We can’t quit
bromide at the port is meeting the standards set by the EPA,’’ the court said.
Several people approached by Stuff declined to comment or wanted their names withheld for fear of damaging relations with the port, one of the area’s biggest employers.
Carratu says he was surprised by the attitude of locals when he raised concerns about the proximity of fumigations to children and families. A sailing coach took umbrage. ‘‘That confused the hell out of me. He talked about the amount the club benefits financially from the port and in shared use of infrastructure – how they couldn’t do what they do without it."
The regional council found Genera was complying with the 25-metre buffer zone required for container fumigations, but signage was inadequate. A formal warning was issued.
But Carratu hasn’t been back. ‘‘I’m not putting my children at risk of that stuff.’’
Anna Woolfrey is another British immigrant who raised concerns about methyl bromide at the port. She was working as an environment, health and safety specialist for stevedore company C3 in 2016 when she became aware that workers were concerned they weren’t being notified about fumigations, according to a source familiar with events.
Woolfrey sent several emails to the port’s health and safety team on a number of issues including methyl bromide, but the source says nothing was done.
She had resigned from her job but was working out a notice period when she sent her final email. ‘‘She got a text the next day to say she was banned from the port, even though she had about a month left to go of her notice,’’ the source says
C3 asked her to sign a non-disclosure agreement – Woolfrey says she can’t comment because of it.
Dan Kneebone, the port’s property and infrastructure manager, says Woolfrey’s port access card was cancelled when her employment was terminated, which is standard. C3 boss Parke Pittar says he can’t discuss past employees, but insists the company encourages staff to report any concerns.
‘‘We respect their right to speak out about environmental, health and safety issues and encourage their ideas and suggestions for improvement.’’
Kneebone says the port has no problem with people talking about methyl bromide, and notes the company gave the action group a tour of the port to help it better understand the issue.
Fumigation is a complex problem with no easy solution, he says. The port maintains dialogue with major users and provides information about methyl bromide to all visitors during safety inductions.
Kneebone says risk management is shared across all the employers involved ‘‘and we take our responsibilities as a landlord very seriously’’.
While the EPA sets national regulations, the problem has been dealt with in an ad hoc way around the country. In places like Picton, Nelson and Wellington, its use was restricted after public campaigns; in Auckland the port has taken the lead by requiring that all emissions be recaptured; in Northland and Hawke’s Bay the regional councils don’t even require operators to have a resource consent.
In Tauranga, the regional council has been accused of taking a soft approach because it’s the majority owner of the port. The fumigant action group accuses it of putting economic considerations ahead of ‘‘environmental bottom lines’’.
The Environment Court echoed this view, saying the council’s shareholding ‘‘must raise concerns for transparency and independent monitoring’’.
But Sam Weiss, the council’s senior regulatory officer, says it has gone ‘‘above and beyond’’ the EPA by requiring that Genera use recapture technology for all fumigations 18 months ahead of the EPA deadline.
Kate Barry-Piceno, an environmental lawyer who has advised the action group, says the community doesn’t get to engage and have a public process around the port’s methyl bromide use. ‘‘It’s all being dealt with through non-notified variations – that astounds me.’’
Genera’s consent had required it to be using recapture technology for 60 per cent of its timber fumigations by June 1 this year, but in April it applied for that deadline to be pushed out by a year.
The action group demanded to be heard and said in a submission that approving the application would make a mockery of the consent conditions.
In the end, the council gave Genera a six-month extension to reach the target and said it could apply at any time for further changes.
Ironically, Genera is just as unhappy with the council – chief executive Mark Self says council staff are constantly raising ‘‘trivial’’ issues such as signage, instead of letting the company get on with research into recapture technology and alternative fumigants.
Weiss says: ‘‘If we’re being criticised equally from all sides, it probably shows we’re charting about the right course.’’
Meanwhile various groups are firing shots across the bow of industry and regulators. In January, the Rail and Maritime Transport Union wrote to the port accusing it of not complying with its health and safety obligations – arguing it ‘‘cannot be certain on reasonable grounds’’ that methyl bromide emissions are within allowable limits because monitoring is inadequate.
The port responded that, while it has some responsibilities, companies that engage Genera to do fumigations have the primary duty of care.
Doug Leeder, chairman of the regional council and also a port director, rejects any suggestion that the port is washing its hands of the problem.
As fumigations happen on the port’s land, it has a responsibility as a ‘‘good landlord and citizen’’ to ensure the requirements of the consent are complied with. It’s ‘‘nonsense’’ that the council is taking a soft approach because of its ownership of the port.
If anything, he says, the consent and compliance staff focus more closely on the port because of the perceived bias.
But Barry-Piceno says the council’s actions over the application by a Genera rival, Envirofume, for a resource consent to discharge methyl bromide show where its priorities lie.
An independent commissioner had rejected the application, but when Envirofume appealed to the Environment Court the council switched positions, supporting the application after Envirofume made amendments.
‘‘That’s quite an unusual position for a regional council that is usually very strong on aspects of environmental pollution.’’
The court rejected Envirofume’s appeal.
Barry-Piceno says the concern is that the council will continue to allow Genera to vary its conditions and push out the recapture targets.
‘‘You can only point to how other developed countries are dealing with the same level of risk. And that’s not how it’s being managed down there at the port.’’