HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-05-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Public Works Committee: Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation Project

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (11:07): I move:

That the 514th report of the committee, on the Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant Primary Sedimentation Tanks Rehabilitation Project, be noted.

SA Water will be upgrading the seven primary sedimentation tanks at the Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant in a staged approach over a 12-month period commencing July 2015. The project includes: concrete repairs to the sedimentation tanks; the application of an acid resistant coating to expose concrete surfaces; and the rehabilitation of mechanical equipment, including the replacement of scrapers, guide rails and chains and associated mechanical components.

The cost of the project is $5.895 million, GST exclusive. The proposed works are critical to the operation of the plant, with the works to improve plant reliability and provide security to the ongoing sewer operations in the area. Given this and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the proposed public works.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:08): The opposition members on the committee support the report. It is a project that will be much in demand over the next few years. Unfortunately, there are a few things that the SA Water people were not able to tell us. Of concern is the $70 million-odd pipeline to the city that was going to send all this wastewater up to the city. Unfortunately, they still have not answered that one correctly or to our satisfaction.

Our view is that the water is just far too expensive and no-one is prepared to buy it. So, we have this pipeline worth tens of millions of dollars coming up to Adelaide city that is not being used, or is being used very little. The cost of the water is something else we asked about: what is the cost of water to local authorities and local users? That has been unsatisfactorily answered at this stage as well. However, in light of the fact that the project has to go ahead, the opposition supports it.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:10): I too rise to give support to this report and to make a small contribution to the Public Works Committee hearings regarding the wastewater treatment plant upgrade, the inlet works and the Anderson Avenue pump station project.

The Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant is designed for annual flows of around 60 megalitres per day to serve an equivalent population of just over 203,000 people. At times of high flow the volume of wastewater received from the wastewater treatment plant is delivered by the Anderson Avenue wastewater pumping station. It can be in excess of 1,800 litres per second. That is a significant amount of water to be treated.

What was made clear in the report and during the hearing with witnesses from SA Water, is that the Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant and pumping station is an ageing asset and there are a number of concerns around structural, mechanical and electrical elements of the current infrastructure, and there were also a number of inefficiencies experienced because of this. Any amount of ageing infrastructure highlights the inefficiencies and the unreliability that comes with that.

I note that the local MP has expressed concerns, along with the public, about odour. Witnesses were unable to give an exact percentage figure on just how the odour control will be changed with these works. I am sure that any member in this place or the public would share my concerns that when treatment plants have odour issues it is an extremely unpleasant experience. The hearing was told that it is not possible to put out a specific target or percentage of improvement, and that was something that was of concern.

Delivery of the project will cost $24.157 million, excluding GST, which is fully allowed for in the SA Water budget. Delivery of this project is required within the current regulated period for SA Water and, as such, practical completion is targeted prior to 30 June 2016. During the hearing the witnesses said that in order to achieve this challenging milestone, detailed design, long lead-time procurement and construction is intended to begin as soon as possible, so I commend the report to the house.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:12): I welcome the report and the upgrade of this treatment plant. Ever since we moved to the Bay 17 or 18 years ago (and long before that) the smells were more than evident to both my family and myself. My wife moved to Glenelg as a small child and she tells me that way back then the treatment plant was occasionally quite smelly. Recently, about a month ago, I was driving back from an event at Sports SA at Adelaide Shores and coming past there, even with the windows up—I thought I had the recirc on the car going but obviously I did not because it really did take your breath away: it stank, it absolutely stank.

Let's remember that the treatment plant is situated on some of the most valuable land in South Australia. The residential land along there sells for millions and millions of dollars, so why can't we put some effort into reducing the smell from this treatment plant? The cost alone cannot be just a consideration. We are looking at triple bottom line approaches to environmental impacts at the moment and so we should be looking at what else we can do there.

The need to upgrade the plant is a necessity; there is more and more water coming through. We are using thousands of litres of water per person per day which is just amazing. We should be able to cut back on that but it seems that our lifestyles now do not seem to be having much of an impact on reducing the inflows into the sewerage works.

Making the plant more efficient is something I certainly agree with. Reducing the smell would be something that I would be more than happy to support. Whether you cover the whole place and enclose the whole thing and filter the air, I do not know. The member for Finniss pointed out the cost of recycled water. I did some surveys on this a number years ago. We actually got the details of the amount of water that was being reused through the Glenelg wastewater treated water pipeline and what was still going out to sea. Far too much is still going out to sea, particularly during the winter months, when the irrigation is not taking place.

The cost of that water, I understand, is set at 75 per cent of potable water prices, which I think is far too high. Surely the environmental cost of pumping that water out into the gulf should be factored in, and we should be able to reuse that water. I know the West Beach Primary School's bore is broken. To pay to get the bore redone is to me a crazy thing when you have got all this water that is being pumped out to sea and is being wasted. Surely, for the cost of connecting West Beach Primary School into the treated water pipeline, we should at least be able to use more of that water, have less going out to sea, and also end up with some decent ovals for the kids at West Beach Primary School to play on.

If you wanted to have a dream, you would move this whole treatment plant out of that area, but I do not think that is ever going to happen. What we need to do is make sure that it is going to be as efficient as possible, and that the result of the impact on locals around there and also the broader environment is minimised. I look forward to seeing the outcome of these works.

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (11:16): I thank the member for Finniss, the member for Chaffey and also the local member for the area (member for Morphett) for their contributions. I also thank the rest of the Public Works Committee for their hard work, as well as the executive and the witnesses. I certainly think it is good to see the asset being maintained and cared for.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT