DESALINATION PLANTS

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.M.A. Lensink:

That the Environment, Resources and Development Committee inquire into the environmental impacts of the proposed desalination plants at Port Stanvac and Port Bonython, and in particular—

1. the introduction of additional salts and chemicals into the marine environment;

2. the adequacy of tidal movements to disperse brine and chemicals;

3. the potential impact on a range of marine flora and fauna;

4. the potential impact on commercial and recreational fishing sectors;

5. the potential impact of contamination leachate from the location; and

6. any other matter

(Continued from 18 June 2008. Page 3363.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (22:26): As a member of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, I am happy to support this motion, which calls for a referral to that committee of the environmental impacts of the proposed desalination plants at Port Stanvac and Port Bonython. I have spent a great deal of time over the past year looking at desalination in both these locations, in particular looking at the environmental impacts. I think this is a worthwhile enquiry for the ERD committee to undertake.

Some members might think that such an enquiry is not necessary, because we have been assured that an environmental impact statement will be done as part of the desalination plant for either or both of these projects should they advance that far. However, I do not think that the EIS process itself is sufficient, because that process does not enable members of the public or members of this parliament to engage in any meaningful debate with the scientists and experts whose views we are invited to accept at face value. We can all make submissions to the EIS when it is published, but there is no process as part of the Development Act procedures for us to sit down and ask questions of the scientists whose views we are being asked to accept.

The honourable member's motion lists a number of things that the ERD Committee will be required to inquire into, including, for example, the potential impact on a range of marine flora and fauna. I took the opportunity recently to have a look at SA Water's development application for the desalination plant at Port Stanvac. Whilst the document is entitled 'Major Development Application', my understanding is that it relates only to the pilot project. It states:

Past marine surveys in the vicinity of the Port Stanvac site, including an extensive survey conducted by the University of Adelaide (Cheshire and Kildea 1993; Cheshire et al. 1996) from 1992 to 1996, approximately 1 km south of the Port Stanvac site, and surveys of the intertidal rock platforms at the site by the University of Adelaide (Womersley 1988) and Flinders University (Benkendorff 2007 in press) have not recorded any listed rare, threatened or endangered species in the region.

I can tell you why they did not find any listed rare, threatened or endangered species, and that is that there are not any listed rare, threatened or endangered marine species. The National Parks and Wildlife Act schedules do not extend to the listing of fish, crustaceans or, to my understanding, any sea plants at all, so of course you do not find anything rare, because none of these things have been listed in our regulations. There may well be some commonwealth lists under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—I have not looked at those—but, certainly, state law is entirely inadequate when it comes to listed rare, threatened and endangered species in the marine environment.

If that is the best that SA Water can do, I think that some extra scrutiny by parliament will be worthwhile. I acknowledge that a more thorough process is to be undertaken to investigate the marine environment. The SA Water website shows some of the inquiries that are to be undertaken; yet, as I said before, we will not have any opportunity through formal government processes to ask questions of those experts. I am very much looking forward to doing that, and I think the ERD Committee is the appropriate forum.

I do note that the ERD Committee has before it a number of inquiries that are still under way, including one that was referred by parliament in relation to transport. We will have to make some progress on that before we can take on too much work, but I would hope that the committee can work on these in parallel. However, in terms of the pecking order, I think we will have to make a start on the transport inquiry before we can get into this. That does not mean we should not support this motion. The Greens are happy to support it, and I urge all honourable members to do likewise.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (22:32): Desalination is a technological fix—and, by fix, I do not mean a solution. If South Australia is to address its water problems, the first thing we must do is stop growing our population. More people creates more demand for more water. 'Populate or perish' was the mantra in the 1950s; it should now be 'populate and perish'. Clearly, we are not able to deal with our water supply with the current population; it is therefore madness to actively seek to increase the population, as this government is doing.

There are things we can do now to reduce water usage. One of these is to place water restrictions on industry, which is something this state government has so far failed to do. It has put restrictions on irrigators and on domestic water users, but it has put no requirement on industry to make any sacrifices. It is not as if it cannot be done, and I urge the government to take note of the success of Brisbane City Council in getting reductions in industry water usage.

Sensible water charging is another way of dealing with the situation, but what the government has just implemented has already been demonstrated to be flawed.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: That is true. Ninety per cent of my total annual water bill is charges, and under those circumstances there is really no incentive to reduce water usage—although I still work to achieve that. We need to restructure the billing to reduce those upfront charges and instead include them in the price of the water itself. Then, when there is decent feedback in there for the consumers, they will start to reduce their water usage.

The Democrats also advocate the removal of household water restrictions as part of that; with strong price-related feedback, consumers would naturally limit and rationalise their water usage. It would then be up to them whether or not they wanted to spend that very costly water filling their spas and swimming pools, or having hour-long showers if they so desire, or using it to produce their own fresh fruit and vegetables.

This fixation the government has with desalination plants represents a denial of the reality of population pressures, and it denies other realities as well—particularly the reality of climate change. There is a huge irony in the enormous amounts of energy that will be used to desalinate water when it is the cumulative impact of emissions from energy use that has caused rapid climate change. So, the logic of this government is to solve a problem created by emissions by emitting more.

Last year the World Wide Fund for Nature released a report entitled 'Making Water—Desalination: option or distraction for a thirsty world?', and I would like to quote little bits and pieces of that. It states:

Our knowledge of impacts [that is, impacts of desalination] is largely based on limited research from relatively small plants operating in relative isolation from each other. The future being indicated by public water authorities and the desalination industry is of ever larger plants that will frequently be clustered together in the relatively sensitive coastal environments that most attract extensive settlement.

That is certainly the case with what is happening here, with the Port Stanvac location being right alongside the extensive settlement of urban Adelaide.

When completed, the Port Stanvac desalination plant will provide no more than 20 per cent of Adelaide's water—and less than that if we keep increasing our population. Might we be better off using that money on water buybacks, substantially increasing the rebate for plumbing rainwater tanks into homes, offices and factories or simply giving away household grey water diversion kits?

Reverse osmosis desalination, which is the technology that will be used at both the Port Stanvac and Port Bonython plants, is highly energy intensive. We have been told that the projects will be carbon neutral (whatever that means), but in both cases we know that they will buy energy off the grid, which will put much more pressure on electricity prices. Nevertheless, we are assured that there will be carbon offsets, but the details are scarce, if not non-existent.

Instead of carbon offsets, why not avoid the pollution in the first place and use a different technology, such as solar distillation? One of the problems associated with desalination plants is the issue of intake, and that is the major reason a trial is going on at the moment at Port Stanvac. Last week, evidence given to the Natural Resources Committee was that the trial is not about the outlet and dispersal of the brine: it is about only the intake.

The intake is an important part of the terms of reference in this motion, one of which is about the potential impact on a range of marine flora and fauna. When you suck up small organisms and plankton, you suck up part of the marine food chain. When you destroy that, what impact will it have on other parts of that marine food chain? This question has not been answered in relation to either Gulf St Vincent or Spencer Gulf.

The report of the World Wide Fund for Nature on desalination does not paint a pretty picture of the chemicals involved, and the first term of reference we are looking at relates to the introduction of additional salts and chemicals into the marine environment. The report states:

As described in assessment documentation for one plant—

this is one plant only; it may be different for what is proposed at Port Stanvac and Port Bonython—

a typical pretreatment process to prevent fouling of the membranes includes the removal of suspended solids, chlorination or disinfection of the water, the addition of iron chloride as a coagulant and sulphuric acid to adjust pH. Several times an hour the filtration system is backwashed with a 12 per cent solution of sodium hypochlorite, a biocide. On the way to the membranes the feedwater is treated with an antiscalant (phospinocarboxylic acid) at a rate that depends on the quality of intake water—in this case it was forecast at about 4-6 mg/L. The antiscalant is discharged with the brine.

I think it is really important to recognise that much of the public discussion has been about the brine going back into the water, but there are also these extra chemicals. The report continues:

The product water is then treated with lime to bring its acidity into line with drinking water standards. Sodium metabisulphite is added to the discharge water to neutralise any free chlorine. A broad-spectrum biocide (containing 2,2 dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide) is added to the filtration and RO systems at approximately weekly intervals to prevent growth of microorganisms. Two to four times a year, depending on the degree of membrane fouling, both filtration and RO membranes undergo 'chemically enhanced cleaning' with acidic detergents.

Most, if not all, of these treatments are discharged with the waste brine stream although the discharge of the cleaning waste to sewer was raised as a possibility for this particular plant. Gross characteristics of the discharge water compared to the intake water include a small increase in temperature, increased acidity, a doubling of suspended solids and increased iron and sulphate content. The biocides used are described as breaking down in relatively short periods and most are described as having a low potential for bioaccumulation.

Well, I suppose I should say that is a relief about that last sentence, but when I hear something like this, it causes even more disturbance in my mind about what is proposed in what is, effectively, a closed system in these two gulfs. It really is important that the ERD Committee, in looking at this, goes into this aspect of the chemicals in very fine detail to find out just what it is that SA Water and this government have in mind.

Ian Kowalick, Murray-Darling Basin commissioner and former head of the Premier's department, told a Water Wednesday forum at Adelaide University that I attended a few weeks ago that desalination doubles the cost of water. Yet, we have been told by this government that we are going to have desalination and we are going to pay handsomely for it. The decision was made because this government has failed over a period of six years in its water planning.

Ian Kowalick also told the forum that St Vincent's Gulf is a very difficult location in which to build a desalination plant. He is correct, because it takes a full year for a complete replacement of the water in that gulf. In summer, the water simply circulates clockwise for a number of months (I think about five months) during which no fresh water enters. In Spencer Gulf, where the Port Bonython plant will be located, it takes 18 months for a complete replacement of the water. Yet, in both cases, with government blessing, the intention is to deliberately increase the salinity of those waters plus add some of those chemicals that I talked about a short time ago.

John Ringham of SA Water also addressed the same forum, and some of the things he had to say took me aback. He said that any desal plants we build have to be expandable in the future. I wonder how many people know that the Port Stanvac plant is set for further expansion. He said that Port Stanvac has good dispersal characteristics compared to other parts of the gulf, which leaves me wondering. Localised dispersal must surely be taken into account in a total salinity budget, particularly over time for St Vincent's Gulf because it is going to go back in and mix with the rest of the water. The longer period of time over which it happens is obviously going to increase the concentration of both brine and chemicals.

In addition, I found out from what John Ringham had to say that there is an environmental study taking place at the present time at a cost of $3 million and then there is another project team assessing the best funding model. No figure was given on how much that will cost. Then, we had another speaker. Fortunately, we had Professor Randy Stringer who hails from the United States, I think, and who talked a whole lot more sense than the Australians who were speaking.

Rather than the supply side of the equation, he talked about demand management. He talked about how our ecosystems are themselves infrastructure. He questioned the basis on which South Australia classifies itself as water stressed given that we export water 'like crazy' when we export goods such as meat and I would, of course, add things like wine. He said that political will and common sense are needed and that we must be willing to pay the true cost of water.

I almost cheered when he talked about demand management rather than supply management. I go back to what the World Wide Fund for Nature report had to say about this:

...the quite possibly mistaken lure of widespread water availability from desalination also has the potential to drive a major misdirection of public attention, policy and funds away from the pressing need to use all water wisely. Desalination in these terms is firmly in the long established tradition of large infrastructure supply side solutions to an issue in which the demand side of the equation is usually poorly considered...

That is most certainly the case here in South Australia. Among the arguments being put forward to justify a desalination plant is the one that says that we have to reduce our reliance on the Murray. Adelaide is the only capital city in Australia that is dependent on the Murray. That dependence has meant that we have taken some responsibility for it and that we have a continuing interest in it. Perhaps these moves to disconnect ourselves from the system might not be in the Murray's interests, because if we in South Australia—and Adelaide in particular—do not pay the river the attention it deserves, who else is going to care for it?

I met with Dr Ian Dyson of Flinders University to talk about the Port Stanvac proposal. He raised the issue of decades of phosphate sedimentation associated with the North Christies sewage treatment works being stirred up in the process of attempting either to take water into the desal plant or to quickly jet it out afterwards. Because it is so close to Adelaide, much of the debate is about Port Stanvac, but the BHP Billiton proposal will also be looked at as part of this referral.

At a presentation I attended, convened by the Nature Conservation Society, a report was presented which demonstrated that, in a laboratory setting, a 10 per cent increase in seawater salinity caused squid eggs to die. The location of that particular desalination plant so close to the giant squid-breeding ground is a matter of great concern. Again, I note term of reference No. 3: the potential impact on a range of marine life, flora and fauna. The World Wide Fund for Nature makes this comment in its report:

WWF proposes an approach similar to that recommended for large dams by the World Commission on Dams that says that proponents should first assess the need and then consider all options to select the best solution.

I observe that that has not happened in South Australia. The report continues:

Desalination plants, accordingly, should only be constructed where they are found to meet a genuine need to increase water supply and the best and least damaging method of augmenting water supply, after a process which is open, exhaustive, and fully transparent and in which all alternatives, especially demand side and pollution control measures, are properly considered and fairly costed in their environmental, economic and social impacts.

As the Hon. Mark Parnell has observed, the EIS process is unlikely to allow that to occur. The ERD Committee's having a look at what are quite limited terms of reference—but still important—is a worthwhile option.

I am supporting this referral to the ERD Committee, given that the government has failed to look at alternatives and is foisting these desalination plants on us. I hope that, given the speed at which the government is proceeding in this regard, the ERD Committee will be able to juggle this new reference. It might mean that it will be put in the difficult position of having to handle two references side by side. I know that that has been done in the past by the ERD Committee, and it can be done again. I commend the Hon. Michelle Lensink for coming up with this motion and the terms of reference.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (22:49): I rise to make a contribution in this debate following the contribution of the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Hon. Ms Kanck. They raised some very important issues of concern that need to be considered by an appropriate assessment process. However, the government feels that the best assessment process is one that is carried out by the independent statutory authority and not a duplicated process through the ERD Committee. Consequently, the government will be opposing the motion.

The developments of desalination plants are already put through due process, which includes assessment of potential environmental impacts. As a result of the current drought conditions faced by South Australia, the interest in the development of desalination plants by both the private and the public sector has increased. The planned Adelaide desalination project will provide an extra level of water security for Adelaide. It is the one climate independent component of the government's four-way water security strategy.

The Environment Protection Authority has responsibilities under the Environment Protection Act 1993 to prevent, reduce, minimise and, where practicable, eliminate harm to the environment. The independent statutory authority will exercise these responsibilities, along with formal responsibilities under the Development Act and regulations, in applying the principles of ecologically sustainable development when assessing any proposed developments.

The environment is at the forefront of planning for a desalination plant at Port Stanvac, and the state government is fully committed to understanding and managing any possible impacts on our precious environment. On 17 April 2008, the government declared the Adelaide desalination plant a major project under the Development Act 1993, which means it will be subject to a comprehensive and rigorous assessment process to ensure that all environmental issues are identified and addressed.

The first stage of the assessment process requires a submission by SA Water for a formal development application, which will then be examined by the independent Development Assessment Commission. The DAC will decide what level of detailed assessment is required and issue formal guidelines for the conduct of that assessment.

In preparation, wide ranges of environmental studies have commenced. These studies are considering the environment both offshore and onshore at Port Stanvac and are providing important baseline information to inform the design process and the development of approaches to mitigate any impacts. The potential sensitivity of marine species to the discharge is being assessed through a series of eco-toxicological investigations and these studies will provide information about the dilution requirements for the design. A whole of gulf salt water balance model has also been commissioned to assess any long-term effects of extracting fresh water from the Gulf St Vincent.

A key component of all these investigations is the hydrodynamic modelling. Hydrodynamic modelling will be used to predict the rate of the dilution and dispersion of the discharge and to inform design requirements for the diffuser to ensure that the discharge will mix rapidly with the surrounding sea water to minimise any impacts.

An environmental site assessment is being undertaken to better understand potential impacts at the Port Stanvac site. This will inform management of any constraints that may be imposed during construction and operation of the desalination plant, including any special requirements for management or disposal of excavated materials in accordance with EPA requirements and guidelines. The investigation program has been scoped to address information gaps or requirements as identified from reviews of existing site assessment information.

A range of marine investigations are underway to characterise and classify the distribution, abundance and condition of marine habitats, species and communities in the Port Stanvac region. The investigations incorporate a marine characterisation study, including a desktop review of existing biological data and video and diver surveys to identify marine habitats and species. Full cover habitat mapping to define habitats in the region and assessments of water column, larvae and fauna living in the sediments are also being undertaken.

The aim of these investigations is to identify whether there are ecologically important habitats and sensitive species or species of conservation significance associated with the marine and coastal environment at Port Stanvac. This information will be used with the outputs from the modelling and other marine investigations to inform the design, construction and operation of the plant to minimise potential impacts on sensitive marine species or environments.

An independent technical review panel for the marine environmental investigations has been established to strategically peer review the investigations that are being undertaken. This process will ensure that the major environmental issues are being addressed. Detailed technical reviews of key studies are planned to ensure that the studies and their methodologies are robust and that the conclusions drawn can be supported by the data presented.

In relation to the proposed desalination plant for Port Bonython and potential impacts on the Spencer Gulf marine ecology, the Olympic Dam expansion project was declared a major project, and the state government requires a full EIS statement from BHP Billiton in relation to its proposed expansion. As part of this EIS, the government has requested studies to investigate potential impacts of the proposed desalination plant. This process will ensure that potential environmental impacts associated with the desalination plant will be adequately considered by government in deciding whether to approve the proposed development.

The outcomes of environmental investigations will provide important baseline information to inform the design and construction process and to minimise any impacts. The project will also be subject to a comprehensive and rigorous assessment as part of the major development assessment process to ensure that all environmental issues are identified and addressed. The government will oppose this motion. The state government is committed to ensuring that the environment is fully considered as we move forward on the most significant water infrastructure project in this state's history. The actions proposed would be a duplication of process and would not provide any improvements to the procedures already in place.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (22:55): As I stated in my explanation on 18 June, an article was published entitled 'The footprint of a desalination process on the environment'. I note that I did not state that it was published by a number of Israeli researchers. Members would be aware that Israel has a number of desalination plants, as well as being advanced in this particular technology. These days it is probably almost a motherhood statement to say that water and environment are the challenge of our generation.

When I was at this water trade mission in Israel, along with a range of people, one of the people whom I will not name but who was very deeply involved in a water utility in another Australian state said that they could not understand the attitude of SA Water and that on their regular hook-ups they would continually say that they are praying for rain. We started to enter difficult conditions in terms of water challenges in 2003, and now we are at the point at which all South Australians (front and centre) are concerned about water supply. I say that because I do not want it to be misconstrued that I am opposed to desalination, but it is new to South Australia and we want to know whether these particular locations will present a problem.

There have been mushrooming reports in the press and also at public meetings of some of the potential dangers of some of these particular desalination plants on our gulfs. The gulfs are unique in that they do not flush water as often as would necessarily enable the fair distribution of the discharge, and that perhaps a place such as Cape Jervis would be a better location for a desalination because of the much faster moving ocean tides, rather than just the local tides.

The Hon. Sandra Kanck referred to a meeting of the Nature Conservation Society, at which I believe the Hon. Mark Parnell was present. I, indeed, became aware of it via one of our Legislative Council candidates, Rita Bouris, who is a member of the Friends of Gulf St Vincent, and I attended that meeting at her invitation. We heard from the Adelaide desalination project people from SA Water, including their marine scientist. We also heard from a Ph.D. student by the name of Jackie Dupavillon—and the Hon. Sandra Kanck referred to her particular studies of some sea life. We also heard from a scientist by the name of Dr Jochen Kaempf who is from the School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences at Flinders University. He has been on the public record in relation to these issues, as has Dr Kirsten Benkendorff and Dr Ian Dyson who comes from a different discipline being a sedimentologist.

It strikes me that, when you have very well qualified scientists of different disciplines saying, 'Hang on, maybe we need to look at this', then it is a good thing to look at it. In relation to the EIS, I would be the first to say that this will duplicate the process, but the information that SA Water is collating through various studies will not necessarily be made public. At the meeting on 3 July, the SA Water scientist said that the reports would be made available, but I think that the public needs to have access to all that information through a public process.

When I hear comments from the government about minimising impacts on the environment, I think what does that mean? Does that mean that, if we do proceed with this—and the evidence says that further seagrasses might be wiped out or particular species of squid or coastal floor-feeding creatures—that we minimise the impacts because we said, 'Well, at least we took them into consideration?'

Does it mean that, if we realise that is the situation and we are advised that entire species may be made extinct, we say, 'Maybe this is not the right location for this plant.' Desalination is part of the solution for our water crisis. We have peaky rain—if I could describe it in those terms. I understand that most of our rain comes within a narrow range of months, so our rainfall can be fairly unpredictable. We are fortunate that July might have above average rainfall.

In the future we all want access to water for critical human needs. I say that because we are not opposed to desalination, but the alarm bells have been rung. The internal process of government is not transparent to the community. Therefore, I believe that there is no harm in the ERD Committee taking on these terms of reference, just for reassurance of our community.

Motion carried.