Board closer to reason for smell

Press, 4 June 1982, Page 4

Board closer to reason for smell

Laboratory tests to trace causes of the stench arising from the Bromley sewage treatment works are getting results.

The chief chemist of the Christchurch Drainage Board. Mr A. M. Damen. told an operations and services committee meeting yesterday that staff had narrowed the main problem to three highly volatile compounds found in the city’s sewage. More analysis was needed before working out the best method of elimination.

Unpleasant smells from the works draw regular complaints from neighbouring residents. Mr Damen said that the drought had not helped lessen the smell which had worsened during the last 18 months.

Eliminating the compounds was likely to be a costly and “all .dr nothing” business. Two of the three compounds were probably gases and among the most offensive known. The third was a musty-smelling liquid.

"You need only a little bit to create an almighty smell." he said.

High concentration of the compounds, possibly generated from the incomplete break-down of biodegradable material, had been found in the central city. Spreydon. and Woolston. Pond eeling

A six-month trial has been recommended for a Kaiapoibased company which wants to net eels from the Bromley oxidation ponds. Representatives from Waihora Industries. Ltd. told board members at a meeting last month that the company wanted to assess the quantity and quality of eels which may be swimming from the Estuary into warmer pond waters. If trials proved successful it would apply for a fishing or farming activity when the trial ended.

The . committee recommended the trials at the board’s pleasure, provided that the company met the

requirements of the sewage treatment works and did not introduce more eels for farming.

School drain problem An offer from St Andrew's

College to settle the problem of a stormwater pipeline which runs under its new

fine arts building failed to satisfy board members. The college offered to indemnify the board against damage to the pipe if the board allowed it to stay underneath the building now under construction. Instead, the committee recommended that the board insist the drain be diverted. The board’s chief engineer, Mr H. P. Hunt, said that the diversion would cost about $4OOO. Some board members argued that regulations prohibited building above a

drain but Mr Hunt said that he considered it unreasonable to apply for a stop-work order on construction.