Fines for pollution

Press, 17 July 1980, Page 7

Fines for pollution

'* Two companies were prosecuted in the District Court yesterday for causing illegal discharges of waste into city rivers. They were De Spa and Company, Ltd, wool scourers, of Woolston, which was convicted and fined $2OO for discharging wool scour waste into the Heathcote River, and Mauri Bros and Thomson, Ltd, which was convicted and fined $l5O for discharging waste into the Avon River from its D.Y.C. yeast factory in Antigua Street. Mr I. Brooks prosecuted for the Christchurch Drainage Board in both cases. The charges were admitted. Judge Bisphan was on the Bench. Mr Brooks said in relation to the Heathcote River offence that the waste discharge was noticed on a routine inspection of the river, on April 1. The , discharge comprised detergent scum and waste noticeable for half a kilometre downstream from the outlet into the river. Dr J. L. Hoare, technical engineer for the company, said the company had dis-

charge rights but the level; , on this occasion was higher than permitted. He said the plant malfunction, which enabled waste to; enter a stormwater drain, l had been remedied. Steps had been taken, to ensure it. did not recur, and the company was very con- 1 scious of the need to prevent pollution. The wastes, although “ox-ygon-depleting,” were not toxic, Dr Hoare said. Mr Brooks said board staff, acting on a telephone call from Seekers on April 11 that the Avon River was discoloured, traced a discharge to the D.Y.C. factory. A distinct yeast odour was noticed at the stormwater discharge. A drain in Moorhouse Avenue was found to be blocked by bottle tops and paper labels. Mr G. H. Nation, who ap- . peared for the company, said it had had problems with drains in the past. The discharge occurred when yeast : was being brewed, and it had backed up because of a blockage in a pipe leading to the sewerage system. The yeast flowed into the stormwater system, and thence to the river.

Tne now had been stopped before the drainage board was notified, and the company had taken further steps to ensure discharges did not recur.

Measures taken had included replacement and modification of gratings for easier inspection by staff, and construction of a retaining wall to enable staff to see overflows before they could enter the stormwater system to the river. It was unlikely that the offence would be repeated, and no great harm was done because of the nature of the waste.