City of Melville Minutes – SMRC RRRC WCF Odour Issue – 21 July 2009
6. QUESTION TIME
At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on the 16 June 2009 Mr Rob Petterson submitted 17 questions relating to the operations of the South Metropolitan Regional Council – Waste Compost Facility. At that meeting these questions were taken on notice. A response in writing will be provided to Mr Petterson from Mr John Christie, Director Technical Services and the details contained in that response are recorded below:
6.1 Mr R Petterson, Leeming
“The SMRC cannot control the volume or combination of chemicals residents dispose of in their green bins including, pesticide, herbicides, pool chemicals, paint thinners, household chemicals, and batteries containing lead or other toxic materials stored in
garden sheds. These chemicals are mixed together during the composting process and their exhaust is pushed out into the atmosphere and onto local residents. In 2006, the SMRC conducted an analysis on the compost they produced; three items in the compost including lead, a pesticide and another chemical were at levels higher than what was considered acceptable. Given the SMRC has little control of the level of contamination in the compost.”
Response
It should be noted that Mr Petterson makes a number of assumptions in the preamble which need to be addressed. The SMRC has extensive quality controls in place at the RRRC’s waste composting facility. The compost produced is a C2 product suitable for use by the soil additive and conditioner industry. It is unclear what analysis or standards Mr Petterson is referring to. Compost produced by the waste composting facility is made in batches, each of which is tested for 25 groups of chemicals, including heavy metals, pesticides and herbicides, before leaving the facility. The City of Melville working with the SMRC has recently begun a series of hazardous household waste collection days at the RRRC and other locations across the region, to enable residents to safely dispose of the problematic items the questioner is concerned about.
Question 1
“Will there be a residual affect on a property owner’s soil with the long term use of the SMRC compost making the soil toxic?”
Response
The SMRC’s compost trial found no harmful effects from use of the compost.
Question 2
“What affect does the long term use of the SMRC compost have on the land owners’ ground water? Will the contaminates/toxins leach into the ground water?”
Response
Refer to Question 1.
Question 3
“Does the City of Melville believe the SMRC has right to emit any level of noxious odours from the Waste Composting Facility that have a negative impact on nearby residents? If not given it has been doing so for the past 6 years what does the City of Melville consider to be an appropriate amount of time for the SMRC to fix the odour issue?”
Response
The City of Melville does not believe that the SMRC has the right to emit noxious odours that impact negatively on the amenity of the surrounding residents. However the RRRC’s waste composting facility is licensed by the Department of Environment and Conservation, which is the lead agency on this issue. The DEC’s investigations have found odours from the facility may have an effect on people’s amenity; however this does not suggest the odour is noxious or toxic. Indeed, the DEC’s investigations found the air downwind of the waste compositing facility to be chemically the same as the air from the Leeming residential community, with little difference between the air samples taken.
Question 4
“Does the City of Melville have an obligation to protect the amenity and health of local residents? If so what steps have been taken to protect them from the SMRC noxious odour?”
Response
Yes the City of Melville does have a responsibility to protect the health and amenity of local residents. The City of Melville has worked with the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) who are the lead agency and the Department of Health in
assessing the impact of the odours on residents. Also refer to Question 3.
Question 5
“Has the City of Melville undertaken any level of investigation to determine what is in the chemical composition of the odour affecting nearby residents?”
Response
The level of investigation into the odours affecting nearby residents has been completed by the DEC. Also refer to Question 3.
Question 6
“Will the City of Melville undertake an extensive investigation to determine what is in the chemical composition of the odour affecting nearby residents?”
Response
A toxicological report has been prepared for the SMRC by consultants to determine the nature and content of the odours and this report was sanctioned and supported by both the DEC and the Department of Health (DoH). Also refer to Question 3.
Question 7
“Given the odour complaints have occurred for the past 6 years, what form of investigation has the City of Melville undertaken to determine the health affects this odour has on the health of Leeming residents?”
Response
It has been widely publicised that a health risk assessment of the waste composting facility is available to the public. The Cities of Melville and Canning, along with the Canning Melville Community Odour Action Group and MLA for Riverton, have been personally informed and invited to read the document. In 2008, the Regional Council commissioned international toxicology expert Dr Rodger Drew PhD, from Toxikos Toxicology Consultants, to undertake an independent health risk assessment of the waste composting facility. The study showed that emissions from the facility’s bio-filters were highly unlikely to cause any adverse health effects despite odours being noticeable in the community from time to time.
The report says: “The concentrations of emissions as they leave the biofilters are much less than the concentrations required to cause acute health effects, or sensory irritation of the eyes or upper respiratory tract.” “However, people who notice an odour may find it annoying which can affect their general sense of well being.” “It is well recognised that some people can react to the perception of unwanted odour or bad odour, with headache and a irritant sensation of the eyes, nose and in some persons skin,” the report concluded, “the feelings and effects experienced by the person are real; however they are not caused by direct action of the smelly chemical.”
Anyone interested in reading a full copy of the health study is welcome to do so at the SMRC office in Booragoon.
Question 8
“Will the City of Melville undertake an extensive investigation to determine how many people are affected by the odour?”
Response
The DEC as the lead agency is responsible for determining the levels and numbers of residents impacted by the SMRC operations. Also refer to Question 3.
Question 9
“Will the City of Melville undertake an extensive investigation to determine what health implications have been on local resident who have endured this stench for 6 years, including blood and other forms of testing to determine if residents have absorb higher than acceptable levels of chemicals because SMRC odour?”
Response
The DEC and the DoH as the lead agencies would be responsible for determining the types of sampling and testing required to determine impact. Also refer to Question 7.
Question 10
“As the City of Melville is a member of the SMRC is the City of Melville does it have any liability if it is determined the SMRC odour has had a detrimental impact on the health of nearby residents?”
Response
No, the City can not be held liable from either a contractual, or a negligence point of view.
Question 11
“Since the SMRC commenced its operations how much have the City of Melville waste disposal costs increased?”
Response
Gate fees at the RRRC have risen progressively. Some of these increases were scheduled from the outset, for example when the composting plant opened in 2005 and operating costs were incurred for the first time. Other rises have been driven by market forces, particularly a severe drop in export prices for recyclables as a result of the global economic crisis.
At the same time, the cost of sending waste to landfill has also risen sharply. The State Government has recently stated that intends to increase its landfill levy 300% in January 2010 driving landfill disposal costs over $90- $130 per tonne at some landfills with higher fees to come. The City of Melville has budgeted $155 per tonne for Waste Disposal at the RRRC
composting facility. On top of this the City meets its share of the loan repayments in respect to establishment of the facility and any modifications made to respond to the DEC’s recent report. This is a further $1.655m per annum or a further $52 per tonne if one ascribes all of that loan funding cost to the WCF. Ultimately, the SMRC is charging an extra $30 – $60 per tonne to give ratepayers an environmental outcome that makes a significant contribution to the State Governments policies and waste strategies regarding reduction of waste to landfill. The City is concerned about the
extent of the cost increases especially in light of the fact that other Councils can continue to simply ignore the States policies and are not penalised in any significant way. The Councils who are participating in the SMRC are bearing the brunt of the additional costs of trying to comply with State policy as well as achieving better environmental outcomes for the community as a whole. Since the RRRC opened, there has been a 65-70% reduction in the volume of domestic waste being sent to landfill from Perth’s southern suburbs.
Question 12
“The SMRC WCF was modeled on the Bedminster Plant in Cobb County USA. The Cobb County Plant is to be closed after 13 years of operation because it is not a financially viable operation. Reportedly between USD40-80 million has be expended on that site. As the SMRC seems to parallel the problems experience by the COBB County Plant will the City of Melville directs its officers to examine the reasons the Cobb County site is being permanently closed, the financial impact on Cobb County and report back to council including the financial implications should the City of Melville continue to support the SMRC operation.”
Response
In planning the RRRC, we understand Regional Council representatives investigated most of the alternative waste treatment facilities across Australia, the US and Europe, including Cobb County. The RRRC is not modelled on any one of these facilities and has been extensively modified and improved to suit our unique WA conditions. A decision was recently made to close the Cobb County plant. According to its operator, the plant was not closed because of odour, as they only received one or two odour complaints a year, but because they could not compete with the cheap cost of local landfills. Landfill space in Georgia is abundant and charges are significantly lower than WA.
Question 13
“Is the City of Melville aware the SNRC gave taken out an additional $800,000 loan how will this impact on the City of Melville.”
Response
The SMRC reported in its 2008/09 Budget review that due to the global financial crisis, recycling commodity prices had fallen as much as 60%. The SMRC’s gate fee is calculated on cost recovery after deducting all income. Due to this event, the SMRC reported a budget shortfall of $870,000 requiring funding. The SMRC reassigned its budget brought forward surplus for funding its capital programme to funding its operational shortfall and borrowed $870,000 to fund its capital
programme.
Question 14
“After 6 years of operation has the SMRC been able to develop a market for its WCF compost? If not why not?”
Response
Also refer to Question 15.
Question 15
“Is the SMRC still paying a contractor to cart away the WCF compost?”
Response
The SMRC through its partnership with an organic soils company fosters MSW compost market development. The SMRC decision to use an industry expert to market and distribute the product on its behalf ensures the product is best placed in
this developing market. The SMRC pays $4.50 per tonne as a distribution fee; the company pays for the transport and any value-added improvement of the product. The cost of developing markets for the compost produced at the facility was considered as part of the business plan for the RRRC as adopted by the participating Councils in 1998.
Question 16
“Are there any circumstances that will leave the City of Melville from withdrawing its support from the SMRC? If so what are those circumstances?”
Response
The City of Melville will remain committed to the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council so long as its operations and in particular, the operations of the Regional Resource Recovery Centre continue to meet the Social, Environmental, Economic
and Governance objectives of the Council.
“To allow the Leeming community to fully inform the City of Melville Councillors about the true position of the SMRC, will the Councillors prepare a list of questions they would like the community to clarify or a statement that details why they continue to support the SMRC even though it continues to affect the Leeming and other communities?”
Response
The City of Melville has an active community engagement team working with the community in Leeming and Bull Creek to determine the concerns, wants, needs, etc of the community in this area. Those wishing to express their views on the RRRC and the City of Melville’s role in the Regional Council are welcome to take part in the City’s community engagement process.
************************************
6.2 Ms Mandy Clarke, Leeming
Ms Mandy Clarke submitted 6 questions in writing prior to the meeting relating to the South Metropolitan Regional Council. As Ms Clarke was not present at the meeting the questions were taken on notice. The questions and responses are recorded below and Ms Clarke will be advised of these in writing.
Preamble
I would like to address the following Questions to the CEO Shayne Silcox and the Mayor Russell Aubrey Due to the continual rise and massive expenditure of resident’s rates to support the SMRC and the RRRC I would like the following questions and their answers addressed and recorded in full in the council minutes, along with a written response.
Question 1
“Is council aware that the SMRC’s claims from their recent press release that “Cobb County recognised the SMRC’s expertise in waste management and invited the Regional Council to tender on operating their facility” is incorrect?”
Response
It is difficult to ascertain what individual Councillors are aware of in respect to this claim, however I am aware that the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council were one of a number of parties contacted regarding the management of the facility.
Question 2
“Did council know that the SMRC were one of 46 Request for Proposals sent out by Cobb County and that the Request for Proposal was not specifically to operate the plant but to submit a proposal to do something solid waste related to it?”
Response
As stated previously, I am aware that the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council were one of 46 Requests for Proposals sent out by Cobb County.
Question 3
“Considering the millions of dollars that rate payers have forked out on the failing RRRC and RRRC WCF – including more huge rate hikes in the future – what actions and investigations is council going to take to double check claims the SMRC make?
Response
If residents can make a few calls or emails and dig up the truth then surely council could do so quite easily, taking into account the enormity and seriousness of this issue.”
The City of Melville monitors the financial accounts of the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council (SMRC) on a monthly basis. The City is concerned that plant and equipment failures are occurring prior to the expiration of their design life which, in addition to the escalating cost of electricity and landfill charges has resulted in escalating costs associated with running the Waste Composting Facility (WFC). The City will conduct an independent analysis of the actual outcomes of the WCF when compared to the original business plans for that facility. The costs and outcomes associated with the WCF do however need to be compared to other Alternative Waste Treatment options yielding similar net environmental benefits i.e. the reduction of waste to landfill and CO2 emissions. The City of Melville does not consider comparison of the costs of operating alternative waste treatment facilities such as the Regional Resource Recovery Centre (RRRC) when compared to the costs of simply disposing of the waste to landfill to be a valid comparison.
Question 4
“Does council acknowledge the following findings of Report 16 of the Standing Committee On Environment And Public Affairs Municipal Waste Management In Western Australia?
Response
Finding 8: The Committee finds that the community’s concerns regarding odour issues at the Regional Resource Recovery Centre in Canning Vale were legitimate.
Finding 12: The Committee finds that the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council had a poor communication strategy with respect to its Regional Resource Recovery Centre and the ongoing concerns of the local community.” The Council is aware and acknowledges of the findings of the Standing Committee. The findings do however need to be read in the context of the whole report in order to arrive at a balanced conclusion of what the 2 findings quoted mean. The City has met with the Department for Environment and Conservation separately and is monitoring the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council’s actions versus the agreed rectification plans.
Question 5
“With the ongoing rise of residents complaints of the RRRC WCF odour, for which the RRRC WCF was built so close too, long after the residents were there, does it concern council that the publicity of the failings of the RRRC will surge to the size of say the Erin Brockovich / Alcoa case?”
Response
The City of Melville believes that any undue odour issues emanating from the RRRC facility need to be resolved.
Question 6
“The following quotes by Erin Brockovich are very similar to what the long-suffering residents are experiencing due to the RRRC WCF odour issue :
“We are supposed to be happy and honest and it doesn’t make sense to me that so many people that I have met throughout the US and the world would make up lies about their health, their animals dying and the problems that they are experiencing as a result of bad air or contaminated land or water.
“I am dumbfounded that any of us are surprised that poisons make us sick.
“After all, we know for a fact that many chemicals are used in industry, we study it, we set standards for chemicals that we know are poisonous. Yet when they are released, we have to go into court and fight to prove that the poisons can harm you.
“If all these chemicals aren’t dangerous, then why set standards, policies, rules and regulations?
“We know that a poison is a poison and it isn’t good for us and it can harm us.”
With residents health complaints, when being exposed to the RRRC WCF odour continuing to grow, and councils money supporting this same facility, what action is council taking to help the long suffering residents who are being exposed to these emissions?”
Response
The City of Melville does not condone any activity that results in the emission of poisonous or toxic gases at a level that breaches the relevant public health standards. We rely on the results of investigations from expert advisors and
regulatory authorities and the City of Canning as the relevant local authority for the purposes of the Health Act in regards to the RRRC facility at Canning Vale. We have however not been informed by the relevant authorities that the emissions from the facility are either poisonous or toxic.
************************************
6.3 Mr R Petterson, Leeming
His Worship the Mayor advised that 6 further questions relating to the operations of the South Metropolitan Regional had been submitted by Mr R Petterson. These questions would be taken on notice as further investigation would be required. Mr Peterson will be advised in writing of the response to his questions and the questions and responses will be recorded in the Agenda and Minutes of the August 2009 Ordinary Meeting of Council.
