CONTENTS

Introduction
Sewers seaward
Toothless watchdog
Toxic fish
Sewer-side surfing
Public relations battle
Events of 1989
Beyond Sydney
Conclusion
Bibliography

The trade waste philosophy – catering to industry

Until the 1970s the environmental damage caused by industrial waste discharged through the sewers did not even figure in the formation of Board policy. The legislative moves of the early seventies caused environmental concerns to be part of the Board’s rhetoric. The actual extent to which these concerns have affected policy has still been severely limited.

To cope with the heavier load of industrial waste caused by the redirection of industrial waste from the rivers to the sewers, the Water Board implemented a set of new charges and restrictions on industrial wastes going into the sewers. But the Water Board was careful to assure a 1972 meeting of the Royal Australian Chemical lnstitute that this did not mean the Board was reluctant to accept industrial wastes. The Board would in fact do its utmost, the Chemical Institute was told, to find ways of placing minimum restrictions whilst protecting the sewerage system.

The Water Board did not put environmental protection high on its agenda of priorities and it was not a key factor in setting restrictions on what could go in the sewers. The four stated objectives of placing conditions on acceptance of industrial waste into the sewers were (a) safety of the Board’s workmen and the public, (b) protection and proper operation of the sewerage structures, (c) proper functioning of the sewage treatment processes and (d) recovery of reasonable costs for the service rendered. Increasing public concern for the environment had an indirect effect in that it influenced the criteria for the satisfactory operation of the sewers and treatment works.

The standards of acceptance for industrial waste that were developed by the Board therefore represented a balance between the requirements of the Board’s sewage collection and treatment operation and the need to minimise costs to industry. The standards were not rigidly enforced and the Board adopted a discretionary approach which involved negotiation with business interests. The reasoning behind this was that some industries, having ‘intractable wastes’, would have trouble meeting the set standards and so provision was made in the regulations to allow wastes which were stronger than the prescribed standards to be accepted if the local sewerage conditions were favourable (this would depend on the sewage flow at that location, the ventilation and the treatment works): ‘where unfavourable reaction in the sewer can be kept within acceptable limits it is clearly in the community interest that a partial relaxation of the standards be granted’ (Pierce & Ralph, 1972).

If an industrial waste was unacceptable for sewer disposal, the firm could be required to install treatment facilities so that the waste stream was either reduced or less concentrated before it was discharged. Most Australian authorities tried to keep these pretreatment requirements to a minimum because of complaints from industry and others who accused the authorities of ‘impeding or harassing industry’. The Board argued that the charging system introduced in 1972 would allow individual industries to pay the Board to discharge high strength wastes and thereby avoid ‘possibly expensive treatment facilities’.

Until 1988 the only public facility provided for toxic waste in Sydney, apart from the sewers, was a landfill dump at Castlereagh. In 1988 an aqueous waste treatment plant was established to take the wastes previously going to Castlereagh, although not all toxic wastes are accepted there. Organo- chlorines, mercury, arsenic wastes and organometallics are refused. It is not expected that this facility will relieve the sewers of any of their toxic load but may in fact add to it because liquid residues from the treatment processes will be put into the sewers.

Over 99 per cent of Sydney's liquid industrial waste goes down the sewers. More than 160,000 million litres (equivalent to 4 million backyard swimming pools) goes through the sewers to the three main outfalls annually whilst less than 60 million litres (equivalent to 1 500 backyard swimming pools) goes to the aqueous waste treatment plant. Industrial waste therefore makes up a significant proportion of the sewage flow at the three main ocean outfalls, particularly at Malabar, where about 50 per cent of the flow is industrial waste.