Dealing with earthquake waste:
An IEM case study
Background:
As a result of the
September 4th 2010, the aftershock of February 22nd 2012
and many other aftershocks, much damage has occurred to infrastructure within
the Canterbury region. The severity of this damage has caused many buildings,
houses and other structures to collapse and or be demolished. A significant
amount of rubble waste will therefore be generated from these demolitions
within the central city, residential homes and damaged infrastructure. Initial estimates
were that earthquake rubble would total 4.25 million tonnes, however civil
defence later raised this estimate to 8 million tonnes. In comparison, 250,000
tonnes of general waste is sent to the Kate Valley Landfill in North
Canterbury.
This waste from building demolitions has been sent to the
old Burwood landfill and three other smaller areas of the surrounding Bottle
Lake Forest since the earthquake on the authority of the Civil Defence National
Controller.
Problem Definition:
- Firstly 32 times the annual waste of Canterbury is estimated to occur as a result of the demolitions (and this figure is still an estimate), not to mention that the waste types will be different as well.
- How to deal with this major increase in waste as there is too much for current landfill capacity and city waste services to deal with.
- Regulations were repealed in the time of extreme circumstances to allow for the immediate disposal of wastes, unregulated dumping therefore occurred.
- The long term effects – etc. What we don’t know is what types of wastes are being deposited into landfills or clean fills, where are these dumping sites located, and will the material be dug up later to be resorted?
- Wastes could be made up of concrete, carpets, timber, metal, plastic, bricks, furniture, fencing, roofing and even soft toys, even whole houses right down to the kitchen sink.
- The costs of dealing with (sorting) and disposing of the waste
- Large volumes of ‘heavy vehicle’ traffic expected
Context:
The Christchurch City Council has decided to suspend a waste
bylaw and allow contractors to dump unsorted building waste into what are known
as “clean fills”. Richard Lloyd a recycling and waste specialist believes that the
Council’s decision to suspend the 2004 bylaw that effectively protects precious
aquifers from contamination, has been rushed and poorly thought through. This is
a statement that I would strongly agree with as it does not take into account
any thought of long-term objectives. The suspended bylaw was a very effective one
because it ensured that only genuine inert hardfill material could be deposited
into quarry sites and cleanfills around Christchurch.
Lloyd believes that we need to consider the long-term effects
of disposing of earthquake waste rather than deriving an immediate dumping
solution. Lloyd also stated that:
“I am aware of one site that has been taking in milk and alcoholic
beverages along with demolition waste. While the Council has clearly stated
this is not acceptable, I believe the operator knows he is unlikely to be held
to account under the current circumstances”
While this occurs to be the case for some of the industrial
wastes and demolition waste, Nick Smith stated something quite contrasting for
dealing with residential waste. Smith stated on the Stuff news site that it was
important dangerous materials were dealt with in a safe way. “We don’t want to
see these hazardous materials being tipped down drains or buried to create
future environmental and health risks”. With this statement, it appears that long-term
objectives have been taken into consideration, something that is quite
different from that posed by the disposal of industrial and commercial waste.
The Christchurch City Council also plans to dump up to 5000
tonnes of damaged concrete pipes containing asbestos has angered Parklands
and Waimairi Beach residents, some of whom say they were not told about the
proposal and about a public meeting last week. The asbestos issue
highlights a number of the problems with the Canterbury earthquake recovery
legislation shortcutting Resource Management Act processes.
Evidence of
Integration:
·
Central Government and Local and Regional
Councils have helped fund the removal of hazardous wastes from more than 6000
red-zoned Christchurch properties. The Government will provide $509,000 from
the waste minimisation Fund to help the disposal of household hazards whilst
the Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council and Environment
Canterbury have also committed a further $260,000 toward the collection and
disposal of wastes.
·
The Government is working with councils and
industry to maximise the recycling of the estimated 4.5 million tonnes of
demolition and liquefaction waste from the Canterbury earthquakes, Canterbury
Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee and Environment Minister Nick Smith
announced today. This is an example of integration within multiple tiers
of governance advocated by Scrase & Sheate (2002).
Possible improvements of integration:
·
Although it is understood that to enable the
city to function again in as short as time possible, unregulated dumping was
necessary. However, there appears to have been a lack of consultation from the
council with industry experts and the community before making this decision. Margerum
and Hooper (2001) strongly encourage the involvement of all stakeholders within
management processes to achieve effective management. The use of collaboration
and consultation with the community, industries and local government would have
produced a management outcome that was more integrated and therefore provided a
more effective solution.
·
In relation to the statement by Lloyd regarding
the lack of accountability for illegal dumping, this identifies to me that
there is an evident pressure point here and that the rules or the policy at the
time did not include measures of prevention for this kind of behaviour.
·
In terms of the asbestos issue, it appears from
the article that public consultation had not occurred according to a number or
residents. Essentially the community and the environment both lose out because
there is no chance for public submissions or challenge through the Environment
Court due to the circumstances. Community consultation and communication is
something strongly emphasised by Margerum & Hooper (2001) and Margerum
(1995) for an integrated environmental management outcome.
·
A need for more collaboration between what was
happening with residential waste disposals and commercial waste disposals would
also be recommended.
Outcomes:
The Christchurch City Council will permit the establishment
of the Burwood Resource Recovery Park to sort, process and recycle the 4.25
million tonnes of building rubble created by the 22 February earthquake.
There appears to have been two sides to the coin over the
handling of residential waste and commercial waste. Perhaps this is solely down
to the scale of the waste however, I do not see why both processes could not have
been adequate enough to ensure that hazardous materials were being dealt with appropriately
in both cases.
The levels of integration appear to have been mixed. In some
cases, the integration of multiple tiers of governance was evident however, in
other areas there appears to have been a lack of consultation particularly with
industries, and a lack of long term planning in terms of waste solutions.
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment