could pond upon a
less permeable unit at the base of the perched aquifer, become heated by
conduction or ascending steam and generate a small hydrothermal eruption. In
136
EiC at [8.6]. 137
At 237 – 248. 138
Geoscience Report at [8.6.1.4]. 139
EiC at [8.6]. 140
At [8.7]. 141
At [8.7]. 142
Geoscience Report at 249, at [8.42]. 143
O‟Sullivan EiC at Exhibit page 42.
72
answer to a written question about this possibility, Mr Bromley144 replied that this is
possible but unlikely and confirmed that the risk could be managed. He thus
confirmed the conclusions in the Geoscience Report that such a hydrothermal
eruption would be limited in size and duration145. We accept Mr Bromley‟s evidence
that the Discharge Strategy will achieve this purpose.
Possible discharge of thermal water into the Waikato River
[253] Mr Bromley in his evidence commented146 upon the possibility that should water be
reinjected into the Spa bowl some water may discharge at the surface and restore
thermal activity at Spa Sights. He would view this as a positive outcome. This was
quantified by Professor O‟Sullivan in response to written questions147. He
concluded that without the Tauhara II development up to 20 MWt may eventually
discharge from Spa Sights. With Tauhara II this is likely to be significantly lower.
[254] We agree that restoration of some thermal features in the Spa Sights thermal area
would be an attractive outcome and is favoured by Maori interests. However, most
likely the initial water discharged would be that displaced from the shallow aquifer by
entry of reinjected water but, in due course, reinjected separated geothermal water
itself may discharge. We are not in favour of there being an uncontrolled indirect
discharge of thermal water into the Waikato River. But as Mr Bromley pointed out in
answer to our written question148, a judgment call would then have to be made
between the benefits from the restoration of hot spring discharges as against the
consequences of additional chemical loading upon the Waikato River.
Waipahihi Springs
[255] The present state of thermal features in the Tauhara Field is well described in the
Geoscience Report, as is a summary of the changes they have undergone since
production began at Wairakei149.
[256] There has been a change in the temperatures and flow rates since 1987 at the
Otumuheke, AC, Kathleen and Waipahihi springs. These springs all discharged
144
EiC at [1.10]. 145
At [8.7iii]. 146
EiC at [8.5]. 147
O‟Sullivan in answer to written questions, Figure MJO Extra 14.1, page 22. 148
Answer to written questions at [4.1]. 149
At [8.4.1].
73
thermal water (as opposed to steam) but only the Waipahihi and Otumuheke springs
do so now. The Waipahihi springs have a component of deeply derived chloride
water and maintaining their flow and temperature is essential.
[257] We heard evidence about the significance and importance of the Waipahihi Springs,
especially to Maori and other local users such as Taupo DeBretts. Ms Jenkins for
the Department of Conservation150 drew attention to the geothermal vegetation of
particular note that grows in the Waipahihi Stream Conservation Area.
[258] These concerns have been met by agreements between Contact and parties likely
to be affected and are incorporated into consent conditions. We accept that these
include conditions sufficient to monitor discharges from the springs. We agree with
Mr Bromley that the trigger for injection be based upon a combination of the flow
rate of the springs and their chloride contents151.
Effects on Groundwater
[259] Contact seeks consent to reinject/inject up to 194 kilotonnes/day of water including
geothermal water, steam water, cooling water blowdown, suspended material and
added chemicals and tracers into land and underground water through
reinjection/injection wells within the consent area. They also seek to discharge up
to 6,500 tonnes/day of cooling water blowdown and steam water condensate onto or
into land by irrigation in the consent area.
[260] A number of submitters expressed concern about the effect of these water
discharges on:
The reticulated water supply network;
The quality of ground water for domestic and stock use; and
Freshwater bores.
[261] The conditions of consent, which include the Discharge Strategy, address the
submitters‟ concerns. The conditions addressing this issue have been iteratively
changed through the facilitation and consultation process. Consequently, the
150
EiC at [4.9]. 151
EiC at [9.11].
74
concerns of the submitters have been met and accordingly we received no
submissions or evidence at the Hearing challenging the conditions of consent.
[262] We read the evidence of the expert witnesses called by Contact who address this
issue. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we accept that evidence, and
find that the detailed monitoring required by the conditions of consent and the
Discharge Strategy adequately address the issue.
[263] Our only concern is with respect to the cooling tower sludge which may contain up
to 900 mg/kg of mercury152 and high concentrations of other metals. If it is proposed
that the sludge is to be mixed with reinjection/injection fluid we alert the Peer
Review Panel of our concern and would expect the matter to be addressed in the
Discharge Strategy.
Amenity Effects
Visual Effects
[264] A Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVA)153 was prepared by Mr Lister. His report
was peer reviewed by Mr McKenzie, a Landscape Architect154, prior to the lodgement
of the application. Key visual effects included:
Physical effects of the civil engineering on landforms, surface geothermal
features, surface hydrology, and vegetation;
Landscape character and values associated with the existing landscape;
Visual effects on nearby Mount Tauhara and Maunganamu, and on the Waikato
River, which are identified in Plan Change 24 to the District Plan as Outstanding
Natural Features;
Visual effects of the development such as the new buildings associated with the
power station which will be up to 38 m high and the vapour and steam plumes,
on views from roads and other public places, nearby dwellings and private
property, and from the walking track on Mount Tauhara;
152
Stanfield EiC Exhibit Page 121 and answer to written question from Mr Stanfield at [1.2]. 153
Lister EiC at 1 – 23. 154
Folder 8, Above Ground Effects Assessment Report, A 1 Landscape and Visual Assessment, Appendix 3, at 63.
75
Cumulative effects of the project in conjunction with existing geothermal
generation and transmission in the surrounding environment; and
Temporary landscape and visual effects during construction.
[265] Several submissions expressed concern regarding amenity, lighting, landscape and
natural character effects. For iwi and hapu submitters, the visual effects were
specifically related to Mount Tauhara.
[266] Mitigation measures for the flexible elements of the project were incorporated in the
Steamfield Design Protocol155.
[267] Mitigation measures for the fixed elements of the project included:
Adopting recessive colours, matched to the landscape for the turbine hall,
cooling towers and pipelines;
Utilising excess spoil to form sculptured earth bunds to screen hard structures
such as the power station, well pads, switchyard, separator stations and pipeline
corridors;
Extensive broad scale group planting and shelter blocks in strategic locations to
provide both foreground and backdrops;
Location of the power station away from viewing catchments, especially Taupo
township; and
Aligning the main pipeline corridor to fit the topography and minimise earthworks.
[268] Wairakei Pastoral Limited commissioned a report from a lighting consultant, and
following amended consent conditions156 being accepted by Contact, withdrew its
submission.
[269] Submissions by Ngā Hapū o Tauhara, Tauhara Moana Trust and the Tauhara Middle
11 Trust raised concerns about the effect of the plumes on views of Mount Tauhara
or from its summit. An Assessment of Emissions to Air report157 was prepared by Dr
Brady. A vertical plume may rise higher than Mount Tauhara in extreme atmospheric
conditions and in instances of no wind. The power station is approximately 2.7 km
from the summit, so in any conditions, even extreme, the plume would not extend
155
Daysh EiC at 164 – 201. 156
Consent Reference EPA 10/1.001, EPA 10/1.002. 157
Brady Vol. 6 EiC Tab 17, Exhibit One.
76
over the mountain. In 90% of the daylight hours the plume is likely to rise less than
one third the height of the mountain and the plume prominence will be influenced by
the backdrop of the sky.
[270] In addition to vapour plumes, there will be potential plumes from steamfield
discharges. Under normal operation there will be wisps from condensate traps on
pipelines. Large plumes will occur infrequently during maintenance operations or
power station outages, and from the power station in response to turbine trimming.
[271] The existing environment in the vicinity of the proposed power station is
characterised by a rural landscape and is somewhat elevated (110 m above Lake
Taupo). The nearest affected dwelling is about 800 m away and the privately owned
land in the vicinity is mostly lifestyle blocks.
[272] Section 3.b of the District Plan sets out the objectives and policies for the Rural
Environment. Objective 1 seeks to protect the existing amenity levels provided by
Rural Environments. The Explanation to the Objective and Policies make it clear that
policy iv recognises that the Rural Environment contains a wide range of resources
that require the location of activities close to the resource.
iv. Provide for a range of productive land use activities within the Rural Environment
while ensuring any adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.
[273] Objective 3b.2.2 and Policy 3b.2.2.iii focus on limiting the potential for subdivision in
the Rural Environment to diminish the rural amenity or character value and increase
urbanisation. Further subdivision within the vicinity of the proposed power station will
be restricted and could lead to reverse sensitivity issues arising. The Explanation
acknowledges that the Plan gives encouragement to electricity generation facilities
on geothermal systems such as Wairakei-Tauhara. The Rural Environment is
generally characterized by low density development, large open spaces and the use
of productive land.
[274] The wider environment contains other geothermal power stations and the Taupo
Motorsport Park. The Landscape and Visual Assessment Report158 details the careful
design and landscaping of the fixed and flexible elements of the development. We
acknowledge the scale of this project and that there would be a decrease of amenity
158
Lister EiC, Exhibit One.
77
value in the area and will be partially inconsistent with section 3b, Rural Environment
of the District Plan.
[275] The District Council submitted that provided the mitigation measures set out in the
Landscape and Visual Assessment Report are implemented for the flexible elements
of the project, the visual and landscape effects will be mitigated. These mitigation
measures are reflected in the conditions of consent in Volume 2 of this decision.
[276] There was no further evidence presented at the Hearing.
[277] We find that the conditions of consent and the mitigation measures as set out in the
Landscape and Visual Assessment Report would adequately avoid, remedy or
mitigate actual and potential adverse effects on the visual and landscape values from
the Tauhara II Project.
Noise Effects
[278] A technical report on noise effects by Mr M Hunt is part of the application159. Mr Hunt
also gave evidence. This report was peer reviewed. Key noise sources would
comprise:
Construction noise and 24 hour operation of a large power station;
Central Tauhara first flash steam separation, SGW transfer pumps, two phase
fluid gathering and reinjection pipelines to and from the production and
reinjection wells, plus transfer pipeline(s) to convey SGW to the second flash
separators in the steam separation area adjacent to the power plant;
South Tauhara first flash steam separation, SGW transfer pumps and two phase
fluid gathering and reinjection pipelines to and from the production and
reinjection wells, plus pipeline(s) to convey SGW to the reinjection wells;
Cross-country pipelines connecting the South and Central Tauhara Separator
Plants to the power station;
159
Above Ground Effects Assessment Report, A2 Noise Assessment at 3 – 65.
78
Well drilling, including well pad preparation, 24 hour drilling and flow testing, and
other temporary works associated with establishing wellhead infrastructure. The
exact number and location to be determined; and
Cross-country SGW pipelines connecting the power station reinjection pumps to
the north and east SGW reinjection areas, plus a possible site for south
reinjection to achieve the desired distribution of SGW to the three
reinjection/production locations.
[279] The evidence confirmed that:
Construction noise will comply with the relevant condition of the Tauhara I
consent (in the area covered by the Tauhara I consent), and in the separate
Tauhara II areas will comply with the New Zealand Construction Noise Standard,
NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise; and
Operational noise from the Tauhara II Power Station will comply with the District
Plan160 noise limits for the rural area (including night time levels) at dwellings not
located on the application site.
[280] Noise from emergency steam venting cannot be effectively controlled by the
application of general District Plan noise standards. Steam venting occurs during
start up and occasionally at other times. Usually, steam venting occurs for a short
time only, but on rare occasions may continue for an hour or so. Mr Hunt
recommended that the best practicable option be adopted (in terms of section 16 of
the Act) to address planned and unplanned steam venting noise. Condition 14 EPA
10/1.001 addresses this issue.
[281] The District Council had the application peer reviewed by Mr Hegley, an Acoustic
Engineer. That review identified some amendments to the conditions addressing
noise from the project. The amendments require reference to the 2008 New Zealand
Standard for Assessing and Measuring Environmental Noise. The conditions of
consent now address the District Council‟s concerns.
[282] Wairakei Pastoral raised an issue about noise from Tauhara II impacting on their
dairying activities with particular reference to future dwellings. Mr Hunt did not
160
Local Authority Report – Section 149G Resource Management Act, Contact Energy Limited – Tauhara II, Taupo District Council, 14 May 2010, Rule 4b.3.6.
79
consider that there would be any adverse effects on animals or farming generally as
a result of Tauhara II development. The scale of noise effect that might be
experienced on Wairakei Pastoral‟s land would, at worst, be no greater than the
noise experienced in farms adjacent to highways. The concerns of Wairakei Pastoral
have been addressed in the conditions of consent.
[283] A number of submitters raised concerns regarding noise in a general sense. Mr Hunt
addressed these in his report. The submitters concerns have been addressed in the
conditions of consent.
[284] We heard or received no evidence challenging the evidence of Mr Hunt. We find that
the conditions of consent and the mitigation measures as set out in Volume 2 of this
decision and the Steamfield Design Protocol would adequately avoid, remedy or
mitigate actual and potential adverse effects of noise during the construction and
operational period for the fixed and flexible elements from the Tauhara II Project.
Traffic Effects and Management
[285] A technical Transportation Assessment Report161 and a Construction Traffic
Management Plan162 was prepared by Mr Harries. These documents set out the
expected traffic types and volumes, and their likely routes and effects during both
construction and operation of the power station and steamfield development.
[286] Nine new vehicle access points163 will be required to serve the construction and
operation of the Tauhara II Project. The immediate point of access will be to the
power station site from Off Road Highway, an existing private road off Broadlands
Road, part of the District Council local road network. Four other access ways from
Off Road Highway would accommodate traffic relating to the construction and
ongoing servicing of pipelines, switchyard and well pads. An additional two access
points are proposed for Broadlands Road and another two from State Highway Five
(SH5), Napier-Taupo, to access pipelines and well pads.
[287] Mitigation measures proposed:
161
Harries EiC Exhibit One. 162
Harries EiC Exhibit Two. 163
Vol 1, Contact Energy’s Updated Proposed Conditions of Consent, 13 September 2010 at 44, Fig. 9.
80
Additional rehabilitation and carriageway widening on Off Road Highway to
accommodate all construction and operational traffic as well as existing users,
including construction of two sealed entranceways to District Council standards,
to the power station and switchyard;
Construction of the remaining seven new access ways (five on local roads and
two on SH5) to relevant District Council and New Zealand Transport Agency
standards; and
The implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan as approved by
the road controlling authorities, during construction to ensure all construction
related traffic activities are appropriately managed to minimise any potential
adverse effects on the surrounding environment.
[288] Only three submissions expressed concern about traffic. NZ Transport Agency
(NZTA), the District Council, and Tauhara Moana Trust submitted that provided the
mitigation measures identified in the Transportation Assessment Report are
recognised by consent conditions, including the use of the Construction Traffic
Management Plan, the effects would be less than minor.
[289] We find that the conditions of consent would adequately avoid, remedy or mitigate
actual and potential adverse effects on traffic volumes and safety from the Tauhara II
Project.
Air Quality
[290] A detailed technical report by Dr Brady164, an Air Quality Specialist, assessed the
application as a best practice approach based on modelling, the results of which had
a high degree of certainty. This assessment was peer reviewed by Dr Graham165, an
Air Quality Specialist instructed by the Regional Council. Key air discharge concerns
are:
The increased discharge of hydrogen sulphide; and
164
Above Ground Effects Assessment Report at 1 – 113. 165
Tauhara II Geothermal Development-Contact Energy Ltd, Key Issues Report by Waikato Regional Council, May 2010 at 47 – 76.
81
Other air contaminants (mercury, radon, ammonia and fluoride) from the power
station and associated steamfield activities.
[291] Several submissions expressed the following concerns:
The cumulative effects of this development with existing and consented
discharges of hydrogen sulphide; and
Odour effects.
[292] The Assessment of Emissions to Air Report contained an extensive set of modelling
results covering the predicted effects of the Tauhara II Power Station (in both
configurations) in isolation, and in combination with the Wairakei, Tauhara I, and
Rotokawa Power Stations. The Report‟s assessment of hydrogen sulphide odour
effects was based on predictions for 1-hour average concentrations, which were
compared against the odour-based guideline of 70 µg/m3. The results were reported
as 99.9 percentile levels, which represents the 9th highest value within a year of
hourly results (i.e. 8,760 results). Detailed frequency distribution data was also
presented for the following three selected locations in close proximity to the power
station:
Site 1: A lifestyle block on Centennial Drive, approximately 1.5 km west of the
proposed power station;
Site 2: A farmhouse on McKenzie Road 1.5 km northeast of the proposed
power station.
Site 3: The centre of the pit lane at the Taupo Motorsport Park, about 1km
northwest of the proposed power station site.
[293] The results concluded that the power station emissions, in isolation, are likely to have
less than minor effects166.
[294] The modelling results for the potential cumulative effects of the Tauhara I and the
Rotokawa Power Stations showed some significant increases in the expected
166
Tauhara II Geothermal Development-Contact Energy Ltd, Key Issues Report by Waikato Regional Council, May 2010 at 49.
82
emission and transient emission rate but still the potential odour impacts were
considered to be less than minor167.
[295] The Assessment of Emissions to Air Report identified the potential for cumulative
effects with other power stations. This was not expected to lead to any significant
level of odour complaints, but Dr Graham observed that H2S odours would become
more noticeable in the area, as a result of the multiple power station impacts.
[296] Hydrogen sulphide has health side effects if inhaled in significant concentrations. The
Assessment of Emissions to Air Report confirmed that the concentrations are well
below levels to cause health effects, even allowing for the cumulative effects from
other sources.
[297] The potential effects from other contaminants, including mercury and ammonia, were
considered to be well below the Ministry for the Environment Ambient Air Quality
Guideline and the Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria used in the Assessment of
Emissions to Air for the Tauhara Stage II Geothermal Project168, respectively, and
therefore the potential effects would be less than minor.
[298] The potential spray drift effects from the wet cooling towers were part of the
Assessment of Emissions to Air Report169 and were found to have less than minor
potential and actual effects on the surrounding environment. The only minor
uncertainty was the exact composition of the biocides to be used for the treatment of
the cooling tower water.
[299] It is expected that the biocide to be used would have the same composition as at the
Poihipi Power Station where the active ingredients are sodium bromide and
hypochlorite. The total droplet deposition rate of 0.027 mm per day would fall within a
few metres of the towers and would have effects that would be less than minor.
[300] On a positive note we acknowledge Tauhara II will result in a net reduction of CO2
emissions when compared to electricity generation using fossil fuels. We accept that
in isolation the potential impact from air discharge of H2S from the power station
would be less than minor for either station configuration.
167
Tauhara II Geothermal Development-Contact Energy Ltd, Key Issues Report by Waikato Regional Council, May 2010 at 50. 168
Assessment of Emissions to Air for the Tauhara Stage II Geothermal Project pages 9 and 10. 169
EiC page 82 and 83.
83
[301] We acknowledge that there would be an increase of H2S when the cumulative effects
of all the geothermal power stations are taken into account within the Taupo area.
An ongoing ambient monitoring programme is accordingly necessary. Dr Graham,
suggested a number of changes to the conditions of consent to address the Regional
Council and submitters‟ concerns. These have been incorporated into the conditions
of consent.
[302] We find that the conditions of consent and the mitigation measures would adequately
avoid, remedy or mitigate actual and potential adverse effects from the air discharge
from the Tauhara II Project.
84
CONSIDERATION OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
[303] Subject to Part 2, we are required to have regard to the relevant provisions of the
relevant statutory instruments. They are:
Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010
National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission
National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission
Waikato Regional Policy Statement
Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement
Waikato Regional Plan
Taupo District Plan
Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010
[304] The Act received the royal assent on 7 May 2010. By Order in Council various
provisions of the Act came into force on 24 September 2010. As a consequence the
Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River (Schedule 2 of the Act) is deemed to be
incorporated into the Waikato Regional Policy Statement. Section 17 of the Act
provides that RMA decision makers are required to have particular regard to the
Vision and Strategy in relation to applications affecting the Waikato River or its
catchment.
[305] The focus of the Vision and Strategy is on restoring and protecting the health and
well being of the Waikato River. The Waikato River is defined for the purposes of the
Act as the river below the Huka Falls.
[306] The Act provides for commencement in two ways. First, in section 2(b), it states that
different provisions may be brought into force on different dates appointed by the
Governor-General in Orders in Council. Section 6 defines commencement date to
mean:
If more than one Order in Council is made under section 2(b) the date of the last
Order.
85
[307] As the Order in Council of 7 May 2010 only brought some of the provisions of the Act
into force, the application of section 6 means, that notwithstanding that the named
provisions are in force, they have no effect until a later Order in Council is made
bringing the balance of the Act into force. As a consequence the Act will not apply.
[308] In any event whether the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River applies is of little
moment, for the following reasons:
i. No new water takes from the Waikato River are proposed; and
ii. The only potential discharge identified is potential restoration, at some time in
the future, of geothermal water flows at historic spring sites in the Spa area in
response to reinjection.
[309] As to the latter, Mr Bromley noted in his answers to the Board‟s written questions,
that by the time any potential discharge becomes a reality, reinjection in this area is
not likely to be required for subsidence mitigation. Then a judgement would be
required in the context of the Discharge Strategy, to weigh the benefits of restored
spring flows against concerns of chemical additions to the River. The Discharge
Strategy has an objective - avoiding, remedying or mitigating contamination of
surface and groundwaters. We also note that any likely potential discharge would be
above the Huka Falls.
National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission
[310] The National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission came into effect on 10
April 2008. The Policy Statement sets as a matter of national significance the need to
operate, maintain, develop and upgrade the electricity network. Only a very small
part of the proposed infrastructure (the variation to the transmission lines) would be
subject to this Policy Statement. All parties who appeared at the Hearing were
satisfied that the project is consistent.
[311] From the evidence it is clear to us that the interconnection of the project is likely to
make the overall transmission network more secure. We are satisfied that the
Tauhara II Project is consistent with the Policy Statement.
86
National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission
[312] The National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission came into force
on 14 January 2010. It was not specifically addressed in the application and
associated AEE put forward. We asked all counsel for views on the applicability or
otherwise of the standard, and what implications it had for the matters before us.
[313] We find that the standard is relevant to the proposal as it relates to the works
required to the existing Wairakei-Whirinaki A transmission line. The most restrictive
classification of any of the activities to which the Standards relate is discretionary,
while the majority are classified as permitted or controlled.
[314] All agree that the activities are appropriately assessed as discretionary, based on the
bundling of all the activities for which consents have been sought. This means that
the application of the Standards does not change the status of any of the activities
sought.
Regional Planning Instruments
[315] The Waikato Regional Policy Statement and the Waikato Regional Plan are the two
regional planning instruments that govern the use and development of the
geothermal resources of the Waikato Region.
[316] The relevant provisions of the Policy Statement became operative on 21 December
2007. The Regional Plan became operative on 28 September 2007, except for the
Geothermal Module subject to Variation 2, that became operative on 7 November
2008. A number of chapters of the Policy Statement and Regional Plan are relevant.
Geothermal
[317] Under the Policy Statement and Regional Plan geothermal provisions, the Waikato
Regional geothermal resource is divided into management units termed “Geothermal
Systems”. Within the Geothermal Systems, specific “Geothermal Features” are also
identified, some of which hold the further classification of “Significant Geothermal
Features”. Policy 3 “Classification of Systems” of the Policy Statement stipulates that
87
five classes of Geothermal Systems can be identified in the Regional Plan, based
upon their:
System size
Vulnerability of Significant Geothermal Features to extractive uses; and
Existing use
[318] One class of Geothermal System is called a “Development Geothermal System”,
within which development will be enabled because:
i) the system contains few Geothermal Features that are moderately to highly
vulnerable, or
ii) the existing Geothermal Features are significantly impaired by lawfully
established large takes, or
iii) the system is already subject to large scale energy use and development.
[319] Policy 1 “Identification of Geothermal Systems” in Section 7.4 of the Regional Plan
identifies the Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System as a Development Geothermal
System.
[320] Table 7-1 of the Regional Plan sets out the following reasons why the Wairakei-
Tauhara System is so classified:
The system is already subject to large scale energy use and development.
Existing surface features significantly impaired by legally established large takes.
No evidence of a flow of subsurface geothermal fluid to or from a Protected
Geothermal System.
[321] The Policy Statement and Regional Plan policy provisions relate to geothermal
systems in general, but also include more targeted provisions that relate to various
aspects of the use and development of specific geothermal systems according to
their classification.
Use and Development
[322] The following group of policy provisions from the Policy Statement and Regional Plan
specifically address the use and development of Development Geothermal Systems.
88
[323] Policy Statement
3.7.2.1 - Development Geothermal Systems
Objective: Large scale take, use and discharge of geothermal energy and water
enabled within Development Geothermal Systems in a manner that:
is efficient and allows the controlled depletion of energy so as to provide for the
energy needs of current and future generations;
remedies or mitigates significant adverse effects on Significant Geothermal
Features; and
avoids, remedies, or mitigates adverse effects on other natural and physical
resources including overlying structures (the built environment).
Policy One: Management of Use and Development in Development Geothermal
Systems
Provide for large scale use and development of geothermal energy and water,
promote efficient use of the resource and recognise there will be controlled depletion.
Policy Two: Integrated System Management Required for Development
Geothermal Systems
Each Development Geothermal System shall be managed in an integrated manner
through:
a. A System Management Plan that defines, by reference to all relevant policies in
Chapter 3.7 of this Policy Statement, the objectives for the management of the
system and provides as appropriate for:
i) operational flexibility and adaptive management including provision for
subsequent uses;
ii) reservoir modelling and subsidence modelling;
iii) a discharge strategy, including provision for reinjection/injection;
iv) a mechanism(s) to ensure coordination and promote cooperation between
all consent holders for large takes;
v) research, monitoring and reporting;
89
vi) non-statutory review of the System Management Plan if in the opinion of
the consent holders and the Waikato Regional Council, such amendments
are minor.
b. a peer review panel for the purpose of assisting the consent authority to manage
the system so as to achieve the objectives of the System Management Plan;
c. resource consent conditions; and
d. a system liaison group/forum where appropriate.
[324] Regional Plan
Objective 1
Where geothermal energy and water is taken, it shall be used and managed
efficiently.
Policy 3: Management of Use and Development in Development Geothermal
Systems
Control the depletion of energy in Development Geothermal Systems through
stepped production based on reservoir modelling that:
considers the capacity of the system as a whole; and
considers the reasonably foreseeable needs of present and future generations;
and
promotes efficient management and use of the system.
Policy 4: Integrated System Management of Development Geothermal Systems
Each Development Geothermal System shall have an up to date approved System
Management Plan that defines the objectives to be achieved in relation to the System
having regard to the relevant policies in the RPS.
Policy 5: Multiple Operators
Ensure mechanisms (multiple operator agreements such as steamfield management
agreements and field operation protocols) are in place where more than one consent
holder for large takes is to exist within a system. Any such mechanism shall address
90
the following matters to the satisfaction of the Waikato Regional Council
(Environment Waikato):
i) coordination and cooperation between consent holders
ii) processes and procedures for assignment of responsibility and/or liability
between consent holders for adverse environmental effects
iii) identification of potential interference effects between consent holders
iv) processes and procedures for avoiding, remedying or mitigating significant
adverse environmental effects related to ii) and iii) above
v) amendment of the System Management Plan
vi) processes and procedures for dispute resolution of technical and consent
related matters
vii) processes and procedures for changes to the mechanisms, such as changes
incorporating consent durations and transfers to new parties
viii) siting of wells to avoid interference effects and to achieve efficient use and
appropriate reinjection/production
ix) monitoring, information and data access arrangements, including the
apportioning of costs
x) compliance with consent conditions, including joint reporting.
There is a strong preference for formal agreement(s) between consent holders but an
applicant may demonstrate achievement of this policy by other mechanisms.
[325] The project would, through controlled depletion of the geothermal resource, enable
the energy needs of current and future generations to be provided for in an efficient
manner.
[326] The proposal includes measures intended to remedy or mitigate adverse effects on
other natural and physical resources, including Significant Geothermal Features and
the built environment. This is to be achieved partly by way of a continuation of the
existing management regime codified in the consents already held by Contact for the
Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System and partly through conditions of consent.
[327] The Opepe Farm Trust was of the opinion that the proposed take would effectively
“lock up” the geothermal resource such that there would be no possibility of any
future energy developments, which presumably in time would include proposals put
forward by tangata whenua groups, on the Tauhara Field. The Trust requested
conditions of consent that sought to establish a “stepped take” regime, the
91
progression of which would be based on proven mitigation of environmental effects to
minor levels. Other tangata whenua submitters negotiated an agreed position with
Contact to protect their future aspirations by way of mitigation processes.
[328] Fears surrounding the “locking up” of the resource go to the matter of the
sustainability of the proposed take – a matter which we have discussed in some
detail. The evidence satisfies us that the granting of this application would not lock
up the resource to the detriment of others. We have found that the resource is
sufficiently large to enable additional development to be undertaken by other parties
if they so decide.
[329] Regional Plan Policy 5 seeks to ensure that where there are multiple large take
holders in a system, activities are undertaken to ensure integrated management of
the resource and adequate control of adverse effects. The primary mechanism to
achieve this is through a Multiple Operator Agreement, with any associated
amendments of the System Management Plan if required.
[330] In this case the only other holder of a consent to take a large amount of geothermal
fluid from the Wairakei-Tauhara Geothermal System is Geotherm Group Ltd (In
Receivership). While Geotherm has consents, it is not currently exercising these
consents and we have no evidence as to when, if at all, they will be exercised.
Geotherm is not a submitter to these proceedings. In such circumstances there is no
activity that requires to be integrated.
Discharge and Reinjection
[331] The following group of policy provisions from the Policy Statement and Regional Plan
specifically addresses discharges from and reinjection to Development Geothermal
Systems.
[332] Regional Policy Statement
Policy Three: Reinjection / Injection
For large takes of geothermal energy and water from Development Geothermal
Systems, the geothermal water remaining after use is to be reinjected / injected in
92
accordance with a Discharge Strategy forming part of a System Management Plan
which shall consider the following matters, as relevant to:
a) Dispose of waste water;
b) Return geothermal water to that system;
c) Facilitate further extraction of energy from the system;
d) Avoid or mitigate potential differential subsidence, and remedy or mitigate the
adverse effects of subsidence, particularly in the built environment
e) Reduce the risk of hydrothermal eruptions particularly in the built environment;
f) Remedy or mitigate significant adverse effects on Significant Geothermal
Features; and
g) Avoid, remedy or mitigate contamination of surface and ground waters.
Such Discharge Strategy shall also have regard to:
i. Any likely benefits to or adverse effects on the system or its productive
capacity;
ii. The need for adaptive management and flexibility over time.
iii. The benefits, costs and adverse effects of the Discharge Strategy;
iv. The need to avoid or mitigate potential differential subsidence, and remedy or
mitigate the adverse effects of subsidence, particularly in the built environment;
and
v. The need to reduce the risk of hydrothermal eruptions particularly in the built
environment.
[333] Regional Plan
Objective 7
Significant adverse effects on fresh water and land arising from the discharge of
geothermal energy and water avoided.
Policy 12: Discharges of Geothermal Energy and Water onto Land and into
Fresh Water
Ensure that discharges of geothermal energy and water onto land and into fresh
water after efficient and appropriate use are limited such that the adverse effects are
no more than minor.
93
Policy 13: Discharge Strategy for Large Discharges of Geothermal Energy and
Water in Development Geothermal Systems
For large discharges of geothermal energy and water, reinjection / injection is to be
undertaken in accordance with a Discharge Strategy prepared for each Development
Geothermal System.
[334] The System Management Plan for the proposal, required by the conditions of
consent, contains a Discharge Strategy as required by the Policy Statement and
Regional Plan. This is subject to the approval of the Peer Review Panel and the
Regional Council. The Discharge Strategy addresses the matters that are required
to be considered by the Policy Statement and Plan. In particular the Discharge
Strategy addresses the need for adaptive management and flexibility over time.
[335] The large reinjection area sought would allow flexibility of reinjection locations while
the management regime proposed addresses the targeted reinjection that may be
required to avoid subsidence effects as required by Policy 3 of the Policy Statement.
We have discussed in some detail aspects of the reinjection/injection strategy. We
find that the adaptive management approach reflected in the System Management
Plan is in accordance with the Discharge and Reinjection provisions of the Regional
Policy Statement and Regional Plan.
Significant Geothermal Features
[336] The following group of policy provisions from the Policy Statement and Regional Plan
specifically address Significant Geothermal Features within Development
Geothermal Systems:
[337] Regional Policy Statement
Policy Five: Management of Significant Geothermal Features in Development
Geothermal Systems
Allow for the efficient take, use, and discharge of geothermal energy and water in
Development Geothermal Systems while remedying or mitigating within the Regional
94
Geothermal Resource, significant adverse effects on Significant Geothermal
Features.
[338] Regional Plan
Objective 2
In Development Geothermal Systems, significant adverse effects on Significant
Geothermal Features arising from the take of geothermal energy and water to be
remedied or mitigated within the Regional Geothermal Resource
Policy 6: Significant Geothermal Features in Development Geothermal Systems
Where significant adverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features in
Development Geothermal Systems are to be remedied or mitigated, the remediation
and mitigation may include:
the take and return of geothermal water being managed to remedy or mitigate
significant adverse effects on those Significant Geothermal Features affected, or
adverse effects on features of the same or similar type (defined in the glossary)
being remedied or mitigated to an extent commensurate with the adverse effect
being caused (‗like for like‘ mitigation).
Policy 10: Adverse Effects of Land Use and Take, Use and Discharge of Water
on Significant Geothermal Features
Ensure that land use and the take, use and discharge of non-geothermal water avoid
significant adverse effects on Significant Geothermal Features.
[339] We find that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the regional statutory
instruments that relate to the protection of Significant Geothermal Features.
[340] Within the Tauhara Field there are several different Significant Geothermal Features.
Among the features are the Broadlands Road Scenic Reserve and the Waipahihi
Stream Conservation Area. We were informed by the Department of Conservation at
the hearing170 that the Broadlands Road Scenic Reserve, in addition to its geothermal
170
Ongley opening submission at [3.3 and 3.4]
95
features contains one of the most extensive examples of prostrate kanuka in New
Zealand. The Waipahihi area contains springs and the Onekeneke Stream that have
remained relatively unmodified by the existing geothermal development on the
System. The Stream has been affected by other developments.
[341] The evidence demonstrated that potential adverse effects on Significant Geothermal
Features would more than likely be minor, when compared to those that would occur
naturally. It signalled that there is some uncertainty as to the extent and character of
those effects and thus what the extent of effects on Significant Geothermal Features
may be.
[342] To avoid any uncertainty, the Department of Conservation proposed:
To extend the current approach of providing off-site mitigation of any adverse
effects by physical enhancement or financial contributions to the Wairakei
Environmental Mitigation Trust; and
Additional monitoring of Significant Geothermal Features and the sharing of
information.
The Department‟s proposal was accepted by Contact. These conditions adequately
address any uncertainty.
Effects of Take, Use and Discharge
[343] The following group of policy provisions from the Policy Statement and Regional Plan
specifically address adverse effects of take, use and discharge in Development
Geothermal Systems.
[344] Regional Policy Statement
Policy Six: Adverse Effects of Take, Use, and Discharge in Development
Geothermal Systems
When taking, using, or discharging geothermal energy and water in Development
Geothermal Systems, avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects on non-
geothermal natural and physical resources, including overlying structures (the built
environment).
96
[345] Regional Plan
Objective 5
In Development Geothermal Systems, adverse effects on other natural and physical
resources including overlying structures (the built environment), such as those
resulting from subsidence and land instability, arising from the take, use, and
discharge of geothermal energy or water to be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
Policy 11: Effects of Geothermal Resource Use on Other Natural and Physical
Resources, including Overlying Structures (the Built Environment)
When taking, using, or discharging geothermal energy and water in Development
Geothermal Systems, avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects on non-
geothermal natural and physical resources, including overlying structures (the built
environment).
Where there is scientific uncertainty and a threat of serious or irreversible adverse
effects on natural and physical resources including overlying structures (the built
environment) adopt a precautionary approach.
[346] The Tauhara Field underlies significant urbanised areas of Taupo township, and peri-
urban areas around the fringes of the town. Four subsidence bowls have developed
around Taupo and Wairakei. The System Management Plan provided by Contact
records that in most of these areas it is an agreed assumption that the subsidence is
caused primarily by activities undertaken by geothermal power development.
[347] Policy 11 of the Regional Plan directs a precautionary approach to be taken where
there is scientific uncertainty and a threat of serious or irreversible effects on the built
environment and other natural and physical resources. In this regard, Contact
undertook significant scientific investigatory and modelling work to establish the
cause of subsidence, and to predict and mitigate future subsidence. This work was
summarised in the evidence of Professor O‟Sullivan and Mr Bromley. We have
already referred to this in some detail.
97
[348] In terms of the built environment, Mr Booth171 has opined that any physical damage
can be repaired and has provided a cost estimate for that.
[349] The investigatory and modelling work suggests that over time, with the
implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, there will be no serious
adverse effects on natural and physical resources. With specific regard to the built
environment, it is anticipated that subsidence rates in three of the bowls can be
managed and possibly stabilised.
[350] It is apparent from the evidence that there is still some uncertainty as to what
subsidence related effects may occur. A number of submitters were concerned
about this uncertainty.
[351] We find on the evidence, that the mitigation measures proposed, the monitoring
provisions required, the oversight and control required by the Regional Council
through the Peer Review Panel and the remediation provisions satisfy the
precautionary approach. The take and reinjection will be constrained by conditions of
consent requiring an adaptive and detailed monitoring regime.
Air Quality
[352] The following policy provisions from the Policy Statement and Regional Plan relate to
air quality issues.
[353] Regional Policy Statement
3.6.3 Regional and Local Air Quality
Objective: Significant characteristics of areas of:
a) high air quality protected
b) degraded air quality enhanced
c) other air quality maintained
Policy Four: Adverse Effects on Human Health
Discharges to air managed in a way that is designed to avoid adverse effects on
human health.
171
Booth EiC at [12.25]
98
[354] Regional Plan
Objective 1:
Significant characteristics of air quality as identified in Table 6-1 are:
a. protected where they are high
b. enhanced where they are degraded
c. otherwise maintained.
Objective 2:
No significant adverse effects from individual site sources on the characteristics of air
quality beyond property boundary.
Objective 3:
Cumulative effects of discharges on ambient air quality do not:
a. present more than a minor threat to the health of humans, flora and fauna
b. cause odour that is objectionable to the extent that it causes an adverse effect
c. result in levels of suspended or deposited particulate matter that are
objectionable to the extent that they cause adverse effects
d. have a significant adverse effect on visibility
e. cause accelerated corrosion of structures
f. cause significant adverse effects on the relationship tangata whenua as Kaitiaki
have with their identified taonga such as air, ancestral lands, water and waahi
tapu.
Policy 2: Managing Effects of Other Discharges
Manage other discharges of contaminants to air through controlled and discretionary
activity rules having particular regard to the effects of the discharge on:
a. ambient air quality compared to the Regional Ambient Air Quality Guidelines
(RAAQG) levels provided in Chapter 6.3,
b. ambient air quality compared to internationally accepted air quality guidelines or
standards for managing and understanding the effects of contaminants on
human health, the health of flora and fauna and amenity values,
99
c. ambient odour and particulate matter levels compared to the guidelines for
assessment provided in Chapter 6.4 of the Plan for odour and particulate matter
d. adverse effects from contaminants that are hazardous in ambient air, particularly
with respect to human health,
e. the significant characteristics of air quality within an area,
f. significant adverse effects of the discharge on the identified values of tangata
whenua as Kaitiaki,
g. the sensitivity of the receiving environment,
h. existing ambient air quality and any cumulative effects as a result of the
discharge on the receiving environment,
i. nationally accepted codes of practice for the relevant activity.
Policy 5: Positive Benefits of Resource Use
Recognise the positive benefits to people and communities arising from activities that
affect air quality by enabling a range of activities to use the air (including existing
activities) whilst ensuring that:
a. high quality air resources are protected,
b. degraded air quality is enhanced,
c. adverse effects on air quality are avoided, remedied or mitigated.
[355] We have considered in some detail earlier in this decision, the effects, including
cumulative effects, of the air discharges that will occur from the proposal. We are
satisfied that the detailed conditions or consent that impose standards and require
continuous monitoring would adequately avoid, remedy or mitigate any potential or
actual adverse effects. Any adverse effects that may occur are more than offset by
the positive benefits of the proposal.
Energy
[356] The Policy Statement Energy provisions set out the following Objective and Policy of
relevance to the proposed activities:
Objective:
Efficient use of energy within the Waikato Region.
100
Policy One: Energy Efficiency and Conservation
To promote efficiency and conservation in the production, transmission and
consumption of energy.
[357] As we have said, the proposal will contribute to the efficient use of energy and is
consistent with the policy provisions.
Matters of Significance to Maori
[358] The policy provisions of the Policy Statement and the Regional Plan relating to
matters of significance to Maori reflect the strong directions contained in Part 2 of the
Act. They seek to ensure that the relationship tangata whenua have with their
ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga is recognised and
provided for. Particular regard must be had to the kaitiaki role of tangata whenua
and opportunities for practical expressions of kaitiakitanga must be provided for.
[359] We have found that tangata whenua have a clear relationship with the taonga that is
the geothermal resource. The proposals by the applicant in relation to the
modifications to the kaitiakitanga provisions in the General Conditions are consistent
with these policy provisions. We have discussed this in detail earlier in the decision.
Other Relevant Policy Provisions
[360] Objectives and Policies in other parts of the regional statutory instruments are also
relevant and these are set out in the section 149G report provided by the Regional
Council.
Integrated Management172
[361] The provisions of the Policy Statement promote the integrated management of
natural and physical resources in the Waikato Region. We are satisfied that the
effects on other natural features of the proposed Tauhara II activities are sufficiently
mitigated by the conditions of consent.
172
Section 2.2.2 Regional Policy Statement.
101
Land and Soil173
[362] The Policy Statement requires that the effects of accelerated erosion, and practices
that cause it, should be avoided where practicable, and its adverse effects remedied
or mitigated. Discharges of contaminants into or onto land should be carried out in a
manner that avoids adverse effects on the soil resource. We find that the range of
measures set out in the proposal will achieve the outcomes sought by the provisions.
Mauri and Water Quality174
[363] Tangata whenua concerns relating to the mauri of water need to be recognised and
provided for, while a net improvement of water quality across the Waikato Region is
sought. These provisions are relevant to ground water as well as surface water. The
comprehensive monitoring regime set out for discharges will ensure that any adverse
effects on both ground and surface water would be promptly identified. There are
adequate adaptive management measures put in place to remedy any identified
effects.
Biodiversity175
[364] Biodiversity within the region is to be maintained and enhanced. The Tauhara II
activities have the potential to have adverse effects on thermo-tolerant vegetation.
Conditions of consent have been formulated that require monitoring of such
environments and the characteristics that comprise them. The management of the
reinjection/injection activities are constrained by the Discharge Strategy to ensure the
protection of such ecosystems.
Structures (Infrastructure)176
[365] Regionally significant infrastructure is to be maintained and enhanced through the
avoidance of adverse effects on the safe and efficient operation of such
infrastructure. We agree with the Regional Council that the range of management
173
Section 3.3 Regional Policy Statement. 174
Section 3.4 Regional Policy Statement. 175
Section 3.11 Regional Policy Statement. 176
Section 3.13 Regional Policy Statement.
102
measures put forward in the Contact applications means that the Tauhara II activities
can be carried out in a manner consistent with these policy provisions.
Assessment Criteria
[366] Both the Regional Plan and the District Plan contain assessment criteria that apply.
These criteria are a useful checklist for our assessment purposes. We accept the
view of the Councils that the proposal, subject to the conditions of consent, is
generally consistent with the relevant assessment criteria.
Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement
[367] The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement was notified on 3 November 2010
in accordance with the First Schedule of the Act. It is appropriate that we have
regard to it, subject to its stage in the participatory process.
[368] In his evidence177, Mr Brockelsby said:
The geothermal aspects of the operative RPS are of relatively recent origin having
been finalised in December 2007. I am advised …..that feedback received during the
consultative phase of the RPS review process suggested there was little community
or industry wish for change in this area. As recorded in the s32 document supporting
the proposed RPS (p3-67)):
―Feedback received on the March 2009 Regional Policy Statement discussion
document indicated that geothermal policy…should be carried over into the Proposed
Waikato Regional Policy Statement. This indicates that the regional community
considers it both achievable and reasonable‖.
[369] We have analysed the relevant provisions of the Operative Regional Policy
Statement. Given that there are no material differences between the proposed
statement and operative statements, we are of the view that undertaking a separate
analysis against the geothermal provisions of the proposed statement would add
nothing to our deliberations.
177
EiC at [5.3].
103
[370] Mr Brockelsby opined that the other non-geothermal provisions of the Proposed
Regional Policy Statement, that are relevant to our deliberations, have little or no
significant policy shift from the policy directions contained in the Operative Regional
Policy Statement. He also told us that the proposed statement contains amendments
which are centred around incorporating regional growth provisions as formulated
during the development of the „Future Proof‟ strategy for the Regional Plan. They are
therefore of minimal relevance.
Taupo District Plan
[371] The District Plan became operative on 11 October 2007. We were not made aware
of any changes relevant to these proceedings. The majority of the consent
application area (including the areas subject to the power station, switchyard, and
transmission line land use consents) is within the Rural Environment. A small area of
the consent application area is within the Industrial Environment.
[372] Section 3 of the District Plan sets out the Objectives and Policies applicable within
the relevant Environments and generally throughout the District.
[373] Rural Environment Objectives and Policies – Section 3b.2
OBJECTIVE 1
3b.2.1 The management of the Rural Environment to maintain and enhance rural
amenity and character.
POLICIES
Maintain and enhance the amenity and character of the Rural Environment
by providing land use performance standards and subdivision rules to
manage the scale and density of development.
....
iii. Maintain the open space and dispersed building character.
iv. Provide for a range of productive land use activities within the Rural
Environment while ensuring any adverse effects are avoided, remedied or
mitigated.
....
104
OBJECTIVE 4
3b.2.4 The efficient and effective functioning of the Rural Environment by enabling
the use and development of natural and physical resources, while ensuring
appropriate environmental outcomes are achieved.
POLICIES
v. To recognise the important role of resource use and development in the Rural
Environment, by providing for the continued operation and associated
development of existing electricity generation facilities and network utilities by
allowing their use, maintenance and minor upgrading where all additional
significant adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.
OBJECTIVE 5
3b.2.5 The protection of adjoining Environments from the adverse effects of activities
within the Rural Environment.
POLICY
i. Manage the potential for adverse effects of activities in the Rural Environment
at the interface of this and other more sensitive Environments.
[374] These objectives and related policies seek to protect the existing amenity levels of
the Rural Environment while recognising the importance of electricity production.
The Plan recognises the enabling aspect of developing natural and physical
resources subject to appropriate environmental outcomes. We have discussed the
visual and other amenity related effects of the proposal earlier in this decision. We
have also discussed reverse sensitivity effects and the effects of the proposal on the
rural environment. We have found that the effects on the rural amenity are
sufficiently mitigated by the conditions of consent.
105
[375] Industrial Environment Objectives and Policies – Section 3d.2
OBJECTIVE 1
3d.2.1 The maintenance of the environmental qualities and functioning of the
Industrial Environment.
POLICIES
Maintain the qualities of the Industrial Environment through controlling the bulk,
location and nature of activities, to ensure an appropriate scale and intensity of
buildings and activities that are consistent with an industrial scale of
development; i.e. an appropriate density of activity and level of environmental
effects, while allowing the functioning of the area to be maintained.
Encourage a wide range of activities within the Industrial Environment, including
any activity with nuisance elements not appropriate for any other Environment,
while ensuring any adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.
OBJECTIVE 2
3d.2.2 The protection of adjoining Environments from the adverse effects of activities
within the Industrial Environment.
POLICY
i. Control the effects of activities within the Industrial Environment so the scale
of development and level of environmental effects does not adversely affect
the amenity of the other Environments of the District.
[376] The above Objectives and Policies provide for the establishment and operation of
activities in the Industrial Environment. They endeavour to provide that excessive
off-site effects do not occur, and that the adjacent environment, as well as the
amenity of the wider community is protected.
106
[377] Any such adverse effects can be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated
through the design and operation of the proposal, which has to be approved by the
District Council. It is mainly geothermal pipelines that will be located in the Industrial
Environment.
[378] Land Development Objectives and Policies – Section 3e.2
OBJECTIVE 4
3e.2.4 Avoid the degradation of Taupo District‘s lakes, waterways and aquifers from
effluent and waste water resulting from land development.
POLICIES
i. Implement integrated land management strategies in conjunction with
Regional Authorities that will avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse environmental
effects on Taupo District‘s lakes, waterways and aquifers.
OBJECTIVE 5
3e.2.5 Ensure land development does not detract from the amenity value or qualities
of the local environment.
POLICIES
i. Ensure that proposals for the subdivision and development of land assess the
particular amenity values of the area including the physical characteristics of
the land and avoids, remedies or mitigates any adverse effects.
[379] The proposed power station will not be close to any lakes or permanent waterways.
The waterway adjacent to the power station site is ephemeral. Sewage effluent
disposal is proposed to be undertaken from the power station by way of conventional
and well proven methods.
[380] We are satisfied that appropriate conditions can be applied to ensure adverse effects
are avoided or mitigated, and as such the application is consistent with Objective 4
and its associated policy.
107
[381] The Tauhara II development would generate adverse effects on the amenity values
of the local environment, however these effects can be mitigated by way of
conditions so that they would not be more than minor. The area is clearly identified in
the District Plan as being suitable for geothermal development.
[382] Traffic and Transport Objectives and Policies – Section 3f.2
OBJECTIVE 1
3f.2.1 The safe and efficient operation of the roading network, and movement of
traffic, including cyclists and pedestrians within the District.
POLICIES
i. Ensure activities avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on the
operation and function of the roading network, including the movement of
traffic cyclists and pedestrians, as accordance with the Roading Hierarchy.
ii. Encourage activities, including the design and location of new vehicle
crossings, to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic, including
cyclists and pedestrians.
[383] This Objective and Policies seek to ensure that activities do not adversely affect the
safe and efficient operation of the roading network. The proposal would result in a
significant increase in traffic movements during the construction period, but traffic
movements would be relatively low after construction. This temporary increase would
require upgrading to be undertaken to the roading network. A Construction Traffic
Management Plan is also required, and was prepared, to address this. Our view is
that the proposal is consistent with the above Objective and Policies.
108
[384] Tangata Whenua Cultural Values Objectives and Policies – Section 3g.2
OBJECTIVE 1
3g.2.1 Recognise and provide for the cultural and spiritual values of Tangata
Whenua in managing the effects of activities within the District.
POLICIES
i. Take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)
in the management of the natural and physical resources of the District.
ii. Ensure activities have regard for the cultural values of Tangata Whenua as
Kaitiaki of their culture, traditions, ancestral lands, water and other taonga.
iii. Ensure activities on or near Sites of Significance to Tangata Whenua are
undertaken in a manner which provides for the cultural and spiritual value and
significance of the site.
[385] These provisions reflect Part 2 of the Act and the Regional Policy Statement and
Plan. We have already found that the interests of tangata whenua have been
adequately addressed.
[386] Natural Hazards and Unstable Ground Objectives and Policies – Section
3l.2
OBJECTIVE 1
3l.2.1 Protection of activities, development and life from the adverse effects of
natural hazards.
POLICIES
i. Control the design and location of activities and development within identified
natural hazard areas, or areas which have significant potential to be affected
by a natural hazard, to avoid or mitigate the effects of the natural hazard.
ii. Manage the location, design, and type of new activities and development to
avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of flooding, erosion, ground rupture and
109
deformation, hot ground and land instability on development and the
community.
OBJECTIVE 2
3l.2.2 Activities and development do not create, accelerate, displace, or increase
the effects of a natural hazard.
POLICIES
i. Ensure that activities do not alter or change the nature of a natural hazard
event, increase the intensity of a natural hazard event or increase the risk of
the event occurring.
ii. Ensure that activities and structures do not increase the risk to the community
or the environment from the effects of natural hazards.
iii. Ensure that where development occurs within areas subject to the effects of
natural hazards, property owners and/or occupiers are informed of and
manage the risk.
iv. Control the location and presence of hazardous substances in areas subject
to natural hazards to ensure that there is no increase in the effects of the
natural hazard or risk to the community from hazardous substances.
[387] The Plan identifies two fault lines traversing the site. Submitters raised the potential
for the take and reinjection/injection activities to induce seismic activity on the faults,
and also to induce hydrothermal eruptions. Differential subsidence was also an
issue.
[388] We have discussed in some detail the potential effects of the proposal on differential
subsidence, reinjection/injection and its potential effects on seismic activity and the
possibility of hydrothermal eruptions. The proposed activity has the potential to
cause differential subsidence and changes to surface activity. We are satisfied on
the evidence that the management measures under the conditions of consent
adequately mitigate these issues.
110
[389] Hazardous Substances Objectives and Policies – Section 3m.2
OBJECTIVE 1
3m.2.1 Protection of the environment and the health and safety of the community,
from the adverse effects of hazardous substances associated with hazardous
facilities.
POLICIES
i. Ensure that hazardous facilities are appropriately located to avoid or mitigate
adverse effects on the environment and unacceptable risks to the
environment and community.
ii. Ensure that hazardous facilities are designed and managed to avoid or
mitigate adverse effects and unacceptable risks to the environment and
community.
[390] This Objective and Policies seek to ensure that the storage and use of hazardous
substances are undertaken in a manner that does not present a risk to the
community and potential adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated. The
conditions of consent require the applicant to prepare a Hazardous Substances
report which includes procedures for the management of the hazardous substances
that will be used on site. This has been completed. The conditions of consent are
consistent with the Objective and related Policies.
[391] Network Utilities Objectives and Policies – Section 3n.2
OBJECTIVE 1
3n.2.1 To enable the operation, maintenance and upgrading of existing Network
Utilities and the provision of new Network Utilities.
111
POLICIES
ii. Provide for the establishment of new Network Utilities in a way that, as far as
practicable, recognises the characteristics and amenity of the different
Environment areas.
iii. Have regard for the technical and operational requirements of Network
Utilities and the contribution they make to the functioning and well being of the
community.
OBJECTIVE 2
3n.2.2 Network Utilities are designed and located to avoid, remedy or mitigate
adverse effects on the environment and protect the health and safety of the
community.
POLICIES
i. The establishment, operation, maintenance or upgrading of Network Utilities
does not compromise the health and safety of the community
ii. Avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential adverse effects of the location and
siting of new Network Utilities on significant landscape features and the
amenity and character of the District.
iii. ...
iv. Encourage Network Utilities to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on
the environment by co-siting or sharing facilities where this is technically
practical and feasible while having regard to the best practicable option for the
siting or sharing of facilities.
v. Recognise that Network Utility services can maintain and enhance the social
and economic well-being of communities.
[392] The Objectives and Policies recognise the need for network utilities but identify that
consideration must be given to the amenity of the area in which they are located, the
health and safety of the community and measures to ensure that adverse effects are
mitigated. As part of this application, a minor realignment of the existing 220 kV
transmission line is proposed, to connect the power station into the national grid via
the switch yard. Given that the transmission towers are an existing feature of the
112
environment, we consider that the realignment will largely maintain the current
character of the area, and sufficient separation is provided between the lines and
public areas such as roads. The proposal is consistent with the above Objectives
and Policies.
[393] Geothermal Activity Objectives and Policies – Section 3o.2
OBJECTIVE 1
3o.2.1 Enable and manage the effects of land use activities associated with
geothermal resource use and development.
POLICIES
i. ...
ii. To enable land uses associated with the use of geothermal resources in a
manner which avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects on the
environment.
iii. To control the land use effects associated with the use of geothermal
resources by way of environmental performance standards in rules and
conditions on resource consents.
[394] A reading of this Objective and Policies in conjunction with the “Explanation” and
“Principal Reasons for Adoption”, makes it clear that the District Plan anticipates the
development of Development Geothermal Systems subject to appropriate
constraints. The detailed conditions of consent, which include a suite of
Management Plans, would adequately constrain the development from adverse
effects on the environment that are more than minor.
113
Overall Conclusion on the Relevant Planning Instruments
[395] In considering the proposal against the relevant provision of the planning
instruments, we are assisted by the careful and detailed analysis presented to us by
Mr Chrisp. We agree with his overall conclusion178 that the project is consistent with
the relevant Objectives and Policies for the following reasons:
(i) The proposal is an activity that is specifically provided for in the Objectives
and Policies of the Regional Policy Statement, the Regional Plan and the
District Plan;
(ii) The proposal is subject to a System Management Plan, which includes a
Discharge Strategy, as is required by the relevant statutory instruments;
(iii) The proposal would result in the efficient use of a geothermal resource which
is identified as a Development Geothermal System;
(iv) The power station site is located in a rural area but the effects on the rural
amenities are constrained and there are other compatible land uses in the
vicinity, such as a quarry, forestry and a motorsport park; and
(v) The agreements made with the Maori parties address the provisions relating
to Maori in the statutory instruments.
178
Chrisp EiC at [1.4].
114
PART 2 OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991
Section 5
[396] In deciding the application we have regard to Part 2 of the Act. Section 5(1)
establishes the purpose of the Act as being:
.....to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources......
[397] Section 5(2) defines “sustainable management”:
(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development,
and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which
enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and
cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while—
(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding
minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future
generations; and
(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and
ecosystems; and
(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on
the environment.
[398] Section 5 of the Act requires a broad overall judgement on whether or not a proposal
promotes the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The
approach allows comparison of conflicting considerations, their scale or degree and
their relative significance.
Section 6
[399] We are required to recognise and provide for the following matters of national
importance:
(a) ...
115
(b) the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from
inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:
(c) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant
habitats of indigenous fauna:
(d) …
(e) the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral
lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga:
(f) the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and
development:
(g) the protection of recognised customary activities.
Section 7
[400] We must also have particular regard to the relevant matters set out in section 7.
These are:
(a) kaitiakitanga:
(aa) the ethic of stewardship:
(b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:
(ba) the efficiency of the end use of energy:
(c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:
(d) intrinsic values of ecosystems:
(e) [Repealed]
(f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:
(g) any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources:
(h) ...
(i) the effects of climate change:
(j) the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable
energy.
116
Section 8
[401] In considering the proposal we are required to take into account the principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi. Section 8 states:
In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers
under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and
physical resources shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te
Tiriti o Waitangi).
Assessment
[402] We now assess our findings against the framework of Part 2. The overarching
purpose of the Act, as set out in Section 5, is to achieve sustainable management of
natural and physical resources. The purpose, as expressed in section 5, is informed
by the hierarchical precepts promulgated in sections 6, 7 and 8.
[403] The proposal will enable people and communities to provide for their social,
economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety by the provision of
electricity. Additionally, a number of positive effects, identified by us earlier in this
decision, will augment that enabling factor. These include:
(i) The contribution the project will make to addressing climate change;
(ii) The contribution the project will make to achieving the nation‟s targeted
renewable energy goal; and
(iii) The expected local, regional and national economic benefits.
[404] We are satisfied on the evidence before us that the project does not give rise to any
issue in respect of the life supporting capacity of air, water and soil. The evidence of
Mr Bromley addresses the effects of the proposed reinjection/injection of separated
geothermal fluid, and concludes that, with proper management within the framework
of conditions, the life supporting capacity of the geothermal system can be
adequately protected.
[405] Key issues before us are, the extent to which potential adverse effects of the
proposal would be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated. This was the
117
subject matter of much of the evidence that was put before us, and we have
considered in some detail the measures put in place to address the potential adverse
effects. We have found, that while there would be some effects adverse to the
environment, they can be appropriately mitigated.
[406] The proposal will not give rise to any issues in relation to sections 6(a) – (d) and (f) –
(g) of the Act:
(i) No new development is proposed in proximity to the coastal environment,
wetlands, or lakes. The only activity in the vicinity of the Waikato River
(geothermal pipelines potentially being attached to an existing bridge) is a
permitted activity under the Regional Plan;
(ii) There are no outstanding natural features or landscapes affected by the
proposed activities – while there is some effect on the landscape values of
Mount Tauhara we are satisfied that they have been adequately mitigated by
the conditions of consent;
(iii) Areas of significant indigenous vegetation and/or significant habitats of
indigenous fauna will be either avoided or managed in accordance with the
relevant geothermal policy regime;
(iv) Public access to and along the margins of the coastal marine area, lakes and
rivers will not be affected by the proposal; no area of historic heritage that we
are aware of will be adversely affected by any of the proposed development;
and
(v) There are no customary activities, other than Maori cultural matters that we
address elsewhere, that would be adversely affected by the proposal.
[407] With regard to section 6(e), the submissions representing Maori interests raised
concerns about the potential effects of the proposal on Maori. We have already
discussed these issues. Many of them were addressed from an environmental
perspective by a number of witnesses. In particular:
(i) Mr Williamson in relation to land and ground water quality issues;
(ii) Mr Bromley and Mr Bixley in relation to surface geothermal features and
subsidence;
(iii) Dr Brady in relation to air quality;
(iv) Professors O‟Sullivan and Horne and Mr Carey in relation to geothermal
resource sustainability; and
118
(v) Mr Lister in relation to visual effects.
[408] Notwithstanding the technical environmental matters addressed by the expert
witnesses, we have found that the proposal would have substantial adverse effects
on Maori and their taonga. These adverse effects would be mitigated by conditions
of consent, agreed to by the majority of Maori submitters. Heads of Agreement that
address the possible future utilisation of the resource by Maori have also been
signed between Contact and many of the Maori parties. We have discussed in some
detail these mitigation measures earlier in the decision. We have found that to the
extent possible under the Act, Maori concerns have been addressed.
[409] Under section 7(b) we are required to have regard to the efficient use and
development of resources. We have found on the evidence that the proposal is an
efficient development of the Tauhara Field and will not hinder future possible
developments of the resource. As for section 7(ba) relating to the efficiency of the
end use of the resource, that is a matter over which we have no control.
[410] The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values and the quality of the
environment are pertinent considerations. We have discussed the evidence relating
to the effect of the proposal on the neighbouring amenity. We have found that with
respect to noise, discharges to air and landscape, the effects of the proposal as
constrained by the conditions of consent, will not be more than minor.
[411] Having regard to all the above we find that the proposal, subject to the terms and
conditions of consent, set out in Volume 2, meets the single purpose of “sustainable
management” as defined in, and informed by, the provisions of Part 2 of the Act.
119
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION
[412] We summarise the main matters and findings of fact that underlay our decision:
(i) The Minister‟s reasons:
The matter involves, or is likely to involve, significant use of natural and
physical resources:
Geothermal systems are a natural resource limited to a relatively small
area of New Zealand. The Tauhara II proposal for a power station
with a generating capacity of 240 to 250 mega watts will involve
significant use of the Wairakei-Tauhara geothermal resource. The
Tauhara field represents probably [the] largest developable
geothermal resource in the Taupo Volcanic Zone.
The matter affects or is likely to affect or is relevant to New Zealand‘s
international obligations to the global environment:
The proposal is relevant to New Zealand‘s international obligations to
the global environment under the Kyoto Protocol because it will
develop a renewable energy generation resource that will reduce the
emission of green house gas per unit of electricity produced in New
Zealand.‖
(ii) We have identified a number of potential positive effects that will result from
the proposal – all of them uncontested;
(iii) There is the potential for a number of adverse effects. However, the
conditions of consent will adequately avoid, remedy, or mitigate those effects
– for the reasons set out in our decision;
(iv) The proposal is generally, and in some cases specifically, consistent with,
and in accordance with, the relevant provisions of Part 2 of the Act – for the
reasons set out in our decision; and
(v) The proposal is generally, and in some cases specifically, consistent with,
and in accordance with, the relevant statutory instruments – for the reasons
set out in our decision.
120
[413] In the exercise of our discretion we are required to balance and weigh our findings
within the framework of the statutory directions contained in the Act and the relevant
statutory instruments. We have found that the proposal, subject to the conditions of
consent contained in Volume 2 of this decision, will:
(i) Have no adverse effect on the environment that is more than minor;
(ii) Provide for the enabling of the communities economic, social and cultural
wellbeing;
(iii) Sustain the potential of the Tauhara Field for future generations;
(iv) Safeguard the life supporting capacity of air, water, soil and the ecosystem of
the Tauhara Field; and
(v) Maintain amenity values and the quality of the surrounding environment.
[414] The Minister‟s reasons for exercising his discretion to refer the matter to this Board of
Inquiry reflect the statutory directions contained in sections 7(i) and (j) of the Act – to
have particular regard to the effects of climate change and the benefits to be derived
from renewable energy.
[415] A proposal of this size, scale and nature cannot help but have some adverse effects
on the environment. The participatory process identified a number of areas of
particular concern to submitters. The same process facilitated a tightening of the
conditions, which sufficiently mitigated those areas of concern to the extent, that only
four submitters who attended the Hearing remained opposed in whole, or in part, by
its end.
[416] After a careful assessment of the evidence within the framework of the Act we find
that the proposal, subject to the conditions of consent contained in Volume 2, as
amended by this decision, will adequately address the concerns raised by the
submitters. We exercise our discretion and grant the consents sought subject to the
conditions of consent in Volume 2 of this decision, as amended.
Lapse Periods
[417] The standard lapse period for any resource consent issued under the Act is five
years. That is, a consent holder has five years from the date on which a resource
consent is granted within which to give effect to it.
121
[418] Section 125 of the Act allows for an applicant for a resource consent to seek a longer
lapse period. In this case, Contact has applied for a 10 year lapse period for all of
the resource consents sought, apart from the variations to consent conditions.
[419] We find that it is appropriate to grant the requested 10 year lapse period for the
following reasons:
(i) The implementation of the project may be delayed by international economic
influences that are beyond the control of the consent holder;
(ii) National energy demand has flattened out in the last four years. Accordingly
any new generation facilities, particularly of the maximum generation capacity
of the proposal, may not need to be implemented until such time as the national
demand increases to sufficient levels to make implementation of the additional
generation economic;
(iii) No party to the proceedings raised any objections to the requested lapse
period; and
(iv) The scale and significance of the proposal is such that an extended
procurement and pre-planning phase may be required.
Section 127
[420] Contact has applied under section 127 of the Act to amend a number of the „General
Conditions‟ attached to the resource consents for the Wairakei, Te Mihi and Tauhara
I Geothermal Power Stations, and to include an additional condition on an existing
resource consent held by Contact to take water from the Waikato River for drilling
and testing and other purposes179.
[421] Applications under section 127 must be assessed as if the application were for a
discretionary activity. Our decision on the section 127 applications must take account
only of the effects of the changes requested. We are not required to revisit the
decisions on the existing consents.
[422] The additional condition proposed for consent 961044 clarifies that the water taken
from the Waikato River is to be used for activities associated with either the Tauhara
179
Waikato Regional Council consent 961044 – authorisation to take up to 10,000 tonnes per day of water from the Waikato River for drilling and testing and other purposes.
122
I or Tauhara II projects. The amendments to the „General Conditions‟ simply align
them with the updated System Management Plan for the Wairakei-Tauhara
Geothermal System as proposed in the Tauhara II proposal.
[423] We have found that none of these changes would cause more than minor adverse
effects on the environment. The changes are consistent with the relevant policy
provisions to which we must have regard.
[424] Accordingly we find that the purpose of the Act would be achieved by granting the
applications made by Contact under section 127 of the Act.
124
Appendix 1: Plan of Tauhara II Geothermal Development Project
125
Appendix 1: Plan of Tauhara II Geothermal Development Project
126
Appendix 2: Comments received pursuant to s149Q from Contact Energy
Limited
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
Appendix 3: Comments received pursuant to s149Q from Taupo District
Council
135
136
137
______________________________________________________________________
Appendix 4: Comments received pursuant to s149Q from Tauhara Moana
Trust
138
139
Appendix 5: Comments received pursuant to s149Q from Mr Jack Waters
140
Appendix 5: Comments received pursuant to s149Q from Mr Jack Waters
Hi Jenny
Not to miss the deadline - just a quick response to your 29 October letter.
Re volume 1, [85] on page 29.
I have been identified, among others, as one of the submitters who "remained opposed to the
proposal".
This is factually incorrect. I have never been opposed to the proposal - my submission was neutral.
Therefore, for the record, I suggest this mis-statement should be corrected.
Regards
Jack Waters
141
Appendix 6: Wairakei Naming Conventions
142
2772000 2774000 2776000 2778000 2780000 2782000 2784000
6276000
6278000
6280000
6282000
6284000
6286000
477480
207
215
216
228
229
232 233
235
236
237
239
610
TH2
301303
680
304
305
307
308
310
306
309
KARAPITI
TemihiWestern
Borefield
Eastern
Borefield
Southern
Poihipi Infield
Injection
Area
Poihipi West
Te Mihi North
Aratiatia Outfield
Tauhara
Wairakei South
Appendix 6: Wairakei Naming Conventions
Otupu
143
Appendix 7: Tauhara Naming Conventions
144
Appendix 7: Tauhara Naming Conventions
145
Appendix 8: Map of Proposed Development Areas with Indicative Production
& Reinjection Areas
146
Appendix 8: Map of Proposed Development Areas with Indicative Production and Reinjection (RI) Areas
147
Appendix 9: Diagram of Dual Pressure (Double Flash), Condensing Steam
Turbine Plant
148
Appendix 9: Diagram of Dual pressure (double flash), condensing steam turbine plant
149
Appendix 10: List of Witnesses
150
Appendix 10: List of Witnesses Table 1: Contact Witnesses
Name Evidence Topic includes:
Mr James Kilty Approach to sustainability, energy context for the project, background to
geothermal development, internalising adverse environmental effects
and tangata whenua engagement
Mr Lindsay Stanfield Project description, introduction and fixed elements of Tauhara II
Mr Robin Stewart Grid connection
Mr Tom Zink Description of how Tauhara II will be managed to a successful
conclusion, Environmental Management Systems, Steamfield Design
Protocol
Mr Andrew Gough Civil engineering - discharges to land associated with construction and
operation, stormwater management plan, erosion and sediment control
Mr David Drysdale Carbon Footprinting and "Life Cycle Assessment"
Mr David Hunt Expected benefits from a national perspective
Dr James Renwick Climate change
Mr Sean Bevin Economic assessment
Mr Craig Stephenson Environmental management system, consultation
Mr Gavin Lister Landscape character and amenity
Mr Brett Harries Traffic
Mr Malcolm Hunt Noise
Dr Rod Clough Archaeology
Dr Bruce Burns Ecology
Dr Ian Boothroyd Aquatic ecology
Dr Terrence Brady Emissions to air
Mr Jon Williamson Discharges of separated geothermal water and condensate to ground
Dr Mike Dunstall Subsidence
Mr Michael Rosenberg Geological sequence and structural features
Mr Paul Bixley Overview of geothermal resource, production philosophy, logic
underlying the proposed management and monitoring
Mr Brian Carey Consent applications lodged in 1996 and 1997, hapu consultation and
geothermal resource sustainability
151
Professor Roland Horne Review of "Wairakei-Tauhara Modelling Report" dated February 2010,
prepared by Professor Michael O'Sullivan and Mr Angus Yeh
Professor Michael
O‟Sullivan
Computer modelling studies of the Wairakei - Tauhara geothermal
system on behalf of Contact
Mr Stephen Currie Building levelling surveys, ground level surveys and horizontal surveys
Professor Michael
Pender
Subsidence
Mr Christopher Bromley Scientific information and interpretation associated with resource
consent applications by Contact
Dr Richard Allis External reviewer - Subsidence investigations
Mr Derek Booth Subsidence - actual and potential building and infrastructure effects
Mr Graeme Beattie Review of DBCon report titled "Contact Energy Tauhara Stage II
Geothermal Project; Building and Infrastructure Effects Report"
Mr Mark Chrisp Regulatory and policy framework under the Resource Management Act
1991
Mr Stephen Daysh Proposed resource consent conditions
Table 2: Witnesses for Submitters
Submission
Number
Submitter Witness Evidence
Topic
includes:
5 Ian A Thain Mr Ian Thain Efficiency
6 Opepe Farm Trust Mr Temuera Hall
Dr Charlotte
Severne
Maori cultural
matters
16 Taupo District Council Mr David Greaves Planning
21 Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Authority
Mr Robert Harper Energy
29 Department of Conservation Ms Pauline Jenkins Ecology
32 Ngā Hapū o Tauhara Mr Mataara Wall
Mr Lennie Johns
Mr Geoff Rameka
Maori cultural
matters
52 Christine Karaitiana-Kidwell Ms Christine
Karaitiana-Kidwell
Maori cultural
matters
152
53 Harvey Karaitiana Mr Harvey
Karaitiana
Maori cultural
matters
54 Arthur (Jack) Waters Mr Arthur (Jack)
Waters
Subsidence
remediation
Table 3: Regional Council
Name Evidence Topic includes:
Mr Mark Brockelsby Statutory instruments and conditions of consent
Dr Malcolm Grant Reservoir – in answer to written questions from the Board
153
Appendix 11: Stratigraphy
154
Appendix 11: Stratigraphy
Summary comparison of stratigraphy of the main geological units drilled in geothermal wells at Wairakei and Tauhara fields