MARLENE ANNE BENSON

MARLENE ANNE BENSON
Remediation (NZ) Ltd: Environment Court Evidence
This legal proceeding concerns resource consent applications by Remediation (NZ) Ltd for their Uruti composting facility. The case involves multiple parties including Taranaki Regional Council and several community organizations, with evidence presented regarding environmental impacts and operational compliance.
Background: The Uruti Composting Facility
Facility Overview
Remediation (NZ) Ltd operates a composting facility on State Highway 3, approximately 2 kilometers south of Uruti Village. The site processes organic waste including drilling mud, paunch grass, and various agricultural byproducts through composting and vermiculture processes.
The facility has been operational since December 2001, holding six separate resource consents with approximately 90 conditions from the Taranaki Regional Council.
Key Operations
Composting of organic waste materials
Vermiculture (worm-based) processing
Drilling waste remediation
Stormwater and leachate management
Production of organic fertilizer products
Marlene Benson's Role and Credentials
Professional Position
Environmental Officer for Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga since January 2016, responsible for all resource consent issues within the Ngāti Mutunga rohe (tribal area).
Educational Background
BSc in Botany from University of Canterbury (1981). While presenting evidence from a cultural and observational perspective rather than as expert scientific testimony.
Site Involvement
Primary contact between Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga and RNZ since 2017, with regular site visits and involvement in Mauri Compass monitoring fieldwork.
Historical Context: Consent Applications Timeline
1
2001: Original Consents
Initial consents granted on non-notified basis. No record of Ngāti Mutunga consultation.
2
2008-2010: First Renewal
Consents renewed for 8 years following 2010 hearing. Limited iwi engagement documented.
3
2015: Dam Variation
Ngāti Mutunga consulted on water storage dam construction. Support given conditionally, with right to oppose future renewals if operations didn't improve.
4
2017: Current Applications
New consent applications lodged after 17 attempts to meet TRC requirements. Extensive consultation period begins.
5
2019: Decision to Oppose
Board decision made to oppose applications based on environmental and cultural concerns.
Key Environmental Concerns
Water Quality Impacts
Significant adverse effects on the mauri (life force) of the Haehanga Stream, with potential downstream impacts on the Mimitangiatua River. Elevated contaminant levels affecting aquatic ecosystems.
Mahinga Kai Depletion
Long-term adverse effects on populations of taonga species such as tuna (eels). In 2015, seven dead tuna were found during a TRC visit, with cause never established.
Cultural Use Restrictions
Kaumātua have stated they are not comfortable drinking water downstream from the site. The waterway is no longer suitable for traditional cultural practices.
Riparian Vegetation
Absence of suitable riparian vegetation to filter waste and maintain waterway health. Despite consent conditions requiring completion, planting remains incomplete after over 10 years.
Compliance History: A Pattern of Non-Compliance
Enforcement Actions 2009-2021
The evidence reveals an extensive history of regulatory enforcement:
13 infringement notices in 2009-2010 alone for odor violations
One prosecution in 2010 resulting in $33,500 fine
Multiple abatement notices for unauthorized discharges
Consistent non-compliance with consent conditions over 11 years
Never fully compliant in any monitoring period since 2010
The 2020-2021 monitoring report rated the company's performance as "poor" - placing them in the bottom 3% of all Taranaki consent holders.
Recent Violations
2020-2021 Period:
83 odor complaints received
11 infringement notices issued
4 abatement notices
Unauthorized acceptance of treated sawdust
Contamination of irrigation areas
Exceedance of water quality standards
The Pad 3 Controversy
1
Original Intent
Drilling waste was supposed to be processed through vermiculture beds according to 2008 consent applications, which stated material would be "blended with shredded greenwaste, sawdust and wood shavings and rowed up for composting, and finally processed through vermiculture."
2
Actual Practice
Material on Pad 3 was never processed as consented. Instead, it was spread around the site for bunding and "soil conditioning" without proper authorization, contaminating multiple irrigation areas.
3
Ongoing Issues
As recently as March 2022, evidence suggested Pad 3 materials were again being spread around the site, despite repeated concerns from Ngāti Mutunga about this contaminated material.
The 2020-2021 monitoring report found elevated levels of barium, sodium, LOSP chemicals, and measurable total petroleum hydrocarbons in Pad 3 samples. Certain heavy metals were also elevated compared to baseline soil concentrations.
Water Quality Monitoring Results
Critical Findings from 2020-2021 Monitoring
20%
Species Impact Threshold
Exceedance of NPS-FM bottom line means 20% of most sensitive species are regularly impacted
10x
E. coli Increase
Order of magnitude increase in E. coli between top and bottom monitoring sites in catchment
500+
Nitrogen Loading
Some irrigation areas received over 500 kg N/ha - significantly elevated discharge rates
The wetland treatment system introduced sustained concentrations of total ammoniacal nitrogen to the Haehanga Stream throughout the monitoring period, exceeding both annual maximum and annual median national bottom lines under the NPS-FM 2020.
The Trust Deficit
Inaccurate Information Provided
Marlene Benson's evidence documents multiple instances where RNZ provided misleading or false information:
Riparian planting: Repeatedly claimed as complete when inspection showed otherwise
Pad sizes: Stated to be compliant when exceeding consent limits
Enzyme trial: Presented unverified claims about Pad 3 remediation to Council hearing
Stock presence: Claimed no stock on site despite being observed as recently as March 2022
Treated sawdust: Falsified records about materials being accepted on site
Impact on Relationship
As Benson states: "Inaccuracies in verbal and written statements from RNZ Management, their experts and staff has meant that Ngāti Mutunga now cannot trust the information they supply."
The 2020-2021 monitoring report concluded: "These undertakings question what may have been accepted on the site over time, which the Council is unaware of... This is a clear indication that the Company cannot be trusted to do what it states it will do."
Cultural Aspirations vs. Reality
Ngāti Mutunga's Vision for the Site
When asked about acceptable future land uses, Ngāti Mutunga articulated clear cultural aspirations:
Grow Safe Food
To be able to safely grow and eat kumara from the site
Harvest Mahinga Kai
To collect and eat a variety of mahinga kai from the Haehanga Stream with sufficient numbers to harvest sustainably
Drink the Water
To be able to drink the water from the Haehanga Stream
Use for Rongoā
To be able to use plants growing within the site for traditional medicine
Cultural Practices
To be able to use the site safely for cultural purposes
These aspirations reflect the concept of kaitiakitanga - guardianship over natural resources that extends beyond property ownership. RNZ's response suggesting Ngāti Mutunga didn't have title to the land demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of cultural indicators and Māori environmental values.
The Site Exit Plan: A Decade of Delay
01
2015-2017: Initial Requests
Ngāti Mutunga repeatedly requested a Site Exit Plan during meetings with RNZ, identifying it as a priority concern.
02
2018: Blank Appendix
The Plan appended to RNZ's Assessment of Environmental Effects was completely blank.
03
October 2020: Verbal Commitment
TRC confirmed RNZ verbally committed to supplying a plan, with the commitment copied to Mr. Gibson for verification.
04
April 2022: Still Waiting
As of the evidence date, Ngāti Mutunga had still not received a Site Exit Plan. Comprehensive sampling only occurred recently for the Environment Court hearing.
This pattern exemplifies what Benson describes as "one of the major frustrations" - RNZ's inability to carry out work in a timely and consistent manner, with promised actions remaining incomplete on subsequent site visits.
Environmental Monitoring: The Numbers Tell the Story
2020-2021 Monitoring Programme Results
Inspection Intensity
19 routine inspections
152 water samples analyzed
22 soil samples collected
1 biomonitoring survey
Multiple complaint investigations
Key Findings
Sustained ammonia contamination
E. coli exceedances
LOSP chemicals detected
Elevated heavy metals
Groundwater impacts
Biological Impact
MCI scores declined downstream
Significant adverse effects on aquatic life
Impacts extending to Mimitangiatua River
Bottom line exceedances
The biological monitoring concluded: "MCI declines significantly downstream of consented activities such as the wetland treatment system discharge as well as the irrigation areas." This demonstrates breach of consent conditions prohibiting significant adverse effects on aquatic life.
The Treated Sawdust Scandal
The Discovery
In June 2021, an abatement notice was issued requiring removal of all treated sawdust from the site. The Company had been accepting and composting LOSP (Light Organic Solvent Preservative) treated sawdust - an unauthorized material.
The Extent
Spot samples from drilling mud pads demonstrated this practice had been ongoing for 15 years, in breach of consent. Trace concentrations of LOSP treatment chemicals were found in irrigation fluid, groundwater, and surface water.
The Deception
The 2020-2021 monitoring report states: "The Company had deceived the Council for a number of years through the acceptance of treated sawdust. It also attempted to cover up the acceptance of waste oil in the same monitoring period."
The Legacy
Earlier monitoring periods recorded leachate breakout from the drilling mud pad and sawdust discharged into tributaries. Current contamination levels may not represent worst-case scenarios from previous years.
Comparative Performance Context
How RNZ Compares to Other Taranaki Operators
86%
High Performance
Percentage of Taranaki consent holders achieving high environmental performance in 2020-2021
11%
Good Performance
Additional consent holders achieving good environmental performance
3%
Poor Performance
Bottom tier where RNZ was placed - demonstrating significant underperformance
The Council's evaluation is clear: "During the year, the Company demonstrated a poor level of environmental and administrative performance with the resource consents." This rating has been consistent over multiple years, showing no improvement in overall performance.
For context, the Council has used these compliance grading criteria for over 17 years, and they align closely with the Ministry for the Environment's Best Practice Guidelines for Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement.
Conclusions and Implications
Environmental Reality
The evidence presents a stark picture of environmental degradation:
Sustained contamination of the Haehanga Stream
Impacts extending to the Mimitangiatua River
Significant adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems
Contamination of soil and groundwater
Ongoing odor issues affecting neighbors
Depletion of cultural food sources
These impacts directly contradict the company's obligations under the Resource Management Act to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse environmental effects.
Cultural Disconnect
The relationship between RNZ and Ngāti Mutunga reveals:
Fundamental misunderstanding of kaitiakitanga
Erosion of trust through inaccurate information
Failure to prioritize cultural values
Inability to meet basic commitments
Disregard for traditional relationships with waterways
As Benson states: "Although there have been major challenges to our relationship with RNZ we feel that we are still able to meet and interact with them in a useful and professional way. However, over the past 6 years there has developed a level of mistrust."