IT'S SAID that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that precept is no less true for the Greenland landfill.

There has been a lot said for and against the landfill and with all the theories ventilated, now comes the big test. No engineer really knows how good his work is until it faces the rigours it was built to withstand and that time must come for Greenland, even if it takes three, five or ten years. Until then its architects, opponents and proponents wait with bated breath.

A building cannot be labelled "earthquake proof" until it survives the tremor, neither can it be labelled "hurricane resistant" until it withstands the fiercest storm. The only way we will know whether Greenland is "water proof" is when it faces the torrential downpours which occur periodically in the Scotland District causing some of the most spectacular landslides this century.

Like Greenland, Mangrove Pond at one point was described as a state-of-the-art facility similar to none other in the Caribbean. Engineer Dr. Hugh Sealy was proud of his accomplishment, so far, likening it to a work of art but aesthetics are not what is important here but functionality.

During the "technical" tour he took time to point out all the diversion features for ground and surface water (the greatest threat to the landfill) ranging from a northern perimeter drain to five kilometres of underground pipes in the landfill. He projected that the northern perimeter drain, designed to handle a one-in-100 year storm, would channel nine inches of rain per hour away from the landfill basin into two watercourses bordering the landfill. That quantity of water coming off a 20-acre slope translates into a massive wall of 4.1 million gallons of water cascading down the hill in an hour. In the centre of the landfill, a huge water retention POND captures run-off water and a split level drainage system will channel it into the watercourses.

The tour, organised for staff members of the Ministry of Health and the Environment and the Press, came about six weeks before the completion of the landfill and was intended to unveil the technical aspects of the landfill. Unfortunately the format of the tour was heavily public relations-structured and the kind of environment that journalists needed for a serious question and answer, information-oriented session was unavailable. The interest of the client was clearly protected. At the Press conference in a windswept, dusty atmosphere, there were speeches from Permanent Secretary Major Neville Edwards, Sealy, Minister of Health Liz Thompson and Chairman of the Sanitation Service Authority Rupert Spencer, all lasting about 40 minutes. Question time lasted about five minutes.

There was enough time for questions on the opening date, the exact location of the transfer station, private sector involvement and cost of operation. Thompson indicated that firm answers would be forthcoming at the formal opening ceremony.

"Today essentially it's just for people to see it and understand how it was constructed technically, so that a lot of the new policy issues to which you are speaking, some of the decisions have been made but we are not going to make those announcements today. We are going to make them when we do the tour at Vaucluse and when we do the formal opening ceremony, we are doing this in stages," she said.

Following are just a few questions which, it is hoped, the ministry can use the opportunity of the formal opening, or other tours to answer:

 Will the interim transfer station and the main transfer station bale the refuse as originally planned and transport it via larger vehicles?

 Was the cracking on the northern slope due to inadequate bore hole testing in the original studies?

 Why bar the Scotland District Association from receiving technical data on the soil studies when the minister said that all documents were to be freely available to the public?

 If slippage, due to excessive excavation, was anticipated, then why do it? Why create a problem which would incur additional manpower and money to correct?

 Given that some of the additional 10 projects were fundamental to a landfill's operation, should the public really believe that under-budgeting was due to "prudent management" rather than inadequate financial planning?

 Will the Solid Waste Management Programme be implemented as a package or will it be introduced in a truncated fashion and how will this impact on the effectiveness of the programme?

 What contingency is in place to deal with the disposal of refuse should the remaining access roads wash out during normal rainfall during the next 20 years?

 What is the contingency plan should the landfill be washed away?