Toxic Mapua soil to stay put: council

BY ALICE COWDREY

A mound of soil left after the clean-up of the former Fruitgrowers Chemical Company site in Mapua is too contaminated and costly to shift, says a Tasman District Council manager.

Mapua residents have been left horrified by the remark and are struggling to understand why the grassed mound is too toxic to be dumped at the Eves Valley landfill, but considered safe enough to be left next to houses.

Last night, about 45 residents questioned council environment and planning manager Dennis Bush-King and Ministry for the Environment representatives Bruce Croucher and Todd Krieble over a recently released audit report on what was once regarded as New Zealand's most contaminated site.

The report found that the Mapua site poses no risk to human health, and is safe to develop for commercial, residential and open-space use.

But residents at last night's Mapua and Districts Community Association meeting refused to accept the report.

Mr Bush-King told the meeting that contaminated piles of soil on the eastern side of the site were too contaminated to meet resource consent criteria for dumping at the Eves Valley landfill.

About $13 million had already been spent on the clean-up and it would cost the council too much to move the soil, he said.

Only soil with a contamination rate of up to 50 parts per million can be dumped at the Eves Valley landfill. The soil on the eastern side of the Mapua site, which has been deemed fit by the audit report for commercial and open space use, is contaminated up to 200 parts per million.

This is the site where a waterfront park for the community will be developed.

The western side, which has been deemed safe for residential use, is contaminated up to five parts per million.

Tahi St resident Annette Walker, who is an immediate neighbour of the eastern site, was "appalled" by Mr Bush-King's remarks.

Her major concern was that contaminated soil was sitting above ground level.

The entire eastern site was a great mound with steep sides, with the top of the mound reaching the top of her fence, she said.

"We have polluted soil in a core above the natural ground level."

The mound was "landscaped" after that area had been used as a "dumpsite" for extra polluted material, Ms Walker said.

"The next generation, who will be a lot more pollution-wise, will be asking, `What on Earth were they thinking of, leaving contaminated soil not buried under the natural ground level and ruining the landscape values?"'

Mr Bush-King said that during the site clean-up, which took place between 2004 and 2008, there was more soil left over than expected.

"We originally thought we would have 3000 cubic metres, but we ended up with 8000 cubic metres of commercially graded soil to redistribute around the site."

The entire site has a half-metre cap of residential-grade soil over it, he said. The reason it was not moved was because it was too expensive to be shifted to a dump site for hazardous material.

Ruby Bay resident Elena Meredith said the soil couldn't be left where it was and the site shouldn't be developed into a waterfront park.

"I don't think it's OK to just tell us now after all these years and dollars that it's a cost issue."

Mapua resident Hugh Gordon said this was the "one time cost should be damned".

Another resident, Jill Reade, who was at the meeting with her brother Ian Reade, said the council had "absolutely failed" the community by not being open about the cleanup.

There had not been any accountability, she said. "How the heck do we know we are going to be any better off this time?"

Mr Croucher, a Ministry for the Environment senior analyst, said some of the report's recommendations were already being actioned.

"A set of procedures are in place to make sure the capping layer remains in situ."

A further $455,000 was committed by the Government for the future monitoring of the site by the council.

A Ministry of Health report on health effects the site may have caused residents is due to be released in two weeks.

- © Fairfax NZ News