Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 3158 ..
MS CARNELL - The answer to the Member's question is as follows:
(1) (i) The total cost of operation of the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre (LMWQCC) was (a) for the year ending 30 June 1996, $10,969,404, (b) for the year ending 30 June 1997, $10,844,343 and (c) for the year ending 30 June 1998, $9,888,382.
(1) (ii) The cost per megalitre of sewerage treatment was (a) for the year ending 30 June 1996, $340.72, (b) for the year ending 30 June 1997, $321.75 and (c) for the year ending 30 June 1998, $322.46.
(2) Rainwater inflow to the sewerage system impacts on the variable costs of fuel and chemicals used at the LMWQCC. The extra cost attributable to rainwater inflow is approximately $200,000 per annum.
(3) There have been 2 bypasses to the Molonglo river since 1 July 1995. There was a secondary bypass during 29-30 November 1995 because of heavy rain. This bypass effluent was not raw sewerage. It had received primary treatment. Another bypass occurred on 27 June 1996 when a volume of secondary treated waste water overflowed before the filters.
(4) (a) LMWQCC was designed in the early 1970's for a population of 250,000. Per capita flow has not increased as forecasted at the time of the plant's construction. The LMWQCC is currently treating the flow from approximately 310,000 people and for over two years has achieved 100% compliance with the Discharge licence/Authorisation issued by the Environmental Management Authority.
(4) (b) With population growth, the Territory will eventually require additional treatment capacity. This can be achieved by increasing the capacity of the LMWQCC and / or the use of distributed treatment plants around Canberra.
A major Environmental Audit carried out in 1992 identified works which would enhance the LMWQCC. Some of these works have since been completed, for example a new storage dam and inflow regulation facility have been built, several other projects have commenced and the feasibility of others is currently being evaluated.
(5) (a) (i) ACTEW attended to a broken sewer tie from a single house at Adams Place, Farrer in early July 1998. Several days later ACTEW received a call advising of a possible cross connection between a water main and a sewer in Farrer but no location was given by the caller.