PUBLIC HEALTH.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 144850, 30 November 1915, Page 4

PUBLIC HEALTH.

DISPOSAL OF REFUSE. NEW SCHEME SUGGESTED. BOROUGH ENGINEER’S REPORT. At a meeting of the Works Committee of the New Plymouth Borough Council'on Monday evening the borough engineer, Mr. E. O. Clayton, presented a report on the question of collection and disposal of refuse. At the outset he said;—l find that the council has obtained the authority of the ratepayers to raise the sum of £I2OO for tlie purpose of erecting a plant, and understand it is the council’s intention at an early date to deal with the matter.

For some months past I have been engaged collecting information on the subject, and there can oe no question that it is a matter which requires very early attention in New Plymouth.

COLLECTION OF REFUSE. Regarding the collection of house and trade reiu&e, tnc system, whore in torcc, has now been adopted of making a weekly call in resideiuul areas, and more frequently in the business portion, and from public buildings, hotels, restaurants and large boaramg-nousos, schools, hospitals, etc. 'I his prevents the vegetable and organic matter having time to decompose and become dangerous. The receptacles for holding the refuse should be impervious, strong, and hgiu, and provider witn a lid and two handles. They should be made of galvanised iron, 24 guage, round in snape, provided with a removable cover, and each receptacle should hold two cubic toot and not more. The tins should be galvanised after they are made, and not before. Providing a cover, and the last recommendation ro galvanising, ire most important items. When tho system is inaugurated, the collection would be made on certain days in certain areas without fail, and the residents should be expected to place the tin within, say, 10 loot of the entrance, on that day. The collectors should not have to travel to tho hack of each place to collect it. In whatever areas your council consider it is advisable that refuse should not bo allowed to accumulate, the services of tho refuse cart should be availed of.

From experience it has been found that when the service of the refuse cart has been at the option of the occupier, the work is a failure, and not more than a third of the householders avail themselves of its benefit, and considerable expense in collecting fees and numerous bad debts are incurred. On the other hand, by the other method of making a fixed charge per annum on every inhabited building within the areas collected from, it is successful, and a fee of 7,s 6d per annum (less than. 2d per week per building) has been found amply sufficient to defray the whole cost # of collection and interest and depreciation on cost of vehicles, etc, (this was based on 1600 buildings), and when the latter system of charging was adopted it was found that very few people indeed did not avail themselves of the services of the cart.

REFUSE DISPOSAL. Having dealt with the collection nf the refuse, it is now necessary to eoneider the means of disposing of it in a satisfactory manner. It has boon and is still the custom in many towns, of dumping this class of material hi some gully or ravine, which is a most pernicious custom, and has many objectionable features, viz., it necessarily has to be a considerable distance away, which entails much cost in cartage, it depreciates property in the neighbourhood, on account of the smells and smoke, ana it is a breeding place for rats. Another method adopted in some places and found very > effective is to ship it on barges and discharge it into the sea, but, owing to local conditions, this would hardly be found practicable, owing to the distance the material would require to he conveyed in the first instance.

A third method,' and the one at present generally adopted, is to destroy by fire the materials under review, in what are known as destructors. There can be no doubt about the efficiency of this method in disposing of a very objectionable material; hut it also has serious objections, namely, the high cost of the buildings and elaborate plant, and of upkeep, the depreciation of property values in its vicinity, the cost of removal of clinkers (always about onethird in weight of the materials dealt with, and which cannot be profitably utilised). It is only in cities and considerable towns whore there is a large proportion of trade refuse to be dealt with, which can be utilised for firing purposes and where the heat generated can be availed of for raising steam, which is useful in the pumping of sewage or generating electric current, that a destructor can be rim without a heavy working cost for fuel, and depreciation of furnaces, etc.

Wliy should it bo necessary to destroy house and town refuse by fire, at a considerable cast to the ratepayers, a material so abundant and easily collected? Because until comparatively lately no other better means wore available for dealing with it or converting it into a useful and saleable material, free from anv objection, this troublesome question has comfiaratively recently been solved in Engand in a manner which is simple, sanitary, economical and effective, by a process which converts the refuse into a fertiliser, almost instantaneously, by a machine known as a “disintegrator,” or “patent lightning dust manipulator.’' The process of transformation from bouse refuse to manure is, as has already been mentioned, almost instantaneous, the machine throws out no dust nor smoke, nor does the process develop any disagreeable odour; but on the contrary, whatever disagreeable odour may have been produced by the refuse, before treatment, disappears the moment the refuse has passed through the machine, and the product is changed into material similar to the sample exhibited, jrhich, you will observe, is absolutely.

free from any objection, either to the eye or sense of smell.

This machine was first adopted by the Southwark Borough Council, a, central Metropolitan Borough of London, q poor and crowded borough with a population of *206,180 and an area of 1131 acres, and after a full year’s trial at their depot their works committee unanimously recommended an extension of the plant, and the report was adopted without any dissentient vote, and the plant was doubled. In that borough last year over 19,000 tons of refuse was dealt with, and every pound was sold to farmers, and the demand was in excess of the supplj*. Many other towns have adopted the plant, among* which are Howe, with a population ot 36,535, Halifax (population 104,000), Wcstham (population £07,358). Glasgow (761,709), and Su Andrew’s, Bispham, Blackpool, etc. Each machine is capable of reducing practically unpicked house refuse almost instantaneously to manure ready to he served to the soil without any further preparation. Driving Power. —The driving power required for each machine ot normal size is between 18 and 22 h.h.n. For a population which we have here at present a reduced plant would probably be found ample for some time to come.

For an output of up to ten toms a day of. say. 10 hours, the cost of a machine would bn £387. and the cost of preparing site, electric motor {motor .£100), | building, wavs of approach and exit 1 should not exceed £350, a total of £737, ! unless the building was-constructed in I permanent materials. Certain articles which are too large i to enter the mouth of the machine, such ;as old mattresses, baskets, mats, lino- ; Icums. etc., arc generally burnt in a ■ small furnace. A small reverberatory furnace, very effective for this purpose, can bo installed for about £4O erected complete, and the ashes would form a valuable addition to the manure, owing to the potash they contain. So for as I am aware, none of these machines are in use in New Zealand for the purpose of refuse disposal, hut the Public Works Department lately imported one for the purpose of making sand required for the concrete at the Arthur Pass tunnel. Almost any materials can he reduced to any deg?*ee of fineness by these machines at low cost. From the information which I have been able to gather, and judging by the experiences of those who have had to deal with the system, it appears to me to be a very great improvement on any present method of dealing with refuse, and its sanitary and economical advantages appear to speak for themselves, and I believe the council would be warranted in seriously considering the advantages of installing this method of dealing with the refuse. Consideration of the report was deferred until the next meeting of the committee.