Bushfire recovery hampered in Corrigin and Bruce Rock areas with unstable asbestos

Last month, a number of insured and uninsured structures in the Shire of Corrigin - including small outbuildings and fencing - were destroyed in the fires and reported as containing asbestos.

According to the WA Department of Health, when kept in sound condition and left undisturbed, asbestos contaminated materials pose virtually no health risk to the public.

However, if those materials are physically damaged during a fire, asbestos fibres (HAR) may be dispersed and potentially cause both public and environmental contamination.

This can also occur when contaminated debris is lifted or moved in the clean-up process.

Impacted farmers labelled the significant removal and disposal costs as "absolutely ridiculous", particularly given the structures were in sound condition before the bushfire, which they said occurred "through no fault of their own".

In a letter issued to property owners last week, the Shire of Corrigin said it had been liaising with State and Federal government agencies to identify any funding assistance through the Disaster Recovering Funding Arrangements Western Australia (DRFAWA) for the safe disposal of asbestos.

Both local and State government representatives labelled the process as "ongoing" and "likely to take some time".

One devastated Wheatbelt farmer, who wanted to remain anonymous, said the bushfire completely destroyed two asbestos-contaminated structures across two of their properties.

Asbestos assessors quoted the farmer $250,000 to have the structures removed from the affected area.

A further contamination assessment would determine the extent of the affected area, however it was estimated to cost $2750 per property.

The farmer received an additional quote of $3423 to seal the contaminated infrastructure with a binding compound.

The compound would hold any loose asbestos fibres until the issue had been resolved.

"We have been told if we have further assessments done we could slightly reduce the bill, but there are no guarantees," the farmer said.

"The assessor provided us with an estimated cost of $250,000 to mobilise the area, clean it all up and have it checked out.

"With the high cost of production this year there is nothing spare for expenses like that.

"We don't know what to do, we obviously don't want the asbestos there, but we can't afford to have it removed."

According to the farmer, there had been some conversation about using environmental caveats to identify asbestos-affected areas in the region.

They feared this would leave a "black umbrella hanging over their head" and their assets would be penalised if they did not proceed with the clean-up.

"If we bury it we get a black mark on our property identifying it as a contaminated farm - this would essentially be a bandaid fix."

The farmer added there were obvious health hazards associated with exposure to asbestos, which would lag the rebuild process onfarm including reinstating water tanks and clearing burnt out sheds.

"We don't want anyone working near the asbestos," he said.

"Basically we have had to relocate our entire farming operation."

As the fire also burnt through significant fencing, the farmer was urgently concerned about clearing the affected area, so it could be safely accessed by BlazeAid volunteers.

"As well as asbestos there is burnt tin blowing everywhere and fallen trees over the existing fenceline.

"While we have the equipment, it is difficult to even know where to start and we are going to struggle.

"We just can't seem to get a clear run at anything, but the community spirit and support has been amazing."

Unprecedented costs for steel and machinery had proven equally challenging in the aftermath.

Reviewing their insurance annually, the farmer said shed costs had significantly increased over the past two years.

The farmer said this made it incredibly expensive and difficult to replace sheds and fencing material.

"You never think you are going to have to be insured to a level where you are going to lose absolutely everything.

"We try to be a bit conservative with insurance, but with this situation we would probably be half-a-million dollars short on covering what we have lost."

Retired Corrigin farmer Colin Pond was hit with a massive $150,000 clean-up bill, after the bushfires ripped through an asbestos-contaminated homestead on his property.

Mr Pond, who resides in Perth, had been leasing the 1200 hectare farm for cropping.

He lost absolutely everything in the bushfires, including the homestead, two machinery sheds, vehicles, tools and equipment.

So copping a $150,000 bill - for something that was through no fault of his own - was another blow and one he cannot afford.

"I don't mind paying $5000 or even up to $10,000 for a clean up," Mr Pond said.

"But $150,000 to clean-up burnt asbestos - when I am on retirement income - is out of the question.

"And it is through no failure on my behalf, it wasn't negligence, I didn't do anything wrong.

"It makes you stop and think - why am I obliged?"

Mr Pond said he received the quote through an initial assessment, which was done at his property by an asbestos assessor.

He said asbestos was in the outside walls of the homestead, however could not be seen because it was covered by vinyl cladding.

The homestead had been renovated in the mid 1980s and was otherwise in sound, liveable condition.

It has since been taped off with a hazard sign in place identifying it as containing asbestos.

For now, Mr Pond said he was going to leave the area because he didn't know what else to do.

"If I could do it myself it wouldn't cost anything, I could probably borrow a front-end loader, dig a hole next to my house and bury it.

"That's out of the question because under government legislation I cannot clean it up myself.

"And if no assistance is provided I am going to be left with no choice but to leave it there.

"My hands are tired."

Mr Pond has sought disaster relief assistance to help clean-up the hazardous material.

He said he wanted to do the right thing and it was more-or-less a moral obligation.

"I am going to sit, hoping the rain settles everything down and that someone comes up with a solution.

"But this isn't going to go away."

Corrigin mixed farming manager Nick Randall's recovery efforts have also been impeded for the same reason.

Mr Randall lost significant infrastructure in the bushfire including five sheds - one of which was used to store 1700 tonne of AA oat hay for export - and an old farmhouse.

The farmhouse, which contained asbestos, became an issue within itself when accessors issued an $82,828 bill to have it removed.

Mr Randall said - to put it simply - he could not afford it.

"If it were an acceptable price then no worries, I'd come to the party, but $82,000 is absolutely ridiculous," he said.

"And that is for a house, which would still be standing if those fires didn't come through."

Mr Randall holds a restricted WorkSafe asbestos removal licence.

While the licence allows him to seal the affected area and remove amounts exceeding 10 square metres of bonded (non-friable) asbestos, he is not permitted to remove friable asbestos.

Friable asbestos is asbestos in the form of a powder, or can be easily crumbled, pulverised or reduced to powder by hand pressure when dry.

Whereas, non-friable asbestos is bonded by materials such as cement or rubber and is therefore less likely to break into pieces.

In a situation like a bushfire non-friable asbestos can become friable.

"At the moment, my plan is to put 10 litres of bondcrete in a 1000L firetank, soak the whole area and tape it off," Mr Randall said.

"No one is going to be walking over it and there is no stock in there, so I'll thump it down and once it's sealed, it's sealed.

"That's where it can stay until we get some sort of resolution because no one in their right mind can afford that, particularly after what has happened."

For Mr Randall, the asbesto-contamination has added another layer of stress to the challenging recovery process.

As well as destroying infrastructure, the bushfires damaged kilometres of fencing, burnt through 1400 hectares of stubble for sheep feed and decimated quality top soil, which had taken years to build up.

He said he was grateful for how the community had come together in the tough times.

"The bushfires have had a huge, huge impact," Mr Randall said.

"But if you were going to be in a town with a fire like this, I'm glad Corrigin was ours because the community spirit has been great."

The Shire of Corrigin sent a letter to property owners last Thursday, March 3, which addressed the asbestos issue and outlined the clean-up process.

Following the fires, a local asbestos contractor temporarily sealed the majority of the affected areas.

In the letter, Shire of Corrigin chief executive officer Natalie Manton said the Shire understood some owners had been quoted significant costs by unrestricted licensed asbestos removal contractors for encapsulation, removal and disposal of the ruins contaminated with asbestos.

Ms Manton said as a result of the "very high prices" there had been some discussion about other alternatives.

She said it would be natural for owners to consider doing their own removal and disposal work by buring the asbestos contaminated ruins onsite, ie: not in an approved landfill facility.

However, the Shire received advice this was not an option and would trigger multiple offences under the following legislation - Health (Asbestos Regulations) 1992, Contaminated Sites Regulations 2006 and Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996.

"The Shire is compelled under these laws to prosecute known offences under these regulations based on advice from the Department of Health and the Department of Water and Environment Regulation," Ms Manton said.

"Costs associated with the penalties are high, and if your land is declared a contaminated site, a caveat is placed on that land.

"Once a place is declared a contaminated site, remediation of the site is required.

"In this case, if asbestos is buried, it would need to be resumed and disposed of at an approved landfill."

The letter stated the local asbestos removal contractor as having a restricted licence with permission to only handle non-friable, or bonded material.

Therefore, the contractor was not allowed to handle friable or burnt asbestos.

"Property owners are advised to seek quotes from an unrestricted licensed asbestos removalist and an occupational hygienist to determine the extent of contamination, as soon as possible," Ms Manton said.

"Encapsulation and stabilisation of the ruins is the most important action to take right now to prevent further spread of friable asbestos fibre.

"Removal can be determined once stabilisation of the site has occurred."

She said the Shire of Corrigin was also going through the clean-up process with Bilbarin Hall and had engaged with asbestos removal contractors for quotes.

Additionally, in the March community newsletter, Shire staff were said to be liaising with the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation on disposal options to help with the "extremely expensive" costs of disposal.

Ms Manton said the Corrigin Waste Transfer Station only took small quantities of wrapped asbestos such as non friable sheets or panels.

She said affected property owners had been quoted to take the asbestos containing material including friable asbestos to the waste facility at Bendering.

"This regional waste facility is owned jointly by the Shires of Corrigin, Kondinin, Kulin and Narembeen and the four shires are responsible for setting the fees for disposal of asbestos waste," Ms Manton said.

"The environmental health officer issues permits to dispose of bulk waste at the Bendering Waste Facility.

"The fee for disposal of contaminated asbestos soil is $45 per cubic metre.

"The main costs for disposal is not so much the disposal fee but the machinery, labour and freight for the asbestos containing material to be cleaned up from the site and transported to the waste facility."

Property owners were encouraged to discuss how they may be able to keep costs down with the contractors quoting the job.

This was by potentially supplying machines, water carts and labour to assist with the clean-up.

A number of asbestos assessors were contacted for comment, but did not respond before Farm Weekly went to print on Tuesday afternoon.

Want weekly news highlights delivered to your inbox? Sign up to the Farm Weekly newsletter.