A warning — Mountains of rubbish with nowhere to go

Press, 14 March 1978, Page 19

A warning — Mountains of rubbish with nowhere to go

Report by

BILL KREGER

Rubbish, like sewage, i s one of mankind's inevitable and more disagreeable bv-products; the problem is what to do with it.

As technology has advanced the amount of rubbish produced per capita has increased to include metal foils, a myriad of plastic items, and countless “throw-aways”— all of which take up space, attract birds and flies, and generallv create a nuisance.

The problem of rubbish disposal has always been and will continue to be—a matter of major concern, particularly in urban areas such as Christchurch. Disposal is a matter of where and how.

People, even though they produce the rubbish, become very emotional about it when it appears that disposal is in one way or another going to affect them.

I ake the case of Mr A. A rubbish producer as we all are. he has no objection to rubbish trucks being drisen past Mr B’s house (provided Mr B does not live nearby); nor, as recent events have shown, does he particularly care if a rubbish transfer station or, for that matter, a dump, is located near Mr B’s house.

But it the situation were to be reversed, and the proposed transfer station w’ere to be built in Mr A’s neighbourhood, he would arise in righteous indignation and wrath and complain about this insidious nuisance being created.

He would—and has—complained to everyone, from members of Parliament on down, while the truth of the matter is that once the decisions are made by elected representatives of the people, there is not much that he can do about the matter.

It has been shown that even the local member of Parliament can be a bit narrow-minded about it. In the recent dispute regarding the proposed rubbish transfer station in the Redwood area, under the planned Metropolitan Rubbish Disposal Scheme, the member of Parliament for Papanui and Minister of Social Welfare (Mr Walker) expressed the view that he did not want the Redwood area looking like the Sawyers Arms Road area where there were scraps of rubbish littered along the road fronting private homes.

He suggested that the proposed station be placed on the existing Johns Road-Sawyers Arms Road site—which would only intensify the problem

the people along Sawyers Arms Road are now facing.

The point is that we produce the rubbish and we have to accept responsibility for its disposal.

It behoves us to accept the proposal which does so with the least inconvenience to anyone, and as efficiently and as cleanly as possible.

Some people, of necessity, will be adversely affected.

A lot of work and a lot of brainpower has gone into the preparation of the proposal of the Christchurch Metropolitan Refuse Committee which, in December, submitted an environmental impact report on its recommendations.

These recommendations might be altered in the face of public opinion, by the audit of the Commission for the Environment, or, simply, by the proponents changing their minds.

But, as matters stand, there is a plan, one which has taken years to develop. Some sort of plan is

going to be needed —and soon.

The opening paragraphs of the environmental impact report made by the Christchurch Metropolitan Refuse Committee note that rubbish disposal is a matter of increasing concern as existing sites are being rapidly filled to ca» pacity.

“The concentration on a single landfill area, the necessary co-ordination of operations, the uniform control of all refuse disposal, and the prevention of informal dumping, together with the advantage of sharing costs toward a single and economic proposal, demand that it be a scheme run jointly by the councils involved,” says the report.

At present, individual council tips accommodate their own rubbish. This is collected in bags and, along with industrial rubbish, periodically dumped

at sites which are rapidly filling up. Heathcote, for example, has found it necessary to open a new dump. Paparua County has had to close its Carrs Road tip and is lookii , to dump elsewhere. Riccarton has already gone to Waimairi County for permission to dump in the Sawyers Arms Road tip. The Bexley tip has a measured life span — as they all do —- and some sort of solution has to be found to prevent pollution of water and the elimination of nuisances within or close to the urban area.

“The collection of refuse is efficient and generally satisfactory,” the report says. . . The problem is where to put it.

There are two basic ways of disposing of rubbish — by dumping it or by burning it. The latter

method is almost totally unsatisfactory. Other methods such as shredding, baling, and composting cost too much. Glass, metals, and plastics compound the proh’ - ns. The “do-nothing” option has long since expired. Existing tip sites will come to the end of their use within two to eight years — or sooner if demand increases.

The report pulls no punches in saying: “The need for a new major dis* posal area is now urgent, and the associated transfer stations and transport modifications are necessary to the future disposal system.”

The scheme envisaged

by the committee is estimated to cost S7M and will provide facilities for recycling where practicable. The annual operating costs are likely to be $700,000 — about the same as the existing system.

The proposed disposal system has the support of all the councils involved (although Paparua County did at one time pull out only later to rejoin).

Three elements are contained in the new scheme. First, there is the introduction of three transfer stations in the urban areas of Redwood, Bromley, and Sockburn. Second, compacted -efuse will be transported in container-

trailers from transfer stations to the landfill area south of Spencer Park. Third, as the landfill area is, filled it will be covered and planted to provide a recreational area.

The collection procedure will be essentially the same as at present. How* ever, all household, garden, and some commercial refuse will ' be taken directly to the transfer stations.

Commercial operators with major loads will be allowed direct access to the Waimairi coastal disposal area which otherwise will be closed to unauthorised entry.

The transfer stations will be essentially large , covered warehouses where refuse will be unloaded, compacted, and loaded aboard large transport trucks.

Land purchase costs, at S2.BM make up the major

portion of th? S7M total. Other costs are an estimated $2.7M for development, $50,000 for standby plant, $450,000 for transfer equipment, and SIM for landfill development.

The first stage of the landfill operation will involve 35ha adjacent to Range Road between Bower Avenue and the foredunes which .under no circumstances, will be distrubed. Later stages will be both south and north of this area, and may include areas to the west in Bottle Lake plantation. Xn any year up to 7ha of land may be used, with only about o.sha exposed for active excavation, landfill, and covering operations at any one time.

Recreational facilities and forestry will eventually take over the landfill area once it is filled.