Toxic fears dog Mapua residents

BY ALICE COWDREY

Mapua residents are dissatisfied with Ministry of Health assurances that the clean-up of Mapua's former Fruitgrowers' Chemical Company site has not created long-term health effects.

The ministry's take on a Public Health report, released yesterday, has been slated as a whitewash. The report has left Mapua residents feeling sceptical about the risks that the clean-up of the highly toxic site posed to their health, because of "holes" in its information.

It means 30 households south of the site cannot be given any certainty as to whether their health was affected.

Fifty people gathered at the Mapua Community Hall yesterday to hear the report's findings, including more than 14 officials from the Tasman District Council, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry for the Environment (MFE).

Many residents expressed outrage that the meeting was only notified on Saturday and question time was cut short.

The Green Party has slammed the ministry's conclusions in the report, calling it "an attempt to whitewash a very serious situation".

The report is the latest in a series of government reports into the Mapua site clean-up between 2004 and 2008, which began with a Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment investigation just before the work was completed.

An audit report released last year on the $12 million project confirmed that the site is fit for residential, commercial and open-space use, subject to a list of conditions.

Mapua resident Jill Reade said there were too many unknowns for the report to reassure anyone.

Houses near the site should be cleaned properly, she said.

"Look at the airfares of the people who were there today – that would have paid for the houses to be washed down on the outside and cleaned properly on the inside."

Her family "pleaded" for blood tests in 2005 "but MFE consistently refused to do that".

Green Party toxics spokeswoman Catherine Delahunty said there were no safe levels of human exposure to the "very dangerous chemicals" at the site.

The ministry played down the issues and focused on a small group of chemicals, implying that the risk to the public was negligible, she said.

"The scariest thing is that there was an absence of monitoring both on and off the site for these dangerous chemicals, and a corresponding lack of data to assess the risks to human health."

Nelson Marlborough District Health Board medical officer of health Jill Sherwood, who wrote the latest report, admitted that her assessment was "complicated by information gaps" on emissions, discharges, and the fact that a lack of chemicals were measured.

Inadequate monitoring meant uncertainly remained for about 30 households to the south of the site, she said.

"There appeared to be a lack of appreciation on the part of the Ministry for the Environment, as resource consent holder, that the purpose of the total hazard index was not primarily as a compliance tool, but was to assess public health risk."

Public health risks were very low to medium in the case of exposure to the contaminants PM10 and ammonia but unknown in the case of dioxins, PCBs and Benzene.

Dr Sherwood recommended that some residents be blood-tested for dioxins and organochlorine pesticides. However, advice sought by the ministry on the recommendation from the Organochlorines Technical Advisory Group (OTAG) rejects this idea because it would not make the "community or individual much wiser".

At the meeting, Ruby Bay-based former professor in environmental health Tord Kjellstrom, who was a member of OTAG between 2000 to 2002, disagreed with OTAG's advice.

It was logical to allow blood testing if people wanted it, he said. "It's the best way to get them reassurance."

The MFE held the resource consents for the clean-up, which it has admitted was riddled with errors. During this time, neighbours were exposed to odour, dust and noise, which caused "significant stress and anxiety", Dr Sherwood said.

About 30 residents complained of respiratory problems, nosebleeds, eye problems, wheezing, thyroid disorders, headaches, nausea, anxiety and cancer.

WHAT THE REPORT SAYS

Risks to public health are unlikely, but: Groundwater under and south of the site is not safe for drinking. Signs warning people against collecting shellfish to be erected. The limited number of chemicals monitored during the clean-up limited the report. It's unclear if the health of people living on the south side of the site is affected. Community views will be sought over the next six weeks and submitted to the Government. A further Labour Department report on the health impacts on site workers is due in April.

- © Fairfax NZ News