Wastes officer disagreement

Press, 25 November 1982, Page 15

Wastes officer disagreement

The Riccarton Borough Council is at odds with other members of the Christchurch Metropolitan Refuse Disposal Committee over the appointment of a toxic wastes officer.

The officer, whose salary will be two-thirds paid by the committee and one-third paid by the Christchurch Drainage Board, will offer an advisory service to industries on toxic wastes.

The appointee will work with various specialists to give advice on the best way to dispose of toxic wastes. Regular reports will be made to the refuse committee, and a full report with recommendations will be sought after nine months. But Cr R. S. Lester (Riccarton Borough Council) has told the committee that his council felt toxic wastes

were nothing to do with the committee, and that it should not be "poking its nose in.” “The committee was set up for the disposal of rubbish. There was no suggestion of toxic wastes at any stage,” he said. The committee’s chairman, Cr I. G. Clark (Waimairi District Council) said that industry must pay for the disposal of its toxic wastes'. The appointment of an officer did not mean that the committee had to dispose of toxic wastes. The committee was trying to act responsibly

in investigating toxic wastes, he said. “We cannot put our head in the sand. It will not go away,” Cr Clark said. The committee’s consultant, Mr Malcolm Douglass, said it would be a liaison position. There was no inten-

tion that the committee would collect or dispose of toxic wastes. “I am disappointed to see this turn of events from Riccarton,” he said. The Manufacturers’ Association, the Ministry of Works, the Medical Officer of Health, and other councils believed this was the correct first step. “It is a prudent and modest step to oil the wheels in the correct direction, so that at the end of a year, a full appraisal can be made,” said Mr Douglass.

Cr H. A. Clark (Christchurch City Council) said it was a wise move at this stage. It was not intended that ratepayers would subsidise toxic waste disposal. Cr D. C. Close (Christchurch City Council) said it

was important that something be done. A greater range of chemicals was used in industrial processes than previously. The committee did not want this waste to go to landfill sites, into the drainage system, or into “odd holes” anywhere else.

“If we do not assume responsibility for this, who does? Does Riccarton Borough provide any service in its area? Who is going to provide advice for people in Riccarton?” he said.

Industrial ratepayers provided a large contribution to the revenue of constituent councils, said Cr Close.

the committee agreed that the officer be appointed from April 1, 1983, and be reviewed after a year. The committee should include $lB,OOO in its estimates for 1983-84 as its share towards the appointment of the officer. The Drainage Board should be asked to include $9OOO. Terms of appointment should be sent to the City Council and the Drainage Board for their agreement, the committee said.

The committee also agreed to advise industries and the Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association about the service, but that it be emphasised that each industry be responsible for disposing of the wastes. Cr Lester asked that his

vote be recorded against the four recommendations.

Discounts The giving of discounts to

commercial users and people taking recyclable materials to the Metro Station in Parkhouse Road was again discussed.

Cr Margaret Murray ;Waimairi District Council)

said discounts should be discontinued as someone had to “pick up the tab.” the Resource Recovery Centre’s $6OOO deficit must be paid by the ratepayer if it did not come from sales. The user-pays principle should apply, she said.

Cr H. A. Clark said incentives must be phased out in the long term. At this stage they were still encouraging people to use the station, and they did not want them to go back to using private rubbish dumps.

Cr Close said commerical users only provided 18 per cent of revenue at the station. A few dollars might be saved on resource recovery by cutting incentives, but it could cost a lot more at the main station.

Cr Murray said she felt the longer discounts were left, the more difficult it would be to remove them.

Councillors agreed to refer the question of commerical discounts to its resource recovery sub-committee. -