Toxic waste may end up on Perth Beaches

As reported in the "West Australian" Another brilliant piece of planning Perth local authorities and government departments.
And in the immortal words of our WA premier

"Premier Colin Barnett was confident the project would be managed properly, his spokesman said. "
.....whatever that means............we live in very scary times...remember the lead poisoning of Esperance and the latest environmental disaster in the Timor Sea




The news item reads

"A plume of murky sediment could blight Perth's most popular beaches for up to six months from November when a million cubic metres of dredged material from Fremantle harbour is dumped into the sea.

A mountain of sludge and limestone will be generated during Fremantle Ports' $250 million dredging operation to deepen and expand the port.

Some of the less polluted material from the dredged areas will be dumped on the western margin of Gage Roads, about 8km from the coast. A 3m deep blanket will cover 150ha of ocean floor, smothering up to 50ha of seagrass.

It could create a sediment plume which the port concedes might affect swimmers and divers as far north as Scarborough.

In an official report on the impact of the port deepening, compiled in June, the Environmental Protection Authority conceded the project would affect beachgoers.

"Aesthetic and recreational values relating to the extent of visible plume along the coast during summer will be compromised by this project," the report states. "The EPA accepts that this will be for duration of approximately 20-26 weeks and that the coastal waters will resume normal water quality once the activities associated with this proposal cease."

Independent environmental researcher James Courtney, who has studied the project for two years, warned swimmers to avoid the area.

Sediment from the dredging deemed too toxic to be dumped in open waters because it is laced with tributyltin (TBT), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorines, arsenic, lead and mercury, will be used on 37ha of seabed at Rous Head."

This will undoubtably affect the thousands of people that use the northern beaches from South of Femantle to Scarborough beach through the Summer.

I never cease to be amazed.

Obviously the premier is planning on being away over the summer....out of sight, out of mind.

being WA is it more to do with export than import? Miners gotta make the monies!

Either way, seems headless that something too toxic to dump in open waters is deemed safer to dump in coastal waters?

I wanna know who was causing Kaos at Port Beach yesterday, as pictured in the paper

can i have your autograph now Mikey now ya famous and all

As soon as I picked up the paper I looked at the kiter on the front page and knew it was him straight away and was telling everybody at work that I knew the bloke on the cover

similar issues arise with all dredging programs in established ports.
Tributyltin (TBT) is an ingredient in large ships antifouling.
Port Hedland, Dampier, Geraldton etc have all been thru the same thing, and survived.
Guess Perths "princesses" will have to eat some **** also now!!! :-)

Remember the stuff is already in the water there, its not being added.

Like it or not we all need ports. We are a trading nation.

In Geraldton we had a plume of sediment from the dredging you could see by satelite photos that went 30 to 50km north up the coast.

Yes!
But mostly cars, tvs and all the other cheap throw away crap that used to be made here with a bit of quality and used to last more than 12 months.

whats it contaminated with?

Theres no fish left down there any way so I probably wouldnt worry about it too much.

NIMBY syndrome???

Wont matter anyway once they build that giant island thats planned for there will it?

Having had a very quick flick through the EPA report for this I would not be too worried. The basic gist of it is that yes these potential contaminants are present at elevated concentrations in in the dredged materials, but with exception of arsenic their leachability (i.e. how likely they are to actually unbind from the soil/silt and dissolve in water) is minimal. With respect to the arsenic, the assessment is based on protecting 99% of species within the ecosystem and as such is highly conservative (when the guideline values for this are developed they incorporate a number of factors of safety so in reality they are more likely to be protecting 99.99% of the ecosystem).

As far as the Rous Head reclamation is concerned, this is subject to an independent audit under the Contaminated Sites Act which is undertaken by an outside consultant who will always take a highly conservative viewpoint (I have worked on both sides of these audits). In order for the auditor to sign off on the site to say that they are satisfied that the land is suitable for its proposed use the risk to both human health and environmental receptors has to be approximately one millionth of bugger all.

The only problem that I can see is potentially drinking a bit of uncontaminated silty water for a few weeks. If you consider how much sand is picked up in the break at scabs in summer it all comes into perspective.

what is the "industrial waste" contamination that you are referring to Jimmy?

Which report were you looking at for this?
Just had a flick through the last report from Rous Head and nothing raised big alarm bells. Whilst some hydrocarbon contamination is present in the stockpiles it isn't particularly high compared to many other places in perth/freo and isn't statistically very significant. Couldn't see any mention of benzo(a)pyrene either but we may be looking at different reports.

Quick notes for you though - Having worked on a stack of sites in and around Perth, I am yet to find one that does not have exceedences of copper, nickel & zinc guidelines (either for freshwater or marine ecosystems, depending on the situation) in groundwater. It occurs above these guidelines at background concentrations, esp. where you are near to a marine environment. Any TBT that is found is likely to be the result of ship anti-fouling paint - the only way you'll ever get rid of it is to get rid of the port.

Feel free to put up any other questions and I'll have a quick look at them, but please don't put up big sweeping statements unless you have a very solid scientific argument behind it. The guys who conduct these assessments (including me, but not on this site) know their stuff and as consultants will not put their ass on the line unless they are very sure of their stuff

Cheers

I was talking about the actual anti-fouling paint flaking off the ships while they're in the port as opposed to actual painting of them in freo. Prob should've been a bit clearer

Agree with you that the prob is going to be the silt not any "toxic contamination". The big question is could it create any extra drag or cause me to spin-out?

"TBT (and other) antifouls are self stripping. They work by slowly losing their outer suface in a controlled manner over a long period of time.
Hence settling on the bottom of the harbour."

They may be self-stripping but I would guess that most of the self-stripping would happen while "steaming" from port to port due to friction rather than sitting in harbour for a day or so at a time.
I still think that the stink boats and yachties who have their boats at the various clubs nearby and the crap that had been pouring into the river from the various industries nearby until recently would be major contributors.

The other thing I wonder about is even if the "toxins" are sitting on the bottom of the harbour are they locked up in the silt and sludge or are they part of the mobile environment to be taken in at various levels of the food chain. My guess would be that they constantly get stirred up by the tides and prop wash of the ships.

Anyway all this worrying is giving me a headache.

Roll on summer, roll on.....

Heres the latest on the Fremantle Port Dredging Saga
Its amazing how active some Mayors can be while others ie Mossman Park
are content to put their head in the sand. Shades of our state Premier
and his "they know what they are doing approach" ...yeah right......

From todays "West Australian"


Cottesloe threatens to sue over dredging
BEATRICE THOMAS and FLIP PRIOR, The West Australian October 27, 2009, 2:25 am


Cottesloe mayor Kevin Morgan said the council would not hesitate to pursue legal action .

WA News / John Mokrzycki ©

Cottesloe Town Council is considering legal action to stop dredging by Fremantle Ports amid concerns that contaminated plumes will wash up on Cottesloe Beach at the height of the summer swimming season.

The council fears the dredging program, which is expected to start in January as part of $250 million plans to deepen and expand the port, will result in the beach becoming polluted and may also affect the Rottnest Channel Swim in February.

The port plans to dump about one million cubic metres of dredged material 8km off the coast and a further two million into the Rous Head reclamation area.

The council last night voted to appoint an independent expert to assess the level of risk , discernable from the EPA and FPA reports, of dangerous contaminants affecting the use and look of the beach.

Cottesloe mayor Kevin Morgan said the council would not hesitate to take legal action to stop the dredging if it was not satisfied the beach would not be affected.

He said the port had failed to provide evidence of measures to stop the plume contaminating Cottesloe Beach over summer.

He was also worried about the risk to public health from any contaminants in the dredged material. “I’m very concerned that the State Government is exposing Cottesloe Beach and its users to unnecessary risk,” he said.

A report by the Environmental Protection Authority in June conceded the project would create a visible plume along the coast, affecting beachgoers for up to 26 weeks.

An internal Fremantle Ports report also acknowledged that groundwater and soil under dredged material that formed reclaimed land at Rous Head contained contaminants such as#61477; copper and nickel at levels almost eight times acceptable marine water quality standards.

Mr Morgan said disposing of the dredged material by burying it in a hole in the seabed was a method from a bygone era.

At an earlier public meeting, Fremantle Ports spokesman Lyall Banks told about 60 people that all the material to be dredged was uncontaminated.

Fremantle Ports chief executive Chris Leatt-Hayter said the dredging would have minimal impact on metropolitan beaches, with “short-lived visible plumes” extending up to about 2km north of the Rous House reclamation area. He said it would not pose a health risk to swimmers. During the work there would be extensive monitoring of water quality and turbidity levels.

“All of the material to be used in this project meets the relevant guidelines for suitability for offshore placement and reclamation,” he said.

Mosman Park Town Council mayor Ron Norris, whose council takes in the northern part of Leighton Beach, said he was comfortable with the planned measures and that the dredging would not have an adverse impact.

Stirling City Council said it was writing to Environment Minister Donna Faragher to seek assurances the project would not affect the coastline.