The Kurnell desalination plant was approved in 2005 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 part 3A (critical infrastructure) and subsequently opened in 2009, costing 1.9 billion dollars, despite the fact that it was only meant to be constructed if dam levels fell below 30%, which they never reached. The plant produces “up to 250 million litres a day or 15 per cent of Sydney's water needs” (Tobin, 2009) the desalination plant will run for two years and then will likely be switched off unless dam levels are below 70% (Tobin, 2009).
Part 3A decision making
Part 3A of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) was introduced in 2005 as a section that would allow ‘major projects’ and critical infrastructure’ to be assessed and processed in a different manner, compared to other developments. Part 3A put an emphasis the role of the minister of planning and diminishes the role of the public and other stakeholders, while reducing the consideration of negative environmental impacts, compared to developments approved under part 4 or 5 of the EPA Act.
It is clear that in the part 3A decision making process the minister of planning plays an integral role, it is ultimately the ministers decision if a proposal should be approved. Once the project has been declared by the minister to be under part 3A there isn’t much that anyone (public authorities or the public) can do to prevent a project from going ahead, for example certain environmental approvals are either exempt or cannot be refused. Therefore it can be considered that the minister has the power to take over the entire approval process for any project he or she wishes to and may have already made this decision before the formal decision making process is carried out.
Environmental Impacts of Desalination
There are many negative environmental impacts of desalination plants below is a description of the main ones in relation to Kurnell.
Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Generation
The approximate energy consumption of the Kurnell desalination plant is 906 gigawatt-hours per annum and will generate 950,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum (Department of Planning 2006, p23). Although the plant is run on renewable energy sourced from Bungendore to offset the greenhouse gases to neutral, the Governments use of “greenpower to power this project... is a regressive step to use greenpower on an unnecessary project, which would be better used to reduce our present greenhouse emissions” (NCC,n.d).
The approximate energy consumption of the Kurnell desalination plant is 906 gigawatt-hours per annum and will generate 950,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum (Department of Planning 2006, p23). Although the plant is run on renewable energy sourced from Bungendore to offset the greenhouse gases to neutral, the Governments use of “greenpower to power this project... is a regressive step to use greenpower on an unnecessary project, which would be better used to reduce our present greenhouse emissions” (NCC,n.d).
Impacts on Aquatic Ecology
The intake pipes have potential for marine biota to be trapped and die, as shown by Cooley et al, (2006, p59) “large marine organisms, such as adult fish, invertebrates, birds, and even mammals, are killed on the intake screen (impingement); organisms small enough to pass through the intake screens, such as plankton, eggs, larvae, and some fish, are killed during processing of the salt water (entrainment)”. It has been estimated that about 2% of the total fish larvae population in the immediate area will be impinged or entrained from the Kurnell desalination plant (DPI,2006, p33).
Impacts on Terrestial Ecology
The Kurnell desalination plant also had effects on terrestrial flora and fauna with areas of flora destroyed and impacts on threatened species such as “the Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea), the Nankeen Kestrel (Falco cenchroides) and Grey-headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) [which had once] been identified in associated with the desalination plant site in the past” (DPI, 2006,p36).
Water Quality- Discharge
There are several substances that are released from the Kurnell desalination plant that have negative impacts on the environment, where “anything in the source waters can be expected to show up in a more concentrated form in the discharges from water manufacturing plants” (Dickie, 2007, p13), including “high salt levels… concentrations of constituents typically found in seawater, such as manganese, lead, and iodine” (Cooley et al, 2006, p60) as well as any chemicals used in the process and corrosion of equipment. And also the dead sea life that was impinged and entrained in the input pipes, which through their subsequent decomposition will “reduce the oxygen content of the water near the discharge point, creating additional stress on the marine environment” (Cooley et al, 2006, p59).
The brine also has an effect on the surrounding environment in that it is “negatively buoyant in seawater, giving… a tendency to sink and spread along the sea bottom, displacing normally saline water from hollows… (having) a devastating effect on sea bottom life which impacts more broadly on the entire bay or shallows ecosystems” (Dickie, 2007, p17).
Also the ‘water’ that is discharged can also impact the surrounding thermal qualities of the water (Dickie, 2007, p13) near the outlet pipe causing impacts on the flora and fauna present.
Impacts on Seagrasses
The pipeline construction across Botany Bay, as shown the Nature Conservation Councils submission (2007), had great potential to adversely impact on the ecological characteristics of the Bay, where trench digging would cause significant loss of important areas of the seagrass posidonia australis, which was already a threatened ecosystem, which many benthic communities rely on for their habitat, and is extremely difficult to rehabilitate. The dredging of the pipeline can also mean that noxious weeds are broken up and spread, which may further impact on seagrasses in the area. Also many animals that rely on the seagrasses will be affected “such as sea dragons, sea horses, pipe fish and a range of fish and benthic life... (which) will have serious ramifications on the ecosystem of the Bay which relies on these sea grasses... (and) areas such as the adjoining internationally renowned Towra Point Nature Reserve will be impacted by this loss” (NCC, n.d).
Impacts on Towra Point
According to the Nature Conservation Councils (2007) submission the pipeline construction for the desalination plant will have impacts on the Towra point wetlands area, “the wetlands are threatened by impacts in the Bay that will reduce the marine life that the birds rely on for food through the reduction of seagrass or introduction of invasive marine weeds. There is also potential for turbidity to be increased within the bay”
Waste
The construction of the desalination plant and associated infrastructure such as pipelines produced a massive amount of waste, which as well as the environmental impacts of having to put this somewhere, also created problems with transport increasing traffic and the greenhouse emissions resulting from the heavy use of trucks.
So was the desalination plant worth it/or necessary?
There are various alternatives that could have been implemented using the 1.9 billion dollars it cost to construct the desalination plant, and that would have saved a lot of resources and prevented many environmental, and social impacts at Kurnell and the surrounding areas of Towra Point and Botany Bay.
Alternatives to Desalination
Recycled Water
Recycled water is the main alternative of the desalination plant, the city of Sydney estimates that 70% of the water used in Sydney is taken to sewage plants, poorly treated, and then feed into the ocean, with only 2% of water being re-used. The reason Sydney water gives for not implementing a water recycling system is financial, claiming that it would cost $800 million more than the desalination plant. However others such as former Nationals Leader and water spokesman Andrew Stoner claimed that water recycling would indeed be cheaper and more efficient than desalination stating it is expensive and too energy hungry. Additionally water recycling has worked well in other countries such as California and Singapore (UTS, 2005).
A main reason why water recycling is not given as much weight is because of the social acceptance of drinking recycled water, or the ‘yuck factor’, for example a survey showed that 68% of Sydney residents would not be comfortable drinking recycled sewage. However this is not the case, but recycled water would in fact be cleaner than the water we are drinking today, therefore, some say with education the public will come to see this and become content with drinking the recycled water (UTS 2005).
Stormwater Reclamation/ Rainwater Harvesting
This would be mainly by the use of household water tanks that would catch rainwater runoff, and reduce the amount of stormwater lost by up to 90%, and would mean that, unlike now the majority of rainfall, which can be reused, by uses such as irrigation, would not be lost into stormwater (UTS 2005).
Greywater Recycling
Water from washing machines and bathrooms can be reused. This would require a significant investment but over the long run would save money and be more sustainable than a desalination plant.
New Practices for Agriculture and Industry
Agriculture an industry are the biggest users of water in Sydney using 90% of the water supply per year, according to the greens there needs to be low net water usage industrial processes, for example ending inefficient irrigation practices ie using below ground irrigation rather than open irrigation, developing low water demand crops, research into planting and watering techniques to minimise water consumption, and plans to force industry to recycle its waste water (Pip, 2007).
Sources
Cooley, H, Gleick, P & Wolff, G 2006 , Desalination with a grain of salt, a California perspective, accesed 9 October 2010, <http://www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination/desalination_report.pdf>
Department of Planning 2006 Major project assessment, Kurnell Desalination Plant and Associated Infrastructure: Director-General’s Environmental Assessment Report Section 75I of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, NSW Government
Dickie, P 2007, ‘making water Desalination: option or distraction for a thirsty world?’, accesed 9 October 2010 <assets.panda.org/downloads/desalinationreportjune2007.pdf>
Nature Conservation Council of NSW, n.d, Desalination protest Action, NCC, accessed 9 October 2010, <http://www.nccnsw.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1755&Itemid=890>
Nature Conservation Council of NSW, 2007, Submission desalinated water delivery system, NCC, accessed 9 October 2010, <http://nccnsw.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1920&Itemid=946>
Pip 2007, Alternatives to desalinated water, accessed 8 October 2010, <http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/37063>
Tobin, M 2009, Desalination plant a monument to stupidity, ABC, accessed 6 October 2010 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/21/2777867.htm?site=news>
University of Technology Sydney, 2005, Alternatives to desalination, UTS, accessed 9 October 2010, <http://studentwork.hss.uts.edu.au/oj1/swerve05/ryan_water/alternatives.htm>
No comments:
Post a Comment