Town of East Fremantle Minutes – SMRC RRRC WCF Odour Issue – 21 July 2009
207.1 Mandy Clarke, Leeming
Mayor Ferris referred to questions submitted by Ms Clarke regarding the operations of the SMRC and Council¡’s response as prepared by the Chief Executive Officer both as given below.
The Mayor noted Ms Clarke was not in attendance at the meeting.
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.
It is first necessary to address the accuracy of your preamble above. You are clearly suggesting the costs of operating the RRRC and SMRC gate fees charged to the Town of East Fremantle have risen inordinately and unexpectedly. However the RRRC is operating within the best case/worst case parameters of the SMRC Business Plan which was adopted by the Town of East Fremantle in 1998. The rising costs of both landfill and alternative waste treatments were anticipated and incorporated in the facility’s business plan.
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?
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
(sic) to it?
The SMRC did not claim they were the only organisation to be contacted by Cobb County. It is unclear what the point of the distinction between “operate the plant”, “operating their facility” and “to do something solid waste related to it” (sic) is, or whether a distinction is being made between “to tender” and “submit a proposal”, however it is considered the distinctions to be of a semantic nature and trusts you acknowledge the SMRC is the operator of a municipal solid waste treatment facility in the RRRC.
Regardless of the semantics of the press release Council believes the SMRC deserves appropriate kudos for having received the invitation from Cobb County, given the positive recognition of the SMRC’s expertise which the invitation indicates, not negative point scoring.
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 ¡V what actions and investigations is council going to take to double check claims the SMRC make? 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.
Effectively this “question” could better be described as rhetoric – and further, rhetoric essentially based on claims which are either not accepted or unsubstantiated.
Council does not accept the RRRC and RRRC WCF are “failing”, particularly in the sense of a flawed technology and notes current financial issues are almost entirely related to:
(i) the loss of income due to drastically falling (recyclables) commodity prices arising from the global financial crisis
(ii) a loss of income in investments due to the global financial crisis.
(iii) the impact of the MRF fire
(iv) issues related to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
These were all events outside of the control of the SMRC.
Prior to these events current income and future anticipated income was actually higher than had been predicted in the Business Plan.
It is noteworthy you mention none of these factors, despite their widespread knowledge (the fall in commodity prices is a world wide phenomenon, affecting recycling enterprises across the globe) which suggests a significant bias on your
part.
In terms of the operation of the plant, the main unanticipated cost issue has involved attempting to mitigate odour issues. In your concern for East Fremantle ratepayers, are you suggesting the SMRC should have ignored this issue in order to save those ratepayer’s money?
Council does not accept the implication of the claim that “residents” have “(dug) up the truth” about SMRC related matters that Council has been misinformed or misled by the SMRC, or had information to which Council was entitled, withheld from it by the SMRC.
In fact if the SMRC could be accused of anything, it is information overload, with vast amounts of information being submitted to the Council and its representatives, in Council’s case being the Mayor as regional councillor (and member of the SMRC’s public relations committee) and the Chief Executive Officer, as officer delegate.
In addition the SMRC holds frequent meetings, most of which are open to the public.
See also response to your preamble.
In addition the Town makes its own enquiries. For example the Mayor met last week with Mike Nahan and the Chief Executive Officer wrote several weeks ago to Cobb County with respect to matters involving the operations of that facility.
4 Does council acknowledge the following finding of Report 16 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs municipal waste management in Western Australia?
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 Town of East Fremantle and the SMRC acknowledge all the findings of the Standing Committee’s report, including:
Finding 3: The Committee finds that the waste service provided by local government in Western Australia are of a very high standard.
Finding 4: The Committee finds that the formation of regional councils in Western Australia has proven highly successful in creating economies of scale in the management of municipal waste.
Finding 9: The Committee finds that the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council has taken steps to identify a technical remedy to address the community’s concerns regarding odour from its Regional Resource Recovery Centre.
Finding 10: The Committee finds that there are cost effective engineering solutions to the odour issues at the Regional Resource Recovery Centre in Canning Vale.
Finding 11 The Committee finds that the Department of Environment and Conservation’s enforcement powers achieved a positive result with respect to addressing the odour issues at the Regional Resource Recovery Centre in Canning Vale.
Council also acknowledges the Committee concluded, “there are high community and societal expectations of effective municipal waste management, and the service is generally taken for granted. An arguably unreasonable burden falls to local governments, who have to recover costs and respond to increasing volumes of waste.”
Council also notes that at no place in the report does the Committee recommend the RRRC, either whole or in parts, should be closed, relocated, or an alternative technology be invested in. Nor did the Committee recommend the SMRC be
replaced as the operators of the RRRC.
Returning to Finding 8, do you acknowledge that in the Standing Committee Report, prior to this Finding, the Chair of the Waste Authority, Mr Barry Carbon, stated the following:
“We as a society have put an expectation on local governments that they change from throwing rubbish into a rubbish dump through to having a facility that does better. It is inevitable that there is a learning process, and there is no
doubt that the SMRC has been a pioneer in doing that and in the diversion of waste and CO2 capture. There are issues. I am not conceding that the odour issues necessarily come from the treatment plant, by the way. I have a fairly
strong expectation that the current odours come from managing green waste in a pile next door to it, but that is something other people can deal with.”
Do you acknowledge that the Committee found the SMRC had significantly reduced odour from its controversial Regional Resource Recovery Centre (RRRC) and was confident that a technical solution to be problem would soon be in place.
Do you acknowledge that following the Inquiry, the Chair of the SMRC, Cr Doug Thompson, stated:
“Since making our submission to the Standing Committee, we have completed new research into green waste processing which promises further improvement in odour control at the RRRC. These results are a breakthrough for the waste industry in WA.”
“It is also gratifying to know the Committee recognises the RRRC is one of the very few alternatives to landfill, and there is no suggestion that the facility be closed or relocated.”
Do you acknowledge that in another media statement on the issue, the SMRC stated:
“it is changing the way green waste is handled at its Canning Vale recycling plant after a new study has identified moist tree prunings, dry leaves and other garden clippings are causing odour emission.
The study is a breakthrough for the Council which has been working for months to pinpoint the source of transient odours being reported by the community.
Using a combination of onsite measurement, laboratory analysis and computer modelling, the study has challenged current thinking on green waste with revealing new information about the volume and speed of material decomposition and the concentration of odour produced during the grinding process.
Chairman Doug Thompson said: “This is an important breakthrough for the industry which has limited experience with green waste processing on such a large scale.”
In addition to the waste composting plant, the Regional Resource Recovery Centre handles five times more garden and green waste than any other facility in Western Australia. It is the first of a new generation of plants to come on line.
Chairman Thompson said the Regional Council was anxious to protect the comfort of its community.
“It is hard to solve a problem you cannot find and we apologise sincerely because this has been extremely frustrating for everyone involved.”
Greenwaste operations are expected to re-open in the next few weeks once new odour management controls have been implemented. These are likely to include:
- Grinding and storing materials in an enclosed building rather than outdoors.
- Minimising the quality of processed mulch held on site.
- Removing processed mulch from site within 24 hours.
- Covering stockpiles overnight.
- Limiting grinding operations to selected hours.
- Monitoring wind direction to minimise potential impacts.
Cr Thompson said: “Waste disposal is an essential community service and the RRRC is one of the very few alternatives to toxic landfill. Anyone who would like to see the facility at work is welcome to book for a free tour.”
Do you acknowledge that in its subsequent newsletter, a public newsletter, the SMRC stated,
“The SMRC today lodged a progressive works plan in response to an environmental protection notice issued by the Department of Environment and Conservation.
The plan escalates an improvement program that has been ongoing since 2006. That was the critical time when biofilters at the RRRC’s waste composting plant failed releasing odours that have continued to generate community complaint.
The SMRC apologised to residents at the time and moved quickly to fix the problem. Since then, tremendous work has been done to refine our processes and find a way to satisfy the community’s growing expectation of zero odour.
Last week’s Legislative Council Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report acknowledged that substantial improvements had been made.
Finding the source of transient odours has been a challenge and there is no simple answer. There are three separate recycling facilities on the RRRC site for composting, greenwaste grinding and materials recovery. Each of these can
produce smell under the right conditions. Only last week a breakthrough study found that greenwaste grinding produced intense odour which could change character as it travelled through the air. This was news for the whole industry
and has given us fresh avenues to investigate.
One of the challenges of being first in any sphere is the pressure to confront new issues and break new ground. The advanced alarm system we plan to install in the composting facility was not available when the plant was built and
only through experience have we discovered that organic biofilters need to be changed every 2.5 years, rather than the recommended 4 years, more details on our odour prevention plan can be found below.
These enhancements will put further pressure on our budgets at a time when income from recycling sales is low. It is a small price to pay compared with the horrendous economic, social and environmental cost of landfill. The financial
gap between the two choices is rapidly closing following stiff hikes in the State Government’s landfill levy and we hope these funds will be used to support effective and sustainable alternatives, like the RRRC.
The RRRC processes nearly one million wheelie bins of rubbish every month from over 150,000 homes in Perth’s southern corridor. It is a visionary project built for the community, funded by the community and designed to provide an essential service for generations to come. We are here to stay and determined to keep improving. I hope we can count on your help and support.”
Do you acknowledge a further media statement on the issue, dated 29 May 2009, which is attached in full?
Returning to Finding 12 do you acknowledged the following statement by the SMRC:
“We accept that our communication has not been good enough and our team has been working hard to develop new ways to keep our community better informed about all the work we have going on.
We are here to serve the community, and keen to make sure our operations continue without upsetting our neighbours.
We are currently revitalising the Community Reference group and calling for new volunteers to increase its scope and representation.
Improvements have been made to our website and a regular email bulletin has been introduced for anyone who would like to subscribe.
News items have increased and interactive forums are being implemented to ensure we hear from our critics as well as our supporters.”
Do you acknowledge that in your questions to Council with regard to the Committee findings, you failed to acknowledge any of the above?
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 failing of the RRRC will surge to the size of the say the Erin Brockovich/ Alcoa case?
Again there are a number of questionable assumptions in this question which need to be noted. Leaving aside the issue that Council does not accept the RRRC is “failing”, as already indicated, complaints received both through the Canning Melville Community Odour Action Group email campaign and the SMRC hotline, 1300 556 726, show a steady decline since March 2009, with 51 emails and 8 calls to the hotline made by a total of 23 individuals in March, down to 12 emails and 1 call to the hotline made by a total of 7 individuals in June (it should be noted the 1 hotline call concerned the fire at the materials recovery facility and not the waste composting or greenwaste facilities).
While the CMCOAG email system is the preferred method for communication by some residents, both the Council and the SMRC consider that the complaint form is misleading and pregnant with assumptions. The form asserts that any odour
detected by the complainant can only be from the waste composting facility. The only example of the nature of the odour given in the complaint form is, “rotting rubbish odour.”
The RRRC was built in the Canning Vale industrial estate in between two local landfills. This area of Perth has been receiving the community’s waste since 1972. The residential development of Leeming took place between 1977-1987.
Rather than being “imposed” on this neighborhood, the RRRC was welcomed with open arms ten years ago (including being strongly sought by the City of Canning) when it promised to save Leeming from being sandwiched between the Canning
and Melville tips, which had been operating in the area since the 1970s and ’80s.
Council is concerned the Canning Melville Community Odor Action Group is attempting to suggest a connection between its campaign to close the RRRC, or at least the waste composing facility, and issues previously dealt with, or currently
being dealt with, by Erin Brockovich. To date there have been no known statements made by Ms Brockovich concerning the RRRC.
6 The following quotes by Erin Brockovich are very similar to what the longsuffering 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 releases, we have to go into court and fight to prove that the poisons can harm you.
“I fall 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?
Again it appears you are attempting to make a connection between your efforts to close the waste composting facility and issues taken up by Erin Brockovich where, in Council’s view, no such connection exists.
Last year, 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 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,” the study found.
Council accepts however that some residents experience genuine anxiety with respect to this issue and a very small number of residents in the vicinity of the facility have experienced a range of physical symptoms.
At the time of these responses to your questions being prepared, Council has been advised the WA Health Department this week released a new report which again says that odours from the Regional Resource Recovery Centre are not a direct threat to health.
Council understands the report verifies seven previous studies, adding that a survey of local GPs and hospitals failed to uncover any related health complaints from residents. However Council also understands the report noted that individuals who are sensitive to odours can become psychologically stressed and experience physical symptoms as a result.
The SMRC is working closely with the Department of Environment and Conservation, member councils and other agencies to help find a solution and Council encourages local residents and MPs to help the SMRC investigate what else can be done.
