CORRECTED VERSION
OUTER SUBURBAN/INTERFACE SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Inquiry into sustainable development of agribusiness in outer suburban Melbourne
Melbourne — 16 June 2009
Members
Mr N. Elasmar
Ms D. Green
Mr
Guy
Ms M.
R. Buchanan
Ms C. Hartland
Mr D. Hodgett
Mr D. Nardella
Mr G. Seitz
Mr K. Smith
Chair: Mr G. Seitz
Deputy Chair: Mr K. Smith
Staff
Executive Officer: Mr S. Coley
Research Officer: Mr K. Delaney
Witnesses
Mr Christopher Williams, Manager, Treatment and Recycling (sworn),
Ms Elizaqbeth Roder, Team Leader, Water Recycling (affirmed), and
Mr Dennis Corbett, Manager, Catchments (sworn)
Melbourne Water.
357
The CHAIR — I welcome our new witnesses. All evidence taken by the committee in this hearing is
protected under the provisions of the Constitution Act 1975, the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, the
Defamation Act, and where applicable in other jurisdictions. You have parliamentary privilege while here.
Mr CORBETT — My name is Dennis Corbett and my mailing address is 100 Wellington Parade, East
Melbourne.
Mr WILLIAMS — My name is Christopher John Williams and my mailing address is 100 Wellington
Parade, East Melbourne.
Ms RODER — My official name is Elizabeth Roder and my mailing address is 100 Wellington Parade, East
Melbourne.
The CHAIR — In due course you will get a copy of the Hansard transcript. We try to keep this informal.
Firstly, we want you to make a presentation of 20 minutes and then give us about 10 minutes for questions. It
does not always work that way, but we try to get information and a dialogue happening.
Mr WILLIAMS — A submission was made by Melbourne Water in 2008 from the perspective of our role
in the management of Melbourne’s waterways, drainage and flood plains. Since the submission was made, a
request was made by the committee for additional information focusing on recycled water and the associated
salinity levels.
Accordingly I will present a bit of an overview of the roles and responsibilities of Melbourne Water in this area,
mainly on salinity in the sewerage entering the western treatment plant, measures aimed at reducing those levels
and investigations into the measures to reduce salinity in the recycled water and the associated interfaces with
Southern Rural Water’s Western Irrigation Futures study. I will also talk through some information on the
factors influencing the availability of recycled water from the western treatment plant.
First off, there are three metropolitan retail water companies in Melbourne: City West Water, Yarra Valley
Water, and South East Water, and all three retailers send sewerage to the western treatment plant in Werribee.
The retailers manage the collection and transfer of the sewerage from their customers into the sewerage system,
and that includes more than 19 000 kilometres of smaller pipes.
The quality of the sewage when it enters the system is managed by the retail water companies. This includes
both the domestic sewerage customers and trade waste discharges from industrial and commercial customers as
well. The bulk sewage is transferred to the western and eastern treatment plants via approximately
400 kilometres of trunk sewer system, which is operated by Melbourne Water.
Melbourne Water is also responsible for the treatment of sewage at those two large treatment plants in
accordance with the licence requirements of EPA Victoria. Around 92 per cent of all of Melbourne’s sewage is
treated at those two plants — the western treatment plant taking around 52 per cent; and the eastern, 40 per cent.
The retail water companies also operate a number of smaller decentralised sewage treatment plants, which tend
to be out on the fringes of metropolitan area. They treat the remaining 8 per cent of Melbourne’s sewage. A
portion of the treated effluent produced at the western treatment plant is used on site. An additional amount is
treated further to a class A standard and supplied both to the retailers and also to Southern Rural Water.
Overheads shown.
Mr WILLIAMS — I might briefly flick up our overheads there. That gives you an idea of the relative areas
of jurisdiction for the retailers managing those individual customers discharging into the system. Western
treatment plant is in red down there on the left, obviously.
The next slide sets out those division of responsibilities for the various areas. Melbourne Water, in the middle
there, is the wholesaler, and the retailers are at each end, both in terms of management of the quality coming
into the system and also as recycled water retailers.
The salt entering the western treatment plant is reported as a measurement of total dissolved solids — the
acronym being TDS, and you will hear me throw that in a few times along the way. The salt also influences the
electrical conductivity of the water. It is often reported in those terms as well. You will hear people refer to ECs
358
(electrical conductivities) of this and TDSs of that. It is just different measures of essentially the same
properties.
Each year approximately 150 000 tonnes of TDS enters the western treatment plant and rises from domestic
sewage — from our bathrooms, our kitchens, our laundries, the toilets, industrial and commercial customers and
infiltration in areas where there might be saline groundwater getting in through small leaks into the pipes.
Melbourne Water’s involvement in reducing salinity levels in the wastewater flowing to the western treatment
plant is focused on a number of key areas. We do not have that direct interface with domestic or trade waste
customers. The most appropriate source of information on those customers would be the retail water companies.
City West Water, for instance, has been working on cleaner production initiatives with its trade waste customers
since around 2003. It has produced some reductions in load going to the western treatment plant. Melbourne
Water works with the EPA and the retail water companies as part of the trade waste partnerships program. We
have a memorandum of understanding with the EPA whereby we can contribute funding to some of those
initiatives. That program is based on a cleaner production approach in accordance with the EPA waste
management hierarchy. It aims to minimise the production of waste as close as possible to the source.
The infiltration of saline groundwater can occur due to the porosity of the systems – from small leaks into the
sewer network, which allows water from the groundwater table to infiltrate into the sewer. Generally areas near
or below sea level result in higher water volume coming into the sewers and higher TDS concentrations
obviously as well.
Melbourne Water does extensive work to inspect, maintain and, where needed, rehabilitate its sewers. The key
drivers for the rehabilitation or replacement of those sewers are usually structural integrity and the need to
manage customer growth. But this work also minimises groundwater infiltration along the way and hence
minimises the salinity associated with it from entering the sewer system that flows to the western treatment
plant.
The main example we have found where there might be potential for salt reduction through reducing infiltration
is in the Williamstown catchment. Key findings from a recent salinity and flow monitoring study undertaken in
that system indicated that the salt load into the Williamstown sewer system was of the order of 37 tonnes per
day, which equates to approximately 9 per cent of the total TDS load to the western treatment plant.
It should be noted that the Williamstown catchment has a unique set of conditions. Monitoring by CCTV has
shown it to be atypical of the broader Melbourne water sewerage system. It was constructed by tunnel in the
early 1900s and the pipe is fabricated using brickwork. The groundwater hence can make its way into the
system where there have been weak points in the brick mortar. Brick sewers were not constructed in the
Melbourne system after the 1920s. The majority of Melbourne Water’s sewers are in fact concrete.
The costs and benefits of any additional work in that catchment to reduce the ingress of groundwater is being
assessed by Melbourne Water. Estimating those costs is not simple. Estimating the likely reduction that would
be achieved in that infiltration is also a fairly complex matter. Longer term monitoring of the groundwater levels
and the salt loads that would be required to enable us to focus any work should they be required and to
determine the potential benefits and the impacts of that option.
Another strategy for reducing the salt discharged into the sewerage system is through pricing signals which
provide incentive for changes by customers. This approach is consistent with facilitating water recycling and
also with the water industry regulatory order principles to create incentives for more efficient and sustainable
resource use. Melbourne Water introduced a salt price in 2005–06. The future charges are determined along
with other pricing matters by the Essential Services Commission, and that process is running at the moment.
Another initiative undertaken in conjunction with the retail water companies is the implementation of an
ISO22000 accredited quality management system. A key component of the ISO22000 framework is the
establishment of a systematic and robust process for identifying and assessing hazards associated with sewage
quality. The process enables you to target your programs to the contaminants or the areas of greatest concern.
It also provides the framework for developing action plans to address contaminants of potential concern. It will
require consideration of a whole range of opportunities to improve sewage quality and assess the associated
triple bottom line benefits and costs.
359
The other area, I guess, for consideration is the potential for reducing salinity in recycled water through
treatment — that is, end of pipe treatment, I guess you would call it. That has been investigated extensively by
Melbourne Water and the retail water companies as well.
We have also investigated options associated with blending or shandying the water with lower salinity sources,
considered the reduction-at-source options and the cost of potential measures for diverting salt from the system.
The conclusion from all this work is that while other options could make a contribution to achieving a major
reduction in recycled water salinity, it would really require a salt reduction plant — some form of end-of-pipe
treatment would be needed.
Melbourne Water has commissioned a range of work associated with investigating salt reduction treatment at
the western treatment plant and performed a series of demonstration trials. That work confirmed that it was
technically possible to use salt-reduction treatment processes on the recycled water at the western treatment
plant, however, it was found that the cost incurred to supply recycled water with a TDS of around
600 milligrams per litre, or around 1000 EC (electrical conductivity) units for customers such as the Werribee
irrigation district via a salt reduction plant was not economically feasible.
The cost could not be recovered from the end user, and at the time there was perhaps not sufficient clarity on the
commitment from the recycled water customers to accept the recycled water on an ongoing basis. The recycled
water supply for the Werribee irrigation district was originally designed as a supplement to the river water
supply. That has changed somewhat from the original intent that the salinity of the recycled water was to be
reduced through blending or shandying with the lower salinity river water. But the high-reliability river water
allocation for the irrigation district has been as low as 2 per cent and is currently, I think, at around 5 per cent.
As a result of the prolonged drought and reduced river flows, the irrigation district recycled water scheme has
had to operate very differently to what the original intent was. The shandying of the recycled water and the river
water is no longer a reliable option. Along with the drought impacting on groundwater reserves in the area — a
ban is now in place on the groundwater extractions — the irrigation is therefore now almost completely
supplied by recycled water alone, without any benefits of salinity reduction through shandying.
Southern Rural Water currently manages the Western Irrigation Futures study to determine the requirements for
a sustainable future for both the Bacchus Marsh and Werribee irrigation districts. One of the objectives of the
Futures study is to define the water quality requirements associated with long-term sustainable use of the
recycled water as the primary supply of irrigation water for the district. The previous investigations have
targeted a salinity of approximately 600-milligram-per-litre TDS, or around 1000 electrical conductivity units.
The average salinity of the class A recycled water supply to Southern Rural Water for the irrigation district in
the last two years was approximately 2000 electrical conductivity units, or around 1200 milligram-per-litre
TDS.
In the 2008–09 summer approximately 500 megalitres of potable quality water was also supplied to the district
as a temporary transfer of the drought reserve allocation in the Thomson Reservoir from the Macalister
irrigators. Whilst the initial intent of the transfer was the increase the water allocation to the growers it also
helped in reducing the salinity of the recycled water during January and February when the potential impact of
salinity on the plants is at its most critical.
It should be noted that that water was supplied as a temporary drought relief measure and any possibility of that
continuing on in the future is uncertain. The salinity of the irrigation water supplied at the time of this blending
was reduced from approximately 2000 EC to approximately 1600 EC. Southern Rural Water has been advised
anecdotally by a number of the growers in the district that the on-farm benefits associated with this salinity
reduction were quite noticeable.
In addition, the results of the recent annual soil monitoring program in the district have shown some
encouraging results. Average salinity levels appear to have reached a new equilibrium value, which is the
balance between the salt input from recycled water and the salt removal from the leaching and the produce
harvest.
The ideal level of salinity for things like lettuce growing is, however, lower than the current supply and requires
significant amounts of soil conditioners to manage the salinity impacts. Salinity levels higher than 1000 EC may
be suitable in the longer term with appropriate on-farm management practices providing average soil salinity to
360
be maintained within sustainable levels. Based on these factors it was agreed with Southern Rural Water that it
would be worthwhile investigating treatment to reduce salinity to a degree but not as far as it was looked at in
the previous studies.
Achieving salinities higher than 1000 EC might result in a lower cost outcome and make it more feasible to
provide that water to the irrigation district with some degree of salt reduction. This is being done as part of the
Western Irrigation Futures study. The work is still in progress, and it will be finalised along with the rest of that
Irrigation Futures study.
Moving on to the question of the availability of recycled water from the western treatment plant, there is a range
of factors which influence that availability. The Western Treatment Plant site itself is classified as a
Ramsar-listed wetland and, accordingly, Melbourne Water has significant obligations under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to maintain the environmental values of the site. WTP effluent,
which is class C recycled water quality, is supplied to core conservation areas including certain lagoons and
drains and wetland areas to maintain the values of the site. Both the quality and the quantity of that water need
to be closely monitored and managed to ensure there are no adverse impacts to the environmental values of the
site.
No salinity target has currently been specified for those on-site uses but changes to the volume or the quality of
the water supplied to those areas must be assessed with regards to the potential impact on the environmental
conditions and the biodiversity values of the site. The volume of the class C recycled water discharged to those
core environmental areas on the site in 2007–08 was approximately 16 000 megalitres.
The groundwater profile of the WTP site is affected by the line of wetlands that impede drainage to the
shoreline and that profile, along with the 100-year use of the site for sewage application across much of the
property, has created areas with a high water table and relatively high soil salinity and sodicity. Degradation of
the property through salinisation has been controlled by the regular irrigation or flushing of the soils using the
class C recycled water in conjunction with careful agricultural practices.
A land-use strategy developed in 2006 identified the benefits from diversification of agriculture on the property
by introducing a balance of cropping, livestock and horticulture applications. In particular, the proposed change
from the current pasture-based system has the potential to reduce the amount of recycled water needed on-site
for the management of soil salinity.
As recycled water salinity increases, the salt in the soil builds up requiring additional volumes to flush through
the salinity and hence manage the soil properties. If salt concentrations were to increase, then greater volumes of
recycled water might be needed on site for that salinity management purpose. Conversely, if the salt levels were
to drop, then the required volume would potentially drop as well.
The volume of class C water used on the site for salinity and sodicity management was approximately
28 000 megalitres in 2007–08. It is estimated that that volume can be reduced when a more diversified
agricultural system is adopted in the next few years. So moving to that different balance of cropping and
livestock will potentially reduce that requirement. That transition will have to be very carefully managed to
ensure that the change to practices on site do not compromise Melbourne Water’s obligations under the EPBC
Act.
Class A recycled water is also supplied to City West and Southern Rural Water for a number of off-site projects.
The City West projects include MacKillop College and the Werribee employment precinct. There are also
drought relief standpipes located at the Western Treatment Plant, whereby tankers can come and fill up and take
that water for use in open space irrigation and things like that, so drought relief measures. Melbourne Water is
also currently supporting City West’s investigation of the feasibility of supplying recycled water to the West
Werribee dual pipe scheme.
In 2007–08 we supplied approximately 300 megalitres of class A water to City West. Southern Rural Water
receives Class A recycled water from us for the Werribee tourist precinct and also the Werribee Irrigation
District. The volume of Class A water supplied in 2007–08 for these uses was 12 700 megalitres.
To address the potential of competing demands for recycled water from the Western Treatment Plant, an
allocation hierarchy has been developed which prioritises the supply of water to the higher value uses over
361
lower value uses. That allocation hierarchy is along the lines of the conservation uses at WTP for biodiversity
management is at the top, then on-site irrigation for salinity and sodicity management and off-site committed
contracts, particularly where they are for uses that feature potable or river water substitution. Continuing down
the hierarchy we come to new potable substitution uses, both off site and on site, and after that comes any
on-site or off-site projects that are not potable or river water substitution.
The main objective of the hierarchy is really to prioritise the allocation of reliable recycled water volumes on an
annual basis and ensure that the seasonal demands from the customers are met. Daily operations require some
flexibility to ensure that the immediate needs from sensitive customers are met while still supplying the overall
contractual volumes over the course of the year to all customers.
Looking forward, the longer term availability of recycled water from the Western Treatment Plant is subject to a
number of uncertainties and influences. In addition to confirming the future demands from customers such as
the Werribee Irrigation District and the demands for on-site salinity and sodicity management, there are
uncertainties around the impact of climate change and the way that that influences sewage inflows to the plants.
If climate change and the drought were to worsen and we saw increased water conservation measures, then that
might further restrict the volumes of sewerage going through the western treatment plant. Without knowing
those accurately, it is difficult to in turn accurately forecast the long-term inflows to WTP and therefore what
the availability of recycled water will be.
What we can say in general, though, is that the demand for recycled water is similar to the availability in the
summer months and that the majority of surplus recycled water available from the site is in fact in the winter
months when the demand for the agricultural applications tends to be low. To access that water for irrigation
outside of the summer months will of course require some form of winter storage and that would have to be
quite large and hence quite expensive to enable that winter production of water to be available in the summer
months.
Maximising the use of recycled water is obviously very beneficial environmentally. It reduces the stress on our
potable water supplies and it also potentially reduces the volume of discharge to Port Phillip Bay from the
western treatment plant. An upgrade to the treatment plant was completed in 2004 to increase nitrogen removal
capacity and improve treated water quality, which facilitated increased recycling.
That upgrade was subject to approval under the EPBC act. One aspect of that was considering the impact of
changing nitrogen loads on migratory wader habit in the area where the discharge occurs at WTP. The reduced
sewage flows as a result of water conservation has improved treatment efficiency and also reduced the amount
of discharge. As a result, the discharge nitrogen load has reduced quite substantially. Monitoring the migratory
wader numbers and habit suggests that there may be a change in the mix of the organisms that the waders feed
on. We have to take into account those potential effects going forward for how much discharge leaves the
treatment plant. The effects of that are not yet clear.
A study is under way to assess the environmental aspects surrounding the discharge from the treatment plant
and to allow us to come to a view around the appropriate level of discharge to balance minimising the impact on
the broader bay environment with retention of the important migratory wader habitat at the discharge point.
When this study is complete, that will give additional certainty around what additional volume of water can be
directed to recycling while maintaining the appropriate balance in the discharge environment.
Moving on to the trends for the salinity of recycled water, the western treatment plant discharge at the moment
has approximately 1000 milligrams per litre total dissolved solids. While the salt load in the sewage entering the
treatment plant has decreased since 2005 as a result of the retail water company cleaner production initiatives
with their individual customers, this has been offset to a degree by the drop in inflows to the treatment plant. So
even though the loads to the treatment plant have declined, because the flows have gone down as well, the
concentration has not dropped. So the concentration of salt in the recycled water has not dropped, as a result of
that.
The treatment processes at WTP do not reduce salinity at the moment. The large surface area of the lagoons
used to treat the sewage result in evaporation losses, so that tends to slightly increase the concentration of salt in
the recycled water as well. We have done extensive work to investigate ways to reduce that salinity. The work
to date has indicated that the end-of-pipe treatment to reduce the salinity in the recycled water to be quite
362
expensive. Additional source reductions of salinity beyond that achieved to date through the trade waste and
domestic customer programs and sewer rehabilitation are also quite expensive.
The drivers for additional investment in those sorts of measures or salt-reduction treatment for the recycled
water are influenced by some uncertainties, such as the future demands from the customers, the overall level of
demand of the recycled water from the Western Treatment Plant and the impacts of climate change on all the
water resources across Melbourne. The Western Irrigation Futures study provides a vehicle for resolution of
some of those uncertainties and issues for the irrigation district and Melbourne Water is assisting as required in
that process. While it is difficult to forecast the future salinity levels of recycled water at WTP, in a scenario
without additional reductions in the inputs or additional recycled water treatment, the main influence is likely to
be the volume of the sewage inflows available to dilute those salt loads.
I guess the key conclusion coming out of all that is that we note that salinity in recycled water originates from
the domestic and industrial discharges and from groundwater infiltration into the sewer, with each making a
significant contribution. The readily achievable reductions in salinity levels in the input to the Western
Treatment Plant have been achieved and additional reductions beyond that will come at a significant cost. The
salinity levels in recycled water can be reduced further through treatment, but the cost of that treatment is an
order of magnitude higher than the current level of treatment for recycled water production.
The key issues for the future really are: the capacity of the recycled water users to pay for any additional
changes, either at source or through treatment; getting appropriate certainty around the demands, to justify any
such further work and expenditure; determining the amount of water that is required to maintain the
environmental values around the western treatment plant; and finalising also the additional water available at
WTP that can be used for recycling.
Mr SMITH — We are talking about the salinity in the discharge from the western treatment plant. With all
the knowledge that there is in the technical backup that Melbourne Water should have, surely they can remove
the salt from the discharge. What are you doing, what is the reason that it is still discharging out as salty as it is
and when are you going to do something about it?
Mr WILLIAMS — The salt that is present in there can be removed — you can have a combination of at
source controls and so forth — but a lot of the lower cost changes in that regard have already been
implemented. To go further than that would involve significant cost. To treat that water to reduce the salt
involves a significant step beyond the sort of treatment processes that are normally applied for the production of
recycled water for irrigation applications.
That technology is expensive and it can be energy intensive as well. We have trialled that. It is technically
feasible, it can be done; there is no doubt about that. It is a question though, of whether there is a way to recover
the cost associated with that treatment.
Mr SMITH — Surely you have some responsibility to the people in the western suburbs, and the growers
in the western suburbs, to produce water for them. If you cannot give it to them under ordinary circumstances
using potable water you have some responsibility to them to produce water that is not going to kill off or burn
their crops or whatever. You talked about cost: how much cost?
Mr WILLIAMS — The investigations that are happening as part of the Irrigation Futures study at the
moment is indicating that a balance between on-farm measures and certain degrees of treatment might result in
more acceptable costs for production of fit-for-purpose water. That work is ongoing at the moment as part of the
Irrigation Futures study, and one of the outputs from that study will be to assess what is the optimum balance
between on-farm measures and treatment for the reduction of salinity levels.
Mr SMITH — You do not know how much it is going to cost. Is that what you are saying?
Mr WILLIAMS — I cannot give you an exact number on that now. That is part of the work that is being
done as input to the Irrigation Futures study. Previous work to reduce the salinity to levels which would make it
very easy to use that water, and the sort of crops that are there in the irrigation district, indicated that it would be
quite expensive. The feedback from Southern Rural Water and the growers is that that would not be a feasible
cost for them.
363
Mr SMITH — Was there not some talk about getting water from the south eastern purification plant across
there and doing a cocktail with the better quality from the eastern treatment plant?
Mr WILLIAMS — I guess there are a range of options available. Previously we have looked at a range of
blending and shandying options. It is a struggle to find options which are any lower cost than the sorts of
measures that are being explored now as part of the Irrigation Futures study.
Mr SMITH — Dennis suggested in his submission that possibilities exist in some areas for excess
stormwater to be directed to sewerage mains thereby increasing the amount of water going into the treatment
plants and increasing the amount of treated water subsequently available. If stormwater was directed into those
treatment plants through the sewerage system are they capable of treating that water or cleaning it up?
Mr WILLIAMS — I think the suggestion might have been around making use of other pipes like the old
outfall sewer and so forth. It is very much just an idea at this stage so there would be a lot of work to be done to
look at the feasibility of that and to come to a view whether that was actually possible. It is very early days on
that.
Mr NARDELLA — Is that part of the Irrigation Futures project?
Mr WILLIAMS — No, that is separate. At this stage the Irrigation Futures study is focusing on the various
blending options and treatment of the recycled water to reduce the salinity.
Mr NARDELLA — On Caroline Springs sewerage, City West Water put in the Derrimut diverter — about
80 million dollars. Are you able to isolate that water that is coming through from Caroline Springs because it
has a lower salt level? Can you treat it and get it to the Werribee South irrigators?
Mr WILLIAMS — I cannot comment on that scheme specifically, I am not across the detail. But at a more
general level the potential for diversion of flows to separate out the higher salt flows from the lower salt ones
was investigated previously and it was not considered feasible at that particular time.
Mr NARDELLA — The Derrimut diverter just goes into the normal stream of sewerage that gets treated?
Mr WILLIAMS — I am not familiar with the detail of that particular scheme.
Mr NARDELLA — Who is?
Mr WILLIAMS — I would have to seek additional information from the organisation.
Mr NARDELLA — Can you get that additional information to us? They put in 80 million dollars to do it,
and I think the EC level is about 600 or 800 EC which is what they are after. With the growth in the UGB, there
would be a lot more water coming through.
Do you have a list of companies who put salt through a trade waste licence? Do you have the salt companies’
top 100?
Mr WILLIAMS — You would have to consult with the retail water companies to get that. They have the
direct interface — —
Mr NARDELLA — Is that City West Water — —
Mr WILLIAMS — I guess all of the retail water companies.
Mr NARDELLA — But the major retail water company up there is City West Water, is it not?
Mr WILLIAMS — Yes, but flows from all of the retailers go to the western treatment plant.
Mr NARDELLA — Is Werribee Fields hooked up to recycled water yet?
Mr WILLIAMS — The Werribee Fields development?
Mr NARDELLA — Yes.
364
Mr WILLIAMS — I think that development is in its early days. I am not aware of it being hooked up as
such at this stage, because I am not sure if the demand would be there yet. I would have to check.
Mr NARDELLA — Can you get back to us on that?
The CHAIR — Would you mind letting us have a copy of your presentation for our staff?
Mr WILLIAMS — Do you mean the slides? I have not done them in a form that was intended as a written
submission. We can do so and send it in.
The CHAIR — We would greatly appreciate if you could make them available for the staff.
Mr SMITH — Can you tell me what is planned for the eastern purification plant so far as recycling is
concerned? Who are your customers going to be, and what percentage of them are you going to have and what
percentage is going to be in Melbourne Water’s own use?
Mr WILLIAMS — The particular individual recycled water customers are customers of South East Water
primarily. They are the retailer of recycled water in the area.
At the moment that water goes to customers who use it for agriculture purposes; also it goes into third-pipe
schemes for new residential developments. They are, I guess, the principal applications going forward. I would
imagine those would continue to develop; as new housing developments occur, then provision is made to fit the
third pipe in those areas, so that will continue to develop.
Mr SMITH — That was all the private sector that did all of that though, was it not? It went to Sandhurst
and it went to the south-east growers. What has Melbourne Water done? What are your plans?
Mr WILLIAMS — Melbourne Water is a wholesaler of recycled water. We sell that on to retailers of
recycled water, which in that particular case would be South East Water. It has been investigating a range of
other potential applications in its area, and I am sure it would be happy to provide additional information on the
outlook for those particular uses.
Mr SMITH — Why did it take so long for Melbourne Water to agree to the private sector in fact getting the
water to Sandhurst and to the south-east growers?
Mr WILLIAMS — I am not sure what you are referring to when you say it took so long for us to agree?
Mr SMITH — Melbourne Water was not supportive of the private sector getting into the distribution of
recycled water. It did not approve it actually happening. I am just wondering why.
Mr WILLIAMS — The eastern irrigation scheme is an arrangement with ourselves and the private sector.
That is happening now. I think it was in 2005 that that started operation. In fact Melbourne Water has been
supportive of that project and that development.
Mr SMITH — Melbourne Water was not supportive of it, though. The developers wanted to go ahead with
it two and a half years before you approved of it. I want to know why we had to wait so long for that water to go
through.
Mr WILLIAMS — I am not aware of what occurred at the particular time that you are referring to. I would
have to seek additional information.
Mr SMITH — I would like you to seek it and pass it on to the committee, if you could.
Mr WILLIAMS — Any project like that actually goes through a range of investigations and feasibility
studies.
Mr SMITH — They had all been done. South East Water approved it. You did not.
Mr WILLIAMS — As I say, I am not familiar with those particular issues.
365
Mr SMITH — What do you have planned for the future of South East Water? You talked about retailers
from the eastern treatment plant, and you talked about South East Water getting the customers. There would
probably be plenty of customers there, but you have to make it available. What will it cost to bring up the water
from the discharge out to Bass Strait up to a level where it could be used for sale for Melbourne agricultural,
horticultural, parks gardens, and industry uses?
We worry about water that we cannot get for drinking because our water supplies are getting so low, yet
industry is using so much of the water. I would have thought Melbourne Water would be in a position where it
would be openly encouraging people to take recycled water, and in fact would have it ready to provide to the
customers.
Mr WILLIAMS — The upgrade of the eastern treatment plant will facilitate exactly what you are talking
about: producing recycled water that is suitable for a broader range of applications.
Mr SMITH — Class A?
Mr WILLIAMS — Class A, that is correct. That is in hand and the upgrade is intended to be — —
Mr SMITH — Sorry, it is in hand?
Mr WILLIAMS — Yes, the upgrade is intended to be completed by the end of 2012, hence that water is
available for that broader range of uses.
Mr SMITH — At what cost?
Mr WILLIAMS — The cost of the water per megalitre?
Mr SMITH — No, the cost to install the treatment plant that will be necessary to bring that water up to
class A standard.
Mr WILLIAMS — The cost has been previously included in our corporate plans and so forth. The trialling
work that has been going on at the treatment plant to enable us to choose the optimum means of upgrading the
treatment plant has been inputting into the design for the upgrading of the treatment plant, and that will allow us
to refine those costs.
Mr NARDELLA — If it is in your corporate plan, give us a ballpark figure.
Mr WILLIAMS — I do not have that off the top of my head.
Mr NARDELLA — Can you provide that?
Mr SMITH — You are the manager of recycling, you should know, I would have thought. You do not?
How long have you been in your job — and I do not mean this in a nasty way, I just want to know.
Mr WILLIAMS — In this particular role, 12 to 18 months.
Mr SMITH — So you were not there when they made the decision regarding going out to Sandhurst and to
the south-east growers?
Mr WILLIAMS — I was not involved in the recycling area when that happened, no.
Mr SMITH — But you will be able to look up the information for us as to why it took so long?
Mr WILLIAMS — I will be happy to find out what I can.
Mr SMITH — And provide that to the committee.
The CHAIR — You mentioned at the beginning of your presentation about the old brickwork piping in the
water system. How is that going now? Is there progress in replacing it to alleviate the problem of some of the
saline seeping in?
366
Mr WILLIAMS — We have an inspection and renewals program; it is part of our water asset management
arrangements for the sewers that we manage. There are regular inspections, and that allows us to prioritise any
works within the system to minimise any infiltration into the system, and there is an ongoing program of works
to do that.
The CHAIR — As you can tell from the questions my colleagues and I have been asking, we all get the idea
that it is quite expensive to clean the water, especially from the western treatment plant. Before the water even
comes in from the licensed dischargers, what is done onsite to clean the water before you will accept it?
Are there any steps ahead of these licences being changed to prepare for the future, because in years to come
you will not accept that sort of water, including the water from the households because of the sale of all these
soap products, dishwashing products and the like that have a high salt content?
What proactive action are you taking within government and the departments as to whether it needs legislation,
whether we need to prohibit the importing of those goods here and putting them on the supermarket shelves.
The companies that are discharging it — because at the end of the day we as a community will have to pay for
the water to be cleaned, and we will be subsidising those multinational polluters.
Is there any plan to saying you have got 5 years or 10 years? I recall from when I worked in the industry that
there used to be strict implementation — that they had several years to clean their act up and treat it on-site
before it would be accepted — to lift that level far higher up than what is going into the system now.
Mr WILLIAMS — There has been some success with cleaner production initiatives which have reduced
the total load coming to the western treatment plant, so there have been some successes there. Going beyond
that, for additional detail it really is the province of the retail water companies. They have that direct interface,
so they could probably give you the best and most accurate information on that, and that includes domestic
measures as well: as you say, substitution of detergents with lower salt contents and things like that. But the
retail water companies are the best source of information.
The CHAIR — Yes, but what I am saying is when a country goes to war it takes all players, the navy, the air
force and the military, cooperating and working on the project. I would urge you guys to get together, all of you,
with your resources and establish a task force that will look at it. It is not his problem or that problem. You need
to have a joint task force in the water industry to look at this whole project of concern, because climate change
is a problem which will affect all of us and we need to carry out the work to be able to use that water that is
going to waste now in the western treatment plant.
Mr WILLIAMS — And we certainly do that. We work with the retail — —
The CHAIR — The answer we get as politicians is: it is too expensive, it is too expensive, but we never get
a finite figure. We do not give any reason or anything else. Other countries have done it. They have changed salt
water into water that can be used as class A water. We in Victoria are getting to the stage that we have to look at
it at the coalface, in reality.
Mr NARDELLA — You talked about the salt price. What is it now, and what is it going to be in the future?
Mr WILLIAMS — The essential services commission is going through the price-setting process at the
moment, so that will determine what the price is — —
Mr NARDELLA — So what have you recommended?
Mr WILLIAMS — I do not have that number off the top of my head.
Mr NARDELLA — But there has been a recommendation from Melbourne Water for that, hasn’t there?
Mr WILLIAMS — Yes.
Mr NARDELLA — Can you provide what that recommendation is and the time lines and increases in that
salt price as per your submission to the ESC?
Mr WILLIAMS — Yes.
367
Mr SMITH — Every industry that is discharging into the sewerage system has a trade waste agreement and
a licence that allows them to discharge into the sewerage system. There are restrictions on what they can put in
and the quality of the water that they are putting into it. Obviously there are a lot of them, and this is following
on from what the Chair said: there are a lot of them that are discharging outside their committed licence.
Why is some action not being taken against some of these people? You can go to a point of discharge of their
sewerage and you can follow their water trail, find out what the problem is, how much salt and chemicals there
are, and all the rest of the stuff, and if necessary close them down until they it. Why do you not do that? You
have got the powers under the act to be able to do something like that. Why do you not do it, because the
flow-on effect of this is quite horrific, as we have seen from the western treatment plant?
Mr WILLIAMS — Melbourne Water directly does not have a relationship with those trade waste
customers. That really is the province of the retail water companies. I guess any measures like that have to be
weighed up on the basis of the impacts on those individual companies, the jobs that go with them and so forth. I
guess those are some of the considerations which have to be taken into account, but the information with regard
to the individual customers I do not — —
Mr SMITH — I am sorry, but you are the peak water body. You are taking the water and you are
dispensing water, and you have got retailers out there that are collecting and distributing. You are in a position
to say no to a retailer that is putting water into the system that is not suitable, that does not come up to the
standards, so you can say to them, ‘fix it’. You have the power to do that. You cannot walk away from your
responsibilities.
Mr WILLIAMS — We have to work as an industry as a whole to balance up the competing demands.
Mr SMITH — That does not mean allowing industry to become the polluters, which is exactly what it is.
They are polluting the whole system. They do not have a right to do that, and you do not have a right to walk
away from your responsibilities of following them up.
Mr WILLIAMS — We work with the retailers to weigh up the impacts of individual discharges on a whole
range of factors influencing what happens with the water, and we can only go so far with what we do directly.
The measures for the individual customers are not something that I can comment directly on. I am not in a
position to give you — —
Mr SMITH — If they were discharging crap into the skies from their chimneys, the EPA would step in and
do something about it. Do we need the EPA to step in on top of you guys and say that you are allowing this
discharge to go into your treatment plants? Do we need them to do that? I would have thought you had the
control to do it yourself.
Mr WILLIAMS — We are not a regulator. We are a service provider.
Mr NARDELLA — Chris, under the Howard government — —
Mr GUY — Here we go. The ears prick up!
Mr NARDELLA — No, this is positive.
Mr GUY (to Mr Nardella) — Right, we will see. You can talk about it if you want.
The CHAIR — Order!
Mr NARDELLA — Like the resignation of Costello. Under the Howard government there was a program
of providing some grants and assistance to companies to reduce their salt load into the sewerage stream. Is there
still that type of program at the moment? Arising from that, if there is, how is it working? If there is not, should
that type of program be looked at?
Mr WILLIAMS — The trade waste partnerships program, which involves EPA Victoria and the water
companies, does exactly that. Melbourne Water makes some contributions to that and the retail water
companies do and so on. That program is exactly that — helping the dischargers of various materials to the
sewerage system to change their practices in a way that has an overall triple-bottom-line benefit.
368
Mr NARDELLA — That is good. Are you able to provide to the committee some of that material of the
program — the funding, how many companies are using it, how successful it has been? ABMT out at Melton
used a similar program, and that is certainly one of the ways of encouraging companies to reduce their salt load.
If you can provide that information to the committee, that would be great.
The CHAIR — You understand from the committee point of view, especially the western treatment plant,
we have so many gigalitres of water there that are not being used, cannot be used. As you said, you are not a
retailer. You mentioned in the submission about the uncertainty of how many customers are going to use the
water. Has anybody got anything proactive?
If you were to have a better treatment of water — class A water — you would enable other markets, other
consumers, to start up? There is all that dry land out there between Werribee and Geelong right through to
Bacchus Marsh — encouraging industries, if the possibility were there. Has there been any feasibility studies by
any other source? If not Melbourne Water, is anybody else looking at doing anything about it? That would
offset the figure called ‘quite expensive’, because I have never yet heard a dollar-per-megalitre put to it.
Mr WILLIAMS — We would certainly be supportive of the development of additional recycling
applications in the area, for sure.
The CHAIR — Thank you very much for your presentation and evidence today. In due course you will get
a copy of the transcript.
Committee adjourned.
369