Brief reprieve given works

Press, 3 June 1989, Page 3

Brief reprieve given works

By

TOM METCALFE

Alliance’s Kaiapoi freezing works has two weeks to explain its pollution problems, before the North Canterbury Catchment Board tries again to restrict its water right.

A board committee recommended last week that the water right be restricted until effluent treatment at the Alliance Group Canterbury works at Kaiapoi was brought up to the standard required under the right. A meeting of the board was to have finalised the water right restriction yesterday, but Alliance sought a High Court order to block the restriction, saying the company had not been given an opportunity to present formal submissions about its effluent problems. The board agreed to give Alliance time to make a submission. In return, Alliance asked the Court to adjourn its hearing indefinitely. The terms of the agreement 'have been lodged with the Court. The board is concerned about odour problems and possible water contamination from the effluent treatment methods used at the Alliance works. The effluent is discharged on to a field, but is forming ponds instead of draining away.

The water right for the works specifies that effluent discharge must be regulated to avoid ponding or flooding.

The board is also concerned that effluent discharged into the Kaiapoi River and Courtenay

Stream from the works is not up to the standard required by the water right. The water right restriction would have cut the freezing works from 6000 cu m to 2000 cu m of water a day. Board staff considered this amount of effluent could be discharged without causing ponding. The board’s chief executive, Mr Ray Wood, told yesterday’s meeting that board staff and the board itself had been trying to get Alliance to do something about the effluent problem for more than six months, but it had taken the threat of restricting the company’s water right to get a response. Alliance’s regional manager, Mr Bryan Ward, said yesterday that the company had responded to the board’s request by explaining the problems the company was having with the effluent system. There had been a flow of correspondence between Alliance and board staff over the matter, he said. A "whole raft of problems” with the system ranged from vandalism to problems with new equipment. The company was beginning to make progress when the board threatened to restrict the water right.

The restriction to 2000 cu m a day would not have had an immediate effect because little killing was now being done at the works. However, if the restriction was in force at the end of the year, when the works would be at full production, the works probably would have to close unless an alternative method could be found to deal with the effluent, he said. Alliance was committed to finding a solution to the effluent problem, said Mr Ward. Board members would be invited to the works to see the situation for themselves. The board’s chairman, Mr Richard Johnson, said the board’s objective was to have the company comply with the conditions of the water right, and the restriction was a last resort. A board member, Mr John Freeman, said that the board was not in the habit of trying to close down or impede businesses, but it had a responsibility to see that companies complied with the conditions of their water right. If Alliance did not come up with “something pretty substantial” by June 16, the board should consider again the water right restriction, he said/