Issues from EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) for 
Meriton's dioxin contaminated site at 
Rhodes, NSW, Australia 

Meriton EIS | EIS Contents |EIS Advert |Commision of Enquiry

Meriton site submissions:
2 Submissions to Planning NSW (These and a third in relation to allegations made by another person is available from the Commission of Enquiry Offices) offices)
  * NZ Health Risk Assessment (Word 2000, 44kb)
   *  General Submission (Word 2000, 81 kb)

Submission to Commission of Enquiry (abridged regarding certain allegations - full version available from Commission of Enquiry)
    * COI abridged submission (Word 2000, 190 kb)

 Letter announcing Commission of Enquiry into EIS for Meriton's dioxin contaminated former Allied Feeds site at Rhodes.

See Meriton Exhibition details for information on how to get a copy of the EIS.

Some preliminary comments are interleaved in red within the list of contents below. 

All comments are to be read subject to the Constraints set out below. 

Conclusion

The author's conclusion based on the comments below and other material is that the proposal contained in the EIS should be rejected.

Additional Comments For Commission Of Enquiry ("COI") (drafted Jan, Feb 2003)

Clean Up Standard |Formation of Dioxins |Other

A. Clean up Standards.

The New Zealand Blood Serum Study (Buckland and Others, Ministry for the Environment, May 2001) shows and acknowledges that the NZ population has an extremely low mean concentration of PCDDs and PCDFs in nonexposed populations compared to various other countries for which data is available (Table 6.1, p 46). It may be argued that there is a far more likely to be a correlation between residents of metropolitan Sydney with the averages Germany, Japan, Spain, or USA which would result in a mean concentration of PCDDs and PCDFs of about twice that for NZ on a population weighted basis, say 26 instead of 13. Given that NZ has far less immigration from Europe and South East Asia since say 1940 than Australia, and that immigration in NZ is mainly from non-industrialised Southern Pacific nations, the use of the international averages for which data is available would give far greater representation of Sydney's multicultural society and ethnic heritage.

The results of the blood serum study for New Zealand (Buckland and Others, Ministry for the Environment, May 2001) are based on averages which show significant variation by region, age, sex and ethnicity. The study recognises degree of industrialisation as a possible cause of this (p iv). Even the  region (Auckland/Northland) most comparable to Sydney is an area significantly different to metropolitan Sydney. 

The main sources of emissions to air in New Zealand were activities which take place in NSW almost exclusively in the Newcastle - Wollongong conurbation which includes the Sydney Metropolitan Area and some of which can be expected to be contminating dairy production areas for a significant part of the Sydney milk supply. Those activities include:
"landfill fires (estimated at 10-15 g I-TEQ yr-1), the burning of wood and coal as fuels in industrial appliances (0.88-6.4 g I-TEQ yr-1), the burning of clinical, pathological and quarantine waste (0.38-3.5 g I-TEQ yr-1) and ferrous and nonferrous metal production (0.23-3.3 g I-TEQ yr-1). Comparatively lower amounts of PCDDs and PCDFs were emitted from cement and lime manufacture (0.10-0.81 g I-TEQ yr-1), crematoria (0.0080-0.45 g I-TEQ yr-1) and coal-fired power generation (0.059-0.11 g I-TEQ yr-1)." (NZ Serum study p 9)
It is noted that a paper by Ruchel et al (1996) cited in "Incineration and Dioxins: Review of Formation Processes"  gave an overview of dioxin emissions in NSW indicating that BHP operations in Newcastle and Port Kembla are major dioxin sources in this country. New Zealand did not even have a steel production capacity until about the 1990's. German and US data would be more likely to reflect some long term steel making and other coal burning operations, than NZ. The two local steelmaking operations are within 30km of historically significant dairy production areas, which also contain or have nearby coal burning power stations (Lake Illawarra and Hunter Valley / Lake Macquarie / NSW Central Coast). The use of NZ National averages as a guide to Sydney metropolitan population has no statistical validity whatsoever and is regarded as totally unreliable and unacceptable when by arrangement with the Blood Bank research could already have been completed which would provide statistically powerful data on which to base the health risk analysis. 

The health risk study also fails to provide very recent data available in relation to dioxin content of beef which would provide a comparative guide to the difference in level of dietary intake between Australia and NZ. The commission should obtain this data which was based on analysis by Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Pymble, NSW.. 

The maximum levels of Sum of PCDD/F TEQ + PCB TEQ (exc LODs) from pooled samples (which are averages potentially hiding significant variation between individuals) from the NZ study were more than twice that of the mean (Table 5.1 p17). The likelihood of metropolitan Sydney have such variation is highly likely.  The US EPA dioxin Reassessement found that the more exposed sub populations had exposures of two to three times the average. The use of averages when there are significant sub populations with two to three times the exposure is not sufficiently protective of human health, particulalry when for dioxins, the degree of conservatism and margins for safety are already orders of magnitude less than for other chemcials. (see submission to Planning NSW for details)

"In human health [probabilistic risk assessment], a recommended starting point for risk management decisions regarding the [reasonable maximum exposure] is the 95th percentile of the risk distribution” (U.S. EPA 2001a)".(cited in (Calculation of a Site-Specific Soil Criterion for Midland, Michigan, October 2002, p 21)

B. Formation of Dioxins

C. Other 

Even the proposed clean up in Midland by Dow was supposed to be protective of the 95th percentile:
"The results of this analysis indicate that a site-specific soil criterion of 0.831 µg/kg (ppb) PCDD/F TEQ would be protective of the 95th percentile of exposure for residents in Midland, Michigan. This criterion is protective of both theoretical carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health effects." (Calculation of a Site-Specific Soil Criterion for Midland, Michigan, October 2002, p ES - 1)
While there was substantial criticism of this proposal which was ultimately rejected it should be noted that it did not simply seek to be protective of a median exposure population.

There was also a higher level of protection against non-cancer affects:
"At the request of the MDEQ, this assessment used an EPA acceptable daily exposure (ADE) of 1.3 pg/kg-day to assess noncarcinogenic effects." (Midland SSSC p 

"However, TEFs developed by the WHO and published in Van den Berg et al. (1998) are the most current and were used in this risk assessment.In the draft 2000 Dioxin Reassessment, EPA recommends the WHO TEF scheme (U.S. EPA 2000a). This was also recommended and used in EPA’s final Chlorinated Aliphatics Rule (Federal Register 2000)." (Midland SSSC p 5)

"In essence, the calculation of a site-specific soil criterion is risk assessment in reverse, in which one begins with the acceptable level of risk and, through traditional risk assessment methodology and equations, derives the soil concentration (criterion) associated with the acceptable level of risk." (Midland SSSC p 6)

The nature of analysis done By Dow for the Midland clean up was claimed to be far more sophisticated than the type done for Meriton's site:
"Many regulators and risk assessors believe that characterizing the estimated risks and soil criteria in terms of probable ranges, rather than as “point estimates,” is an important step in refining the risk assessment process (Finley and Paustenbach 1994; Finley et al. 1994; Finkel 1990; Burmaster and Lehr 1991; Paustenbach et al. 1992; U.S. EPA 1997a,b, 2001a). This approach makes much greater use of the available data, and provides more information to the risk manager as well as the general public. The stochastic analysis enables an evaluation of the variability and uncertainty inherent in the point-estimate approach. In addition, this analysis provides a measure of the “creeping conservatism” that results from combining many upperbound parameters into a single point estimate of the health risks (Burmaster and Lehr 1991; Cullen 1994)." (Midland SSSC p 8)

The PCDD/Fs soil criterion was calculated for a cumulative increased cancer risk of 1×10-5 (1 in 100,000). This target “theoretical” cancer risk level is consistent with MDEQ and EPA guidance (MDEQ 2001a,b; U.S. EPA 1990). (Midland SSSC p 10)

Comments to date:

The comments in this section to the row of asterisks below are based on "Evaluation of the toxicity of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs: A health risk appraisal for the New Zealand population". February 2001 (Marked "Final report"), published by the NZ Ministry of the Environment. ("NZHRA") You can download this report from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/waste/organochlorines/HRA.pdf and get further information from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/waste/organo.htm 

A) Page vii of NZHRA
"This publication, in particular the Executive Summary along with Sections 4, 5, 7 and 8, represents the final report for Dr Allan Smith and Ms Peggy Lopipero to the Ministry for the Environment.
Sections 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the report were prepared by Dr Simon Buckland of the Ministry for the Environment for incorporation into the report."

Compare with page 49 of the HRA:
"New Zealand has completed a comprehensive inventory of dioxin sources and concentrations
in that country (Buckland et al 1998a, 1998b, 1999)."

It appears that NZHRA is likely to be the work referred to at page 49 of Annexure Z Health Risk Assessment in Volume 2 of the EIS. If not the question must be asked as to why the earlier works of Mr Buckland have been preferred in the HRA and why the final report published by the Ministry for the Environment has not been preferred over older, less authoritative and less comprehensive sources.

B) 
Page i of NZ HRA
"Based on a dietary study for dioxin-like compounds (Buckland et al., 1998c), the level of dietary intake of these chemicals for the New Zealand population is lower than exposures reported for any other country where a comparable study has been undertaken. For adult males with a median energy diet, the intake is estimated as 0.37 pg TEQ/kg bw/day, and for adolescent males with a high energy (90th centile) diet, the intake is estimated as 0.84 pg TEQ/kg bw/day, where the toxic equivalents (TEQ) are based on the toxic equivalent factors (TEFs) developed in 1997 for dioxinlike compounds by the World Health Organization (WHO) (Van den Berg et al., 1998)."
and
Page 68 of NZ HRA
"On this basis, the time-weighted intake for New Zealand males is estimated to be 0.50 pg TEQ/kg bw/day. It should be noted that this estimate does not include any intake from birth through to age five, including intake from breast feeding."

Contrast with HRA Annexure Z page 49:
"An 80 kg male with medium energy diet had a PCDD/PCDF intake of 0.18 pg I-TEQ /kg bw/d if 0.5 LOD was included in the calculations and 0.04 pg I-TEQ if it was not.
For a 70 kg adolescent on a high energy diet the respective intake of PCDD/PCDFs was 0.44 and 0.14 pg I-TEQ /kg bw/d."

Five issues are clear from the above although it is acknowledged that the Supplementary report uses a different in the calculations, but it also suggests that the proponent prefers the original methodology. 

First, the HRA has selected the lowest dietary intake figures for any country where a comparable study has been undertaken. There is virtually no evidence to support the selection of such an extreme observation. Even the HRA impliedly recognises that it might not be appropriate when it says at page 50
"Based on limited data for Australia and similar life styles, it is concluded that the background dietary of PCDD/PCDFs by Australians will be *closer* to that of New Zealanders rather than Europeans or Americans." (my emphasis added)
Clearly the figures adopted should be a conservatively estimated number between the NZ and European or American figures, given the HRA does not argue that the Australian figure would be similar or the same or lower or even close to the NZ figure. "Closer" could be as far away as the median of the US and NZ figures, less almost nothing.  The data used in support of the HRA's conclusion is not cited but should be.  

Second, the HRA has adopt dietary figures that exclude other background sources rather than the serum based figures preferred in the NZHRA as a measure of total background intake.

Third, it appears from p68 of NZHRAthat the dietary figures may exclude up to about 20% or more of total dietary intake by excluding the periods from conception or birth to 5 years, which would account for say 20% of total intake, based on the US EPA Dioxin Reassessment's estimate that "The cumulative intake for a one year nursing scenario represented about 12% of the total lifetime cumulative intake (see Part I, Volume 3, Chapter 5, Section 5.2 for details on these calculations)." (p 74 US EPA Dioxin Reassessment).

Fourth, and perhaps most worrying, it seems that the correct figure from the NZHRA, if it is the work being cited as appears likely to be the case, is 0.84 pg not 0.44 for the teenager and 0.37 not 0.18 for the adult male. The difference is so significant that the precise source (work and page) of the figure quoted should be identified. The difference is so significant that Planning NSW, EPA and NSW Health should determine the exact sources of the figures used in the HRA and verify them to source and ensure that the context of the source is supportive of their use in the HRA.

Fifth, how the NSW EPA selected the 1.4 figure for the re-calculation of the HRA as reported in the Supplementary Report at page 94. It seems likely that the figure is from the NZHRA executive summary page i where it says:
"From these serum data, body burdens and average lifetime daily exposures (ALDE) were calculated. The mean ALDE for all data was estimated as 1.4 pg TEQ/kg bw/day (minimum of 0.35 pg TEQ/kg bw/day for the population aged 15-24 years; maximum of 3.4 pg TEQ/kg bw/day) for the population aged 65+ years)."
Given the comments at page 70 of NZHRA about how the use of an average may mean that about half the population are exposed at higher levels NSW EPA should explain why it chose 1.4 and did not adjust to take into account the likely higher levels in Australia and the range of outcomes of intakes.

C)
In any event the range of intake needs to be considered. At page 70 of NZ HRA it says:
"As noted earlier, the time-weighted average daily dietary intake has been estimated to be 0.50 pg TEQ/kg bw/day for a male New Zealander, and the ALDE for 35-49-year-old New Zealanders to be 1.4 pg TEQ/kg bw/day (range of 0.93-2.0 pg TEQ/kg bw/day). A comparison of these exposures with the WHO TDI and the ATSDR MRL shows that the daily intake in New Zealand has averaged at about the WHO and the ATSDR criteria of 1 pg TEQ/kg bw/day (Table 7.2). Of course, if the average has been at these values, then approximately half the population will have been exceeding these recommendations. In addition, it should be noted that the WHO and ATSDR recommendations were promulgated with unusually small margins of safety."

Based on the above, even if the NZ 1.4 pg TEQ/kg bw/day were able to be sensibly used as per the Supplementary Report, it is likely almost half the population would have a higher intake. On this basis, approximately almost half the population living on the Meriton site could be expected to have a dioxin intake in excess of the proposed Australian standard, based on the calculations in the Supplementary Report. The level of remediation should be protective of human health for at least 99.99 % or more of the people occupying apartments on the Meriton site, not merely about 50%.

D)
Page iii of NZ HRA:
Furthermore, agencies such as the WHO and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) have noted that the derivation and use of TEQ levels is a pragmatic and feasible approach for assessing human health risks from exposure to dioxin-like compounds. We concur with this approach, and endorse the use of the most recent (1997) WHO TEFs (Van den Berg et al., 1998), applying the concept of additivity for the PCDDs, PCDFs and dioxin-like PCBs to provide total TEQ estimates. 

Contrast this to page 50 of the HRA where the US EPA 2000 figures cited have excluded the figures in the US EPA dioxin reassessment at 4.2.2 for intake from dioxin-like PCB's and the total intake of 65 pg/day TEQDFP-WHO98.

The difference in NZ figures quoted and the treatment of dioxin like PCB's in the HRA leads to a concern that the HRA has excluded dioxin-like PCB's from consideration, contrary to widely accepted practice (WHO, US EPA and NZHRA) 

E) 
Page iii, iv of NZHRA:
"In most cases, based on the non-cancer effects data, the TDI or MRL value set by these jurisdictions is, or falls within the range, 1-4 pg TEQ/kg bw/day. However, we note that the margins of safety used in deriving these values are very small, and we can have no assurance that some people with the highest exposures may not have deleterious effects even when the overall New Zealand population average intake,
based on ALDE estimates, is approximately 1.4 pg TEQ/kg bw/day. It is also noted that, for noncancer effects, the US EPA does not recommend the derivation of a reference dose (RfD) for dioxin-like compounds, because any RfD that the Agency would set is likely to be 2-3 orders of magnitude below current background intakes and body burdens."

In a number of places the NZHRA refers to the margins of safety for the general population based on average dioxin intake on a serum as opposed to dietary analysis as being low, in the order of 10. 

Page 70 and table 7.2 of the NZHRA:
"The TDI is estimated as a range of 1-4 pg TEQ/kg bw/day based on various health effects demonstrated in several animal species and application of a factor of 10 to account for interspecies extrapolation. It is unusual to apply uncertainty factors as low as 10 when extrapolating from animal toxicological data to derive acceptable human exposure limits. Similarly, the ATSDR has established an MRL of 1 pg TEQ/kg bw/day for chronic oral exposure to TCDD based on a LOAEL for developmental toxicity in monkeys and a safety factor of 90. It might appear that the ATSDR used a larger safety factor, but this is not the case since they did not include an adjustment for the much longer half-life of TCDD in humans (about 7.5 years) than in monkeys (about one year). Thus, if you take into account body concentrations of TCDD in monkeys, then the ATSDR safety margin was not much more than 10."

Given that the margin of safety is unusually low, increasing point source exposure is dangerous to human health.

F)
Page 68 of the NZHRA says:
"Although the WHO, in their estimation of daily intakes for their TDI re-evaluation, assumed dose absorption of 50% (i.e. f = 0.5), we have assumed 90% absorption (f = 0.9) which is more in keeping with the available data for gastrointestinal absorption (see Section 2.7)."

Contrast with HRA Annexure Z page 50
"The European Commission (EC 2000) and WHO (2001) in their risk assessment of dioxins in food assume an oral bioavailability of 50% for TCDD from food."

The selective use of the NZHRA, cherry picking isolated supposedly supportive data and ignoring clearly non supportive aspects is unacceptable.

G)
Page 80 of the NZHRA says:
"The results show that in situations where a person is consuming fish with a higher PCDD/F concentration compared to fish available at retail outlets in New Zealand, an increase in dietary intake can occur."

It would be fair to assume that if the dietary model shows increased levels so also would a serum based analysis of the relevant population.

This adds weight to the argument that as a public health matter consideration needs to be given to the additional dioxin intake from eating locally caught fish whether in Homebush Bay or just outside it and, in the absence of a completed remediation of dioxin containing sediments, the current figures should be used.

H) 
Page vi of the NZ HRA, which appears to contain the works of Buckland referred to in the HRA also has conclusions which, given the reliance on the report should also be considered:
"In the light of ever-increasing scientific information concerning the toxicity of dioxin-like compounds, and data on body burdens present in the New Zealand population, we make the following recommendations:
1. A precautionary approach should be adopted concerning dioxin-like compounds in New Zealand.
2. A goal of ongoing reduction in population body burdens of dioxin-like compounds should be stated.
3. Identifying a tolerable daily intake is not recommended.
4. A health exposure criterion (HEC) should be established to regulate point sources of exposure.
5. Application of the HEC should involve consideration of the plausible maximally exposed person from the point source activity.
6. The New Zealand population burden of dioxin-like compounds should be monitored periodically, perhaps every 5-10 years.
7. Policies and the HEC should be reviewed after consideration of trends revealed by future population monitoring."

********************

* There is a remarkable similarity between paragraph 4.2.1 of Annexure A of the EIS and a section of a paper "Dioxin Formation Issues" dated October 2001 by John A Lucas of Innova Soil Technology. The similar section in the EIS has one remarkable difference: it replaces the sentence "Dioxin is a highly toxic substance and strict emission standards are required, a world's best practice of process emissions not exceeding 0.1 ng/Nm3 should apply" with "Dioxin is a highly toxic substance and strict emission standards are required." 

*  The EarthTech proposal uses a process that can reasonably be expected to have an unacceptably high level of dioxin formation either in the stack or in the air above the stack:

"4.1       Dioxins and Conventional Direct Heated Thermal Desorption

 Conventional direct heated thermal desorption involves direct heating of soils to achieve separation of the contaminants from the soil matrix to the gas phase. This is not a mass burning or incineration process, as the soil’s character and mechanical integrity remains intact (max. soil temperature around 550 ^oC) and the gas exits the system as a hydrocarbon rich flue gas at high temperature.
The gas stream passes through a fabric or ceramic filter baghouse to remove particulates. A major constraint with conventional thermal desorption systems is that the kiln off-gas stream needs to be cooled below 400 ^oC to protect the filter bags. This presents a major problem in terms of dioxin formation given the information on de novo dioxin synthesis in (v) above.

Next, there is a gas combustion step. The hydrocarbon laden gas stream is re-heated and combusted in a high temperature environment. This step is not a mass burning or incineration process, as only gases are involved. If the conditions of “1000+ ^oC for 1+ seconds” are not met, problems arise in terms of complete conversion of the hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide and water. Incomplete combustion results in dioxin/VOC emissions. 

After combustion, the exit gases are then passed to an outlet stack or scrubber to remove NO_X and SO_X and any remaining particulates. Two situations may arise where dioxin formation is an issue;

(Source: GeoEnvironment 2001, Smith, Fityus & Allman (eds) © 2001, ISBN 0-9599250 4-X
Remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soils and the development of an innovative thermal process.

J.A. Lucas, L.J. Wibberley, E.M. Kennedy & B.Z. Dlugogorski
Department of Chemical Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Australia
and
Innova Soil Technology Pty Ltd, Newcastle, Australia)

 * We understand that the Mini Steel mill at Rooty Hill is licenced for only one tenth the emissions of dioxin to air as EarthTech are proposing for Meriton's site at Rhodes.

* It is ludicrous that the Meriton EIS Human Health Risk Assessment can assume no pathway of exposure to dioxin through fish.

There is no guarantee that the clean up of  the bay will proceed and after nearly 12 months, the proposed standard of clean up of the bay has not been announced. The community has been advised that it is presently uncertain as to whether the fishing ban will be able to be lifted and that in any event it will probably need to remain in place for at least 5 years while monitoring takes place.

The concept that the fish are contaminated in the Bay and OK for regular amateur anglers 10 metres outside the bay is ludicrous, and while it didn't matter so much while there were no people living with direct access to the bay and relatively few workers on sites around the bay, the degree of protection required for 20,000 people within 500 metres of the Bay in Auburn, Ryde (Meadowbank Employment Area) and Canada Bay Councils is much greater.

There is virtually no signage about fishing bans in Homebush Bay, and
certainly no multilingual signs.

Meriton cannot be allowed to rely on a clean up that hasn't occurred. The HRA should have to take into account dioxin exposure from fish caught nearby and should also be required to make some allowance for illegal fishing in the bay based on the minimisation of harm principle which has seen distribution of needles for illegal purposes to assist in the prevention of hepatitis and aids.

Auburn Council / Waterways / Canada Bay Council / NSW Health /Planning NSW / Fisheries / Sydney Olympic Park should have large multilingual signs established all around the Bay foreshore areas which are open to the public or workers.

How Auburn Council can be approving unit development around the Bay in light of the public health risks from fish consumption near but outside the area of the fishing ban is unknown.

It seems NSW Health, EPA and Fisheries are asleep on issue of the Health
risk of regular amateur fishing 10 metres outside the area of the existing
complete fishing ban.

* While it is acknowledge that the US EPA Dioxin Reassessment 2000 is in draft form and still marked Do Not Cite or Quote, it has been subject to a rigorous peer review process. In the absence of a better researched and reviewed study it should be regarded as the best available source, particularly in the absence of any published, peer reviewed draft offering contradictory conclusions and supporting evidence. Given the resources of the US chemical and incinerator industries, the lack of such a study cannot be attributed to lack of funding capacity. Given the international POP's treaty has been signed and ratified since the publication of the 2000 Reassessment, international action can reasonably be predicated to have been based at least partially on the reassessment. On that basis, in the absence of major contrary studies subject to such exhaustive peer review and given the elapsed time since the publication of the Reassessment for peer review which is sufficient to allow research and publication of any contrary views, the US EPA Dioxin Reassesment should be regarded as definitive, particularly having regard to the need for a precautionary approach to increased exposure.

 In the US, current average current background body burdens are 5 nTEQ/kgBW) and these reflect higher average intakes from the past (approximately 3 pgTEQ/kg/BW/day). (p 98 US EPA Dioxin Reassessment, 2000 and the sources cited therein). Given the dietary similarities of US and Australia, and diet as the major source of dioxin, these should be assumed as the current Australian historical intake and body burden, in the absence of a detailed study proving otherwise. The Health risk assessment should take into account the existing body burdens and ensure that current age related  body burdens plus current background intake plus intake from the site plus intake from fishing locally (even if not in Homebush Bay) is still protective of human health.  23/11/02

 The Meriton EIS does not take into account the high existing body burdens (to 99th highest percentile) from historical intake and makes no allowance for additional intake from eating fish caught locally. Given that it appears apartments will be occupied before the most toxically contaminated strip of sediments in the bay is remediated and given that there must be a gradation in dioxin content in fish as the you move away from Homebush Bay the risk to human health of cnsumption of fish caught say west of Ryde road bridge but not in Homebush Bay shuld also be taken into account. The future intake from fish in this area should be estimated and included in the risk assessment for the Meriton site. and as there is no guarantee that the bay will be cleaned up to any particular level or even at all, the current situation needs to be included in the Meriton EIS. None of this can be evaluated without publication of the Thiess EIS for the strip of sediments. In the circumstances, no development should be allowed on the Meriton site until the bay sediments are cleaned up and the forecast dioxin content of fish near but outside the fishing ban area can be modelled and taken into account in the Mertion EIS. 23/11/02

 One study measuring dioxin-like compounds in the blood of sport fishers in the Great Lakes area showed elevations over mean background, but within the range of normal variability. Another study measuring 90 PCB congeners (seven of which were dioxin-like PCBs, although PCB 126 was not measured) in the blood of sport fishers consuming high amounts of fish caught from Lake Michigan (>26 pounds of sport fish/yr) did, however, show significant elevations of PCBs in their blood as compared to a control population (individuals consuming < 6 pounds of sport fish/yr). This type of data is relevant to the Meriton site and this issue needs to be taken into account in the Meriton EIS given the dramatic increase in population and waterfront access. 23/11/02 

 The Mertiton EIS is deficient in that it makes no allowance for inadvertent breaches of a fishing ban in Homebush Bay. Given the lack of signage, it's lack of other languages and appropriate graphics, the lack of any requirement for disclosure of the current state of the bay in contracts of sale for the apartments, especially "off the plan" sales, the EIS and Health risk assessment should include an allowance for consumption of illegally caught fish. 23/10/02

 No more basis for using NZ (1.4) rather than US ( 3 ) dioxin background intake, but likely dramatically different results. Precautionary approach would adopt the higher background intake in the absence of proof to the contrary, or at least show sensitivity or use a weighted average.  

23/11/02
 Why no use of Blood bank to provide  an estimate of a Sydney siders age related dioxin body burden and derived daily/monthly intake divided by percentiles. 23/10 02

 The cumulative risk of cancer used in the Health Risk Assessment from all local sources of exposure including soil and fish together with existing body burden and current backgound intake should be 1 in 1 million.  23/11/02

 The risk of cancer used in the Health Risk Assessment is not based on those most at risk including persons with 99th percentile body burdens which can be several to many times the mean. 23/11/02

 Non-cancer effects have not been adequately considered in the Health Risk. Just because the current body burden (average or of 99th percentile) and daily intakes may reasonably be suspected of inducing non cancer effects, does not mean that people should be knowingly exposed to higher degrees of risk. In fact it means that no human exposure to additional risk should be tolerated, much less promoted. 

The US EPA dioxin reassessment acknowledges this at p 108 of the Reassessment where it says "Any RfD that the Agency would recommend under the traditional approach for setting an RfD is likely to be 2-3 orders of magnitude (100-1,000) below current background intakes and body burdens. Because exceeding the RfD is not a statement of risk, discussion of an RfD for an incremental exposure when the RfD has already been exceeded by average background exposures is meaningless."

The problems caused by existing body burdens and intakes is the whole reason why the international POP's treaty has been signed. The three primary goals to reducing the existing health risk from current body burdens and intakes should be reducing exposure to employment and point sources as a first step of reducing risk of those currently most exposed, preventing new sources in diet by tight controls on air and water emissions near food production areas such as prohibitions on grazing on areas within plumes of point sources and prohibiting feeding on contaminated feed stocks in intesive agriculture such as chicken sheds, piggeries and cattle feedlots. 

It is totally inconsistent with this to put a large residential population on contaminated soil, next to a bay of contaminated sediments with observable impacts on fish and bird life, even if there is to be a partial clean up of the bay, particularly when ther is no guarantee of any or the standard of any clean up of parts of the bay.  23/11/02

The Mertion EIS does not adequately consider the impact on foetal development of the body burden of pregnant women or of the impact of breast feeding. 

US EPA Dioxin Reassessment says at pages 38 &39:
"There is limited direct evidence addressing the issues of how or at what levels humans will begin to respond to dioxin-like compounds with adverse impacts on development or reproductive function. The series of published Dutch studies suggest that pre- and early postnatal exposures to PCBs and other dioxin-like compounds may impact developmental milestones at levels at or near current average human background exposures. Although it is unclear whether these measured responses indicate a clearly adverse impact, if humans respond to TCDD similarly to animals in laboratory studies, there are indications that exposures at relatively low levels might cause developmental effects and at higher exposure levels might cause reproductive effects. There is especially good evidence for effects on the fetus from prenatal exposure. The Yusho and Yu-Cheng poisoning incidents are clear demonstrations that dioxin-like compounds can produce a variety of mild to severe developmental effects in humans that resemble the effects of exposure to dioxins and dioxin-like compounds in animals. Humans do not appear to be particularly sensitive or insensitive to effects of dioxin exposure in comparison to other animals. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that human responsiveness would lie across the middle ranges of observed responses."

The Meriton EIS and Health Risk assessment takes no account of the increasing age at which women are having children and the impact this has on the dioxin impact on pre-natal development and dioxin content of breast milk. Given that dioxin body burden increases with age, Health Risk Assessment should consider the impact of the late age of mothers at of birth, particularly given the higher socio economic status of couples that will be able to afford waterview apartments and the correlation of higher socio economic status with deferred child bearing among women. The US EPA Dioxin Reassessment at page 111 notes that it is the accumulated body burden that is important, not meals consumed during pregnancy:
"It is important to recognize that it is not the individual meals a pregnant woman eats during pregnancy that might affect development, but the consequence of her exposure history over her life, which has the greatest impact on her body burden."

The Meriton EIS should recognise that Dioxin is a Human carcinogen as the US EPA does at page 29:
"Under EPA’s current approach, 2,3,7,8-TCDD is best characterized as a “human carcinogen.” This means that, based on the weight of all of the evidence (human, animal, mode of action), 2,3,7,8- TCDD meets the stringent criteria that allows EPA and the scientific community to accept a causal relationship between 2,3,7,8-TCDD exposure and cancer hazard. " 

There should be no increased exposure to point sources when the current background body burden and current daily intake already produce an unacceptable level of risk of cancer and non-cancer effects. A risk of one in a thousand is generally regarded as unacceptable. As background exposure already results in unacceptable risk, increasing the population exposed to a point source is unacceptable. What the US EPA says at page 98 of the Dioxin Reassessment indicates that for those in the most exposed groups have a risk of about 1 in 500 to 1 in 333. This is unacceptable.:

"Based on these slope factor estimates (per pg TEQ/kgBW/day), upper bound cancer risk at average current background body burdens (5 n 4 TEQ/kgBW) exceed 10-3 (1 in a thousand). Current background body burdens reflect highe average intakes from the past (approximately 3 pgTEQ/kgBW/day). A very small percentage of the population (< 1%) may experience risks that are 2-3 times higher than this upper bound base on average intake if their individual cancer risk slope is represented by the upper bound estimate and they are among the most highly exposed (among the top 5%) based on dietary intake of dioxin and related compounds."

Need reference to US EPA Dioxin Reassessment 21/11/02
Need reference to US EPA Region 9 Preliminary remediation Goals 21/11/02
Background Dioxin Intake Assessment should be verified by sampling 21/11/02 
Leachate monitoring needed 21/11/02
Layering approach for soils needed - 90 ppt for surface soils 21/11/02
Need to test for off site contamination 21/11/02
Need for internationally benchmarked standards for chemicals of concern for emissions and residuals 21/11/02
Air emissions need to be considered on a cumulative basis per unit of surface area and capacity allocated equitably across sites 21/11/02
Pricing to overcome the problem of the unsustainable use of the commons 21/11/02
Electronic odour detection and reporting should be used 21/11/02
Leachate buffer to Bay needed 21/11/02
Emissions levels without AMESA monitoring should be assumed to be 25 times higher 21/11/02
No discussion of memory effect on stack emissions levels 21/11/02
No analysis of health protection for breast fed infants 21/11/02
No analysis of health protection for dirt eating young children 21/11/02
No analysis of additional health risk of higher body burden groups 21/11/02
AMESA technology not discussed 21/11/02
Insufficient discussion of Rivers & Foreshore Improvement Act 21/11/02
Insufficient discussion of Environment Protection Operations Act 21/11/02
Insufficient comparative information on indirect/BCD 19/11/02
Use of Web for monthly reporting 18/11/02        
No sensitivity analysis of HRA    18/11/02   
Geotechnical 15/11/02
Unresolved consultation issues 15/11/02
Seawall area/Bay 15/11/02
Destruction Efficiency Potential 15/11/02
Recent Permits 15/11/02
Continuous sampling of stack emissions 15/11/02
Clean Up Standards 15/1/02
Rapid Quench 15/11/02
Cumulative impacts  15/11/02

Meriton site EIS (ERM For EarthTech) (Volume 1)
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview 1
1.2 Background Information 3
1.2.1 Site Location 3
1.2.2 Overview Of Site History 3
1.2.3 Previous Site Investigations And Summary Of Contaminants 5
1.2.4 Overview Of Remediation Technology 7
1.3 The Proponent 7
1.3.1 Project Objectives 8
1.4 Need For The Project 8
1.5 Statutory Approvals Process 9
1.5.1 New South Wales Legislation 9
1.5.2 Commonwealth Legislation 10
1.6 Approach To Preparing This EIS 11
1.7 Director General's Requirements 12
1.8 Associated Documents 12
1.9 EIS Format 12

Top

2 Project Description
2.1 Introduction 15
2.2 Overview Of The Proposed Project 15
2.2.1 Existing Site Conditions 15
2.2.2 Remediation Strategy And Phasing 16
2.2.3 Proposed Future Land Use 19

No geotechnical report confirming that the soils will be suitable for the purposes of building the structures permitted by SREP 29 on that land. Wicklund & Finnecy report indicates the treated dirt is not suitable for building. The treated dirt is also ecologically dead. The EIS should include consideration of all dirt movements necessary to render the site suitable in geophysical, ecological and volume terms for construction of the developments permitted under SREP 29 and the DCP including the dirt necessary for landscaping. At Mortlake importing of soil for fill to reach levels caused major traffic and amenity problems of noise and dust.

 2.3 Introduction To Detailed Process Description 19
2.4 Site Establishment 24
2.4.1 On-Site Facilities 24
2.4.2 Soil Grid System 25
2.4.3 Sea Wall 25
2.4.4 Containment Wall 26
2.4.5 Site Preparation 26
2.4.6 Fill Validation And Hotspot Excavation Across Eastern Portion Of Site And Point Park 27
2.4.7 Fill Validation - Surface 1.0 To 1.5 M Of Western Portion Of Site (Reclaimed Sector) 27
2.5 Remediation Process 27
2.5.1 Overview 27
2.5.2 Equipment To Be Used On-Site 28
2.5.3 Excavation Process - Western Portion Of Site (Reclaimed Sector) 29
2.5.4 Soil Sampling And Segregation 30
2.5.5 Preparation 31
2.5.6 Direct Heated Thermal Desorption (DHTD) Unit 32
2.5.7 Validation Sampling Of The Excavations 35
2.5.8 Post-Treatment Soil Sampling And Backfilling 35
2.5.9 Project Timeframe And Decommissioning 35
2.6 On-Site Management 36
2.6.1 Site Personnel And Management Structure 36
2.6.2 The DHTD Operator 36
2.6.3 On-Site Controls And Management Measures 37
2.6.4 Environmental Management And Auditing 41
2.7 Remedial Action Plan 42
2.7.1 Purpose Of The Remedial Action Plan 42
2.7.2 Scope Of The RAP 42
2.7.3 Remediation Strategy 43
2.7.4 Validation Program And Sampling Protocols 44
2.7.5 Site Clean-Up Criteria 45
2.7.6 Validation Procedures 47
2.7.7 Laboratory Analysis Methods 47
2.7.8 Reporting Of Results 47

Top

3 Project Alternatives
3.1 Data Sources 49
3.2 Overview Of Remediation Options 50
3.2.1 Remove The Impacted Material From The Site 51
3.2.2 Partial Removal and Manage and/or Treatment of the Impacted Material On-Site 52
3.2.3 On-Site Containment 53
3.2.4 Manage And/Or Treat The Impacted Material On-Site 53
3.2.5 The "No Action" Approach 54
3.3 Assessment Of On-Site Remediation Technologies 59
3.3.1 Biological Treatment 67
3.3.2 Landfarming/Bioremediation 67
3.3.3 Stabilisation Of Impacted Material 68
3.3.4 Containment Of The Impacted Material 69
3.3.5 Thermal Desorption 70

The comparative benefits of rapid quench versus dry scrubbers versus wet scrubbers as a means of ensuring acceptable  stack emissions, particularly of dioxins is not adequately covered. 

There is no consideration of the AMESA or any other continuous sampling regime for dioxin in stack emissions, in spite of brochures and analytical papers having been provided to ERM. 

The destruction efficiency reliably achieved of the units is not adequately dealt with. Without this information the trade off between cost and length of operation and reduction in chemicals of concern is not able to be identified.

The licences/permits granted in favour of the proposed and similar units over the last 3 years in relation to destruction efficiency and permissible residual chemicals of concern have not been adequately disclosed. This means that the capacity of the machines to achieve higher standards than those proposed is note addressed, nor is the degree of potential margin of safety below proposed clean up standards (which would not meet the US ATSDR Action level of 1 ppb - itself derived before the 1988 WHO reduction in Dioxin TDI and the release of the Australian draft TDI) able to be determined. 

The relative efficiencies of the equipment at different temperatures have not been disclosed. Based on the presentation by Thiess of their proposal, greater efficiencies can be obtained at increased temperatures. The range of efficiencies should be disclosed. If desired the proponent could disclose the differing fuel costs and and other costs (each disclosed individually) associated with the higher temperatures.

3.3.6 Geomelt (Vitrification) 70
3.4 Preferred Technology 71

There is inadequate comparative treatment of the indirect/BCD treatment used at the Olympic site which achieved a 30% lower dioxin residual in almost all soil treated and which process had the support of Environmental groups at the licenced residual levels of Scheduled Chemical Waste and Dioxins. The treatment proposed is to result in higher residual dioxin for a land use of more concern. The Indirect/BCD process has the in principle support of Greenpeace and has far lower emissions to air.

3.4.1 Preferred Option 71
3.4.2 Second Party Audit And Consultation 73
3.4.3 Proof Of Efficacy 73

Top

4 Planning and Land Use
4.1 Regional Environmental Plans 75
4.1.1 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 29 - Rhodes Peninsula 75
4.1.2 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 22 - Parramatta River 79
4.1.3 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 24 - Homebush Bay 81
4.2 State Environmental Planning Policies 82
4.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 56 - Sydney Harbour Foreshores And Tributaries 82
4.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation Of Land 85
4.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 33 - Hazardous And Offensive Industry 85
4.3 Development Control Plans 86
4.3.1 Rhodes Peninsula Development Control Plan 86
4.3.2 Sydney Harbour And Parramatta River DCP 88
4.4 Licenses And Approvals 90
4.5 Related Legislation 91
4.5.1 Water Act 1912 91
4.5.2 Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 91
4.6 Summary Of Planning Framework 91

The Rivers & Foreshore Improvement Act is not adequately discussed, nor is the Environment Protection and Operations Act

Top

5 Consultation
5.1 Background 93
5.2 Consultation During The Project Development 93
5.3 Consultation During EIS Preparation 93
5.3.1 Agency Consultation 93
5.3.2 Community Consultation 94
5.3.3 Consultation With Other Stakeholders 98
5.3.4 Parliamentary Inquiry 99
5.3.5 Guidelines For Making A Submission 101
5.4 Consultation During Remediation 102 

The EIS should include a comprehensive list of the matters raised in the consultation which are not proposed to be treated in the manner or to the standard proposed by others during consultation and give the reasons why not. Items to be specifically included in this section would include: 
1. Clean up standards - significant information was made available on tighter  comparative clean up standards from the US, down to as low as 200 parts per trillion, which is the jurisdiction in which the machines have operated and from where the bulk of supportive information on the efficacy of the proposed plant have been obtained
2. Failure to adopt AMESA continuous sampling technology. Sources of further information including the mandatory implementation of such equipment on incinerators in Belgium was provided to the proponent but has not been dealt with in the EIS. It is particularly important to have such monitoring given its availability, the very short test process proposed, the period of operation without further test, the dramatic differences shown between limited samples and continuous sampling in overseas literature which shows up to 25 times more dioxin is emitted from stacks than is shown during limited sampling. Unless this technology is adopted the health effect of stack emissions should be calculated at a 25 times higher level  as there is scientific evidence available that the actual level of emissions can be 25 times higher than that occurring in the start up test.
3. Impact of potentially higher existing dioxin body burden on health risk assessment. The community has requested that the existing dioxin body burden of long exposed local residents be determined. Evidence of this having been done overseas has been provided to NSW Health and the proponents. If the body burden of local residents is already substantially higher on an age adjusted basis, the Health Risk Assessments of stack and dust emissions will not be soundly based. The same or similar testing would provide evidence of body burden in the Australian community from which could be derived the range of actual dioxin intakes, which would them provide a factual rather than assumed basis for determining background intakes to be used in modeling. In the absence of such testing, the burden from Vietnam and the Low countries of Europe should be used to determine a remaining unused capacity and the TDI which would prevent the person from exceeding the body burden implied by the proposed draft from Health & Aging of a TDI of  2.3. The body burdens of persons from these countries should be taken into account because the information is readily available and they are sources of immigrants who may well live on the Meriton site. 
4. Impact on breast fed babies of the combined impacts of the bioaccumulation of dioxin in breast tissue of mothers and the very low body weight has not been discussed, taking into account the additional impact of dioxin intake from the toddler later eating dirt (called pica and a well documented trait of a significant portion of young children) resulting in an elevated body burden during the critical growth stages of the body) 

The consultation process was not to a satisfactory standard. One of the technical consultants employed to assist the community resigned. The reasons for her resignation should be investigated by EPA and Planning NSW. The community has been disadvantaged by the resignation of the consultant and the continuation of the process without the appointment of an alternative acceptable to the community.

Dioxin exposure from breast feeding is 100 times higher than the adult daily intake or about 10% of the lifetime intake. U.S. dioxin intakes from nursing were calculated using time dependent values for breast milk concentrations, consumption rates and body weights. These calculations estimated an intake immediately after birth of 242 pg TEQDFP-WHO98/kg/day. This dropped to 22 pg TEQDFP- WHO98/kg/day after 12 months of nursing. The average intake over one year of nursing was calculated to be 92 pg TEQDFP-WHO98/kg/day. The cumulative intake for a one year nursing scenario represented about 12% of the total lifetime cumulative intake (see Part I, Volume 3, Chapter 5, Section 5.2 for details on these calculations). (p 74 US EPA Dioxin Reassessment)

The proponent ought to be required to do a monthly report on complaints and compliance with licence conditions and to put each monthly report on the internet available for download in pdf format. The file should be no more than 1 megabyte 9 by reducing image resolution and size if need be. The report should be put on the website within 7 days of being provided to the EPA, which should be no more than 14 days after the end of the month. 

All temperature and other monitoring should be automated with logs kept until at least 5 years after the auditor has signed off the site. The logs could be made available as digital documents to the community.

Automated exception reporting from logs should be published to the web site within 3 days of the exceedence.

As per the recommendation of the Commission of Enquiry into the Orica HCB Destruction at Botany, the community should be funded to $20,000 in the first year after approval of the remediation and then $10,000 for each additional year or part thereof to enable it to obtain such expert advice as it deems fit, without having to approach the proponent for funding for particular advice.

Top

6 Overview of Existing Environment
6.1 Natural Environment 103
6.1.1 Geology and Soils 103
6.1.2 Climate 103
6.1.3 Natural Features 104
6.1.4 Air Quality and Noise Environment 104
6.1.5 Ecology 104
6.2 Human Environment 105
6.2.1 Cultural Heritage 105
6.2.2 Previous Land Use 105
6.2.3 Current Land Use and Socio-Economic Issues 105
6.2.4 Scenic Amenity and Recreational Activities 106
6.2.5 Current and Future Development on Rhodes Peninsula 106

Top

7 Contamination
7.1 Background Information 109
7.2 Historical Processes 110
7.2.1 Overview Of Site History 110
7.2.2 Overview Of Reclamation and Remediation History 110
7.2.3 Scope of Previous Investigations 112
7.2.4 Overview Of Existing Contamination 113
7.3 Remediation of Existing Contamination 128

Top

8 Geology and Hydrogeology
8.1 Geology 129
8.1.1 Regional Geology 129
8.1.2 Local Geology 129
8.2 Hydrogeology 130
8.2.1 Regional Groundwater Environment 130
8.2.2 Groundwater 131
8.2.3 On-site Groundwater Conditions 133
8.3 Impacts & Mitigation 136
8.3.1 Groundwater Impacts from the Proposed Remediation Activities 136
8.3.2 Groundwater Impacts of the Remediation Project 136
8.3.3 Impact Mitigation Strategies 137

No provision for cleaner standards nearer the sea wall as a buffer to increase the time for residual contaminants to leach to the bay. Without the use of such buffer zones there should be an ongoing requirement to monitor groundwater, particularly in light of the use of the area closest to the seawall as open space, the possibility of children playing on any tidal flats near the sea wall and the risk of leaching through the sea wall impacting on bioaccumulation of dioxin in the human food chain through fish. Without the buffer there should be annual monitoring of leachate, with such a buffer there should be monitoring after each 10 years, but in either case, monitoring should increase if levels of contaminants in ground water increase under the opens space near the sea wall.

Top

9 Surface Water
9.1 Existing Environment 141
9.1.1 Drainage 141
9.1.2 Flooding 144
9.1.3 Water Quality 144
9.2 Impacts 147
9.2.1 Flooding 147
9.2.2 Stormwater Run-Off And Water Quality 147
9.2.3 On-Site Mains Water Cycle 149
9.2.4 On-site Water Recycling 149
9.2.5 On-site water treatment 150
9.2.6 Excavation Pit Seepage 150
9.2.7 Extreme Storm Events 150
9.3 Mitigation 151
9.3.1 Flooding 151
9.3.2 General 151
9.3.3 Specific Mitigation Measures 153
9.3.4 Specific Mitigation Measures For Management Of Operational Water Demands 154
9.3.5 Specific Mitigation Measures For Water Treatment And Discharge 154
9.3.6 Management Plans 155
9.4 Conclusions 158

Top

10 Air Quality
10.1 Introduction 159
10.1.1 Background 159
10.1.2 Overview 159
10.2 Potential Emissions 161
10.2.1 Potential Dust Emissions 161
10.2.2 Controlled Stack Emissions 163
10.2.3 Upset Conditions 164
10.2.4 Odour Emissions 166
10.3 Approach To Modelling 166
10.4 Existing Environment 167
10.4.1 Local Wind Patterns 167
10.4.2 Rainfall, Temperature And Humidity 168
10.5 Existing Air Quality 170
10.6 Air Quality Goals 171
10.7 Odour Goals 173
10.8 Assessment Of Impacts 174
10.8.1 Potential Dust Emissions from Excavation and Handling During Excavation 174
10.8.2 Predicted Dust Emissions and Workplace Exposure 180
10.8.3 DHTD Stack Emissions 180
10.9 Other Potential Impacts 189
10.9.1 Odour 189
10.9.2 Potential Impacts From Worst Case Scenario Emissions 189
10.10 Greenhouse Emissions 189
10.11 Potential Cumulative Impacts 190
10.12 Mitigation Measures 191
10.12.1 Mitigation For Potential Dust Emissions 191
10.12.2 Mitigation For Potential Stack Emissions 196
10.12.3 Mitigation For Potential Odour Emissions 202
10.12.4 Community Contact 203 

Given international papers which show that the AMESA continuous sampling can show up 25 times the emission of dioxins compared to the limited type of sampling proposed by the proponent to prove up air emissions, EPA should require use of AMESA technology if it permits incinerative process as proposed. Alternatively the health risk should be done with an emission rate 25 times that proven by the proponent's very limited sampling process. The potential for adverse impact of memory effect on pollution control devices leading to higher emissions has not been discussed. 

The air emission standards need to be related to a surface area unit and volume unit. If Meriton wanted to do the project twice as fast and so used two machines, the idea of each of two machines each having the same individual emissions limit as one machine is ludicrous as can be seen by extrapolating to 20 machines in the same area. The existence of two projects in the area operating at the same time means the emissions should be modeled for cumulative impacts of all machines in the area and the available emission capacity allocated equitably across sites, including Meriton, Union Carbide and perhaps even Statewide, so that each is able to operate at the same time within the combined area emission limits. 

Electronic odour detection and recording has not been discussed as a method of providing objective evidence of emissions. Such equipment has been discussed at conferences in Sydney and its use should be considered and discussed in the EIS, particularly in the light of the site closures at Mortlake because of odour problems. Odour is likely to be a problem based on the past history of odour in Rhodes, the disturbance of contaminated sediments and the occurrence of the problem at AGL.

The problem of the use of common resources in an unsustainable manner is well documented and the rights to discharge to air and sewer should be fairly priced so that the greater the emission, the higher the price paid. The example is the over harvesting of fishing stocks, or over grazing of the commons, where each  user of the resource seeks to maximize his individual benefit without regard to equity and sustainability. The over allocation of water licences at the expense of the environment and downstream people in NSW Rivers is a classic example of the issue.

Top

11 Noise and Vibration
11.1 Introduction 205
11.2 Acoustically Significant Factors Of The Site And Plant 205
11.2.1 The Site 205
11.2.2 The DHTD unit 207
11.2.3 Existing Acoustical Environment 208
11.2.4 Prevailing Meteorological Conditions 209
11.3 Noise Criteria 210
11.3.1 Construction Noise (Implementation Stage) 210
11.3.2 Traffic Noise 211
11.3.3 Operational Noise (Remediation Stage) 212
11.3.4 Sleep Disturbance Criterion 214
11.4 Vibration Criteria 214
11.5 Source Noise Emission Levels 214
11.5.1 Construction Plant 214
11.5.2 Operational Plant 215
11.6 Source Vibration Emission Levels 216
11.7 Assessment Of Potential For Noise Impacts 216
11.7.1 Construction And Operational Road Traffic Noise 216
11.7.2 Predicted Noise Levels at Receptors During the Site Establishment Phase 218
11.7.3 Predicted Noise Levels at Receptors During Remediation Phase 219
11.7.4 Evaluation of Operational Noise Mitigation Measures 221
11.8 Assessment Of Potential Vibration Impacts 222
11.8.1 Sheet Piling 222
11.8.2 DHDT Unit 223
11.8.3 Mobile Plant 223
11.9 Noise Mitigation 223
11.9.1 Operational Noise Mitigation 224
11.9.2 Additional Noise Mitigation Options 224
11.10 Potential Cumulative Impacts 224
11.11 Conclusion 224

Top

12 Traffic and Transport
12.1 Existing Context 227
12.1.1 Surrounding Road Network 227
12.1.2 Existing Traffic Volumes 227
12.1.3 Existing Intersection Operation 228
12.2 Impact Assessment 232
12.2.1 Impacts On Road Network 233
12.2.2 Impacts On Intersections 236
12.2.3 Internal Site Movements And Parking 236
12.3 Cumulative Impacts 237
12.4 Summary Of Impacts And Mitigation 237 

Top

13 Ecology
13.1 Introduction 239
13.2 Ecological Character Of The Study Area 239
13.3 Assessment Methodology 240
13.3.1 Literature Review And Database Interrogation 240
13.3.2 Field Studies 241
13.4 Results 243
13.4.1 Flora 243
13.4.2 Threatened And Regionally Significant Biota 246
13.5 Impacts And Mitigation Measures 247
13.5.1 Impacts 247
13.6 Impact Mitigation 250
13.7 Conclusion 250

Top

14 Heritage
14.1 Indigenous Heritage 251
14.1.1 Methodology 251
14.1.2 Consultation 251
14.1.3 Environmental Context 251
14.1.4 Heritage Register Listings 252
14.1.5 Archaeological Context 254
14.1.6 Native Title Claims 255
14.1.7 Land Use And Impact On Archaeological Sites 255
14.1.8 Predictive Statement 255
14.1.9 Site Inspection 256
14.1.10 Areas Of Archaeological Sensitivity 256
14.1.11 Potential Impacts 257
14.1.12 Mitigation 257
14.2 Non-Indigenous Heritage 257
14.2.1 Methodology 257
14.2.2 Consultation 258
14.2.3 Review Of Historical Development Of The Parramatta River Region 258
14.2.4 Development Of The Study Area 258
14.2.5 Heritage Listings 261
14.2.6 Site Inspection 262
14.2.7 Areas Of Archaeological And Heritage Sensitivity 262
14.2.8 Potential Impacts 263
14.2.9 Mitigation 263

Top

15 Visual Issues
15.1 Existing Visual Environment 265
15.1.1 Surrounding Visual Environment 265
15.1.2 Existing Viewing Opportunities 266
15.2 Overview Of Visual Impacts 269
15.2.1 Components Of The Project 269
15.2.2 Impacts on the Existing Environment 271
15.3 Summary Of Impacts And Mitigation 274 

Top

16 Land Use and Socio-Economic Impacts
16.1 Site Context And Study Area 277
16.2 Social And Economic Issues And Impacts 277
16.3 Surrounding Land Use 277
16.3.1 Sensitive Uses 278
16.4 Population Profile 279
16.4.1 Population Growth 280
16.4.2 Age Distribution 280
16.4.3 Labour Force Status 281
16.4.4 Language Spoken At Home 281
16.5 Assessment Of Impacts 282
16.5.1 Social Impacts 282
16.5.2 Economic Impacts 285
16.6 Conclusions 285
16.6.1 Management Strategies 285 

Top

17 Hazard and Risk
17.1 Introduction 287
17.2 Planning Process 287
17.3 Preliminary Screening 287
17.3.1 Proposed Storage And Transport Of Hazardous Material 287
17.4 Preliminary Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment 289
17.4.1 Hazard Analysis - Dangerous Goods Storage And Use 290
17.4.2 Hazard Analysis - Site Establishment 293
17.4.3 Hazard Analysis - Site Remediation 293
17.5 Emergency Procedures And Training 300
17.6 Conclusion 300
17.7 Occupational Health & Safety Plan 300 

Top

18 Public Health
18.1 Introduction 303
18.2 Air Quality Health Risk Assessment 303
18.3 Human Health Risk Assessment 305
18.3.1 Introduction 305
18.3.2 Objective of the Derivation of Clean up Goals using a Health Risk Assessment (HRA)
Approach 305
18.3.3 Clean up Goals and HRA Reporting 305
18.3.4 Coordination with Adjacent Remediation Projects 306
18.3.5 Application of Clean Up Goals and Remediation Objectives 306
18.3.6 Site Notices And Applicable Legislation 306
18.3.7 Director General's Requirements 306
18.3.8 Remediation Outcomes 307
18.3.9 Methodology of the HRA and Derivation of Clean Up Goals 307
18.3.10 Chemicals Of Interest and Chemicals of Concern 307
18.3.11 Potential Exposure Scenarios for Risk of Harm 308
18.3.12 Consideration of Residential Exposure Pathways 311
18.3.13 Recreation And Open Spaces Exposure Pathways 315
18.3.14 Exposure Pathways for Utility/Construction Workers 315
18.3.15 Establishment of Calculation Inputs 316
18.3.16 Comments On Uncertainty/ Sensitivity Of Calculations 317
18.3.17 Summary Of Clean Up Goals For Residential And Open Spaces 319
18.3.18 Clean Up Calculation for Utility/Construction Worker 320
18.3.19 Summary Of Utility/Construction Worker Clean-Up Criteria 320
18.3.20 Ecological Considerations 322
18.4 Conclusions 324

There is no analysis of the sensitivity of the HRA to changes in the assumptions. If all assumptions are 10% less favourable to a higher residual dioxin, what TDI would result. Similarly, if all assumptions are 10% more favourable to a high residual of dioxin, what would be the TDI outcome. If the outcome is highly variable, it is necessary to have tighter goals to minimise the risk if the assumptions are optimistic. Such analysis of two additional outcomes should not be an undue burden on the proponent as no research is needed, just two recalculations based on data easily modified. 

The community is not easily able to judge the efficacy of the derived standards, nor even the comparative standing of existing Australian or NSW standards without the provision of a tabular summary of standards for each chemical of concern showing the international (say US, Canada and Holland), Australian and NSW standards. The NSW EPA would undoubtedly be monitoring international developments and transparency requires that the community be able to see and assess the proposed standards for emissions and residuals against such an internationally benchmarked system. The paucity of NSW and Australian standards compared to those available internationally is obvious by comparison to the Summary available from the Canadian EPA of their standards. Such a spreadsheet showing international benchmarking has been requested of the proponents on 19/11/02 and should be readily available as it should have been necessary to derive or test the derivation of levels for chemicals for which there is no Australian or state standard. Such international benchmarking would also highlight areas where Australian standards have been overtaken by more recent international studies and world's best practice cannot be achieved without such international benchmarking with continuous updating as standards change. 

There should be soil testing outside the boundaries of the site, including on public land to service the community and on adjoining sites. The 1988 testing, the dioxin on the Statewide property and the comments in the Wicklund & Fineccy report done for SPCC on risks of migration of contamination through dust show the need for testing outside site boundaries. The population to come to the area should be assured that the whole area, including footpaths and other nearby public space is clean, not just on individual sites. the failure to address off site contamination is highlighted by comparison with what was done at Cabarita by Dulux during remediation of a former paint factory. Fifty odd houses had their roof dust and topsoil removed. International cleanups such as at Murphysboro have involved extensive off site testing of land and people. At Rhodes there has been a failure to adequately test the areas near the heavily contaminated sites. The argument that there has been some testing in the past is shown to be flawed by the significant additional testing done on the contaminated sites. Fear of having properties treated as contaminated sites without recourse to the polluter to fund the clean up has been used as a threat to quell the call for testing of nearby private residences. City of Canada Bay called for testing of the areas within 50 metres of contaminated sites to determine the existence of off site contamination not being addressed by the remediation on a site by site basis. 

The remediation plan should minimise degree of exposure in areas of greatest likelihood of exposure. There has been a common application of a 90 parts per trillion standard for that soil where there is likely to be regular exposure. Thiess have advised that they are adopting this standard for the surface of the Waterways/Trafalgar/Multiplex site. They have also indicated a layering approach where there will be a different (less protective) standard for soil between 1 and 5 metres below the surface, and then an even less protective standard for soil more than 5 metres from a surface. This approach does not appear to have been adopted on the Meriton site. It should be. The use of a residual 1400 ppt of dioxin in surface soils likely to be disturbed by children, animals, birds, utility and infrastructure workers, gardeners and the like is totally inappropriate and compares very unfavourably with the 90 ppt standard adopted in parts of the US and by Thiess on the adjoining site.

Top

19 Waste and Resources
19.1 Introduction 325
19.2 Potential Waste Sources 325
19.3 Solid Waste 325
19.3.1 Demolition and Clearance Material 325
19.3.2 Remediation Material 326
19.3.3 Domestic Debris 326
19.3.4 Putrescible Waste 326
19.4 Liquid Waste 327
19.5 Hazardous Waste 328
19.5.1 Oils and Sludges 328
19.6 Mitigation and Environmental Management 328
19.6.1 Waste Management Plan 328
19.6.2 Waste Tracking 328
19.6.3 Contingency Plans and Corrective Actions 329
19.7 National Management Plans for Schedule X Wastes 329
19.8 Energy Consumption 332
19.9 Lifecycle Assessment 332

Top

20 Cumulative Impacts and Benefits
20.1 Introduction 337
20.1.1 Identification of Potential Cumulative Impacts 337
20.1.2 Identification of Potential Inter-Development Issues 337
20.2 Cumulative Impacts During Site Establishment 338
20.2.1 Intra-Developmental Effects During Site Establishment 338
20.2.2 Inter-Development Effects During Site Establishment 338
20.3 Cumulative Impacts During Remediation Works 341
20.3.1 Intra-Development Effects During Remediation Works 341
20.3.2 Inter-Developmental Effects During Remediation Works 342
20.4 Cumulative Benefits 353
20.5 Conclusion 353

It is impossible to adequately assess this part of the EIS on cumulative impacts without the release of the EIS for the Bay and the adjoining Union Carbide site. The requirements of the EIS are therefore not met as relevant information is being withheld. The EIS also fails to take into account the impacts of other sites undergoing remediation and development in the area. There is a need for remediation of the Statewide site (former Glad Factory) and there is earthworks and construction going on at the McRoss and Australand sites to the south. The McRoss site has been subject to some dust complaints already. The background noise and dust measurements need to be adjusted to take out the impacts of these sites to determine a true background noise and dust. Properties in the block opposite the station are available for development at present as they are have not been required to be remediated (although testing should be carried out given the change in land use and the potential dust, noise and odour from these properties also needs to be factored into the possible increase over a true background. The legal capacity for increase over the true background noise, dust, vibration, odour, etc, then needs to be allocated among the competing potential users of that capacity as a matter of equity. The whole SREP 29 area needs to be considered together as it is a single site of State Significance (otherwise the local council would be the consent authority). Similarly the cumulative impacts on the Bay need to be considered as the seawall area of the Meriton site are remediated.

Top

21 Environmental Management
21.1 Approach To Environmental Management 355
21.2 Conditions Of Approval 355
21.3 Environmental Management Plan 355
21.4 Licences And Approvals 357
21.5 Other Procedural Documents 357
21.6 Impact Mitigation Strategies 358
21.7 Monitoring, Reporting and Corrective Actions 365
21.8 Communication and Responsibilities 365 

Top

22 Project Justification
22.1 Introduction 367
22.2 Ability To Meet Identified Project Needs 367
22.2.1 Need For The Project 367
22.2.2 Preferred Strategy And Technology 368
22.2.3 Project Objectives 368
22.3 Economic Viability 371
22.4 Environmental And Social Effects 372
22.5 Consistency With The Principles Of Ecologically Sustainable Development 373
22.5.1 Precautionary Principle 373
22.5.2 Social Equity Including Intergenerational Equity 374
22.5.3 Conservation Of Biological Diversity And Maintenance Of Ecological Integrity 374
22.5.4 Improved Valuation And Pricing Of Environmental Resources 375
22.6 Conclusion 376

Top

Annexures (Volume 2)
Annexures
Annex A Consideration of the National Protocol for the Approval and Licensing of Commercial Scale
Facilities for the Treatment/Disposal of Schedule X Wastes
Annex B EIS Study Team
Annex C Summary of Director General's Requirements
Annex D PlanningNSW Director General's Requirements
Annex E Remediation Action Plan
Annex F Sydney Water Requirements
Annex G Initial Consultation with NSW EPA
Annex H Minutes of Planning Focus Meeting
Annex I Minutes of Community Liaison Group Meetings
Annex J Newsletters
Annex K Groundwater Assessment Figures
Annex L Dust Emission Assumptions
Annex M Estimated Worst case DHTD Emissions as a result of accident or emergency
Annex N Ausplume Output Data
Annex O Annual and Seasonal Windroses
Annex P Background Noise Monitoring Results
Annex Q Background Noise Monitoring Charts
Annex R Vibration Criteria
Annex S Ecological Species Lists
Annex T 8 Part Tests
Annex U Heritage Assessment
Annex V Metropolitan LALC Written Response
Annex W Results Of NSW NPWS Aboriginal Sites Register Search
Annex X National Native Title Tribunal Search Results
Annex Y Preliminary Hazard Analysis
Annex Z Site Specific Clean-Up Target Criteria for Soil at 42 Walker Street, Rhodes

Top

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Proposed Equipment Use 29
Table 2.2 Material Segregation Program 31
Table 2.3 Summary Of Rap Issues Raised In This EIS 44
Table 2.4 Target Clean Up Levels (Mg/Kg Soil) For Residents With Combined Exposure To Residential Areas And Open Space 46
Table 3.1 Remediation Options Assessment 56
Table 3.2 Summary Of Rationale For Selection Of Preferred Option 59
Table 3.3 Assessment Of Available On-Site Remediation Technologies 61
Table 4.1 SREP 29 Planning Principles 77
Table 4.2 SREP 22 Matters For Consideration 80
Table 4.3 SREP 24 Matters For Consideration 81
Table 4.4 SEPP 56 Guiding Principles 82
Table 4.5 Key Objectives For Rhodes Peninsula 86
Table 4.6 Rhodes Peninsula DCP 87
Table 4.7 Summary Of Other Licenses And Approvals Required As Part Of This Project 90
Table 5.1 Issues Raised By Community Liaison Group 97
Table 7.1 Summary Of Contaminant Concentrations Detected In Soils 121
Table 7.2 Summary Of Contaminant Concentrations Detected In Groundwater 126
Table 9.1 Water Quality Objectives 145
Table 9.2 Existing Water Quality 146
Table 9.3 Results Of Bed Sediment Analysis In The Homebush Bay Area 147
Table 10.1 Summary Of Predicted Dust Emission And NSW EPA Goals 160
Table 10.2 Estimate Of Dust Emissions On An Annual Basis 162
Table 10.3 Levels Of Contaminants On Site 163
Table 10.4 Stack Emission Characteristics For The DHTD Plant¹ 164
Table 10.5 Summary Of Stability Classes And Occurrences 168
Table 10.6 Temperature, Humidity And Rainfall Data For Parramatta Composite (Station Number 066046 Latitude 33 Deg 48 Min S Longitude 151 Deg 0 Min E Altitude 15.2 M 169
Table 10.7 NO2, PM10 And PM 2.5 Levels Measured At EPA Lidcombe Site 170
Table 10.8 Relevant Air Quality Goals 172
Table 10.9 Nsw Epa Criteria For Dust Fallout 173
Table 10.10 Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Due To DHTD Plant 181
Table 10.11 Summary Of Triggers To Be Addressed In The EMP 195
Table 10.12 Summary Of Test Methods 198
Table 11.1 Noise Monitoring Locations And Periods 208
Table 11.2 Summary Of Measured Background And Ambient Noise Levels (Adverse Weather Excluded) 209
Table 11.3 Wind Speed Vector Analysis Summary - Worst Case Over 30% Occurrence 210
Table 11.4 Determination Of Operational Noise Criteria For Residential Receivers 213
Table 11.5 Summary Of Applicable Industrial Noise Criteria1 214
Table 11.6 Modelled Sound Power Levels Of Construction Equipment 215
Table 11.7 Equivalent (Leq) Sound Power Levels Of Remediation Equipment 216
Table 11.8 Mobile Plant Vibration Emission Levels 216
Table 11.9 Predicted Worst Case Traffic Noise Impacts 1 217
Table 11.10 Noise Modelling Scenarios For Site Establishment Phase 218
Table 11.11 Predicted Noise Levels At Receptors During Site Establishment Phase 218
Table 11.12 Noise Modelling Scenarios For Remediation Phase 220
Table 11.13 Predicted Unmitigated Operational Daytime Noise Levels, dB(A)Leq 220
Table 11.14 Predicted Unmitigated Night-Time Operational Noise Levels, dB(A)Leq 221
Table 11.15 Predicted Mitigated Night-Time Operational Noise Levels, dB(A)Leq 222
Table 12.1 Existing Traffic Volumes 228
Table 12.2 Intersection Service Criteria 230
Table 12.3 Existing Level Of Service For Surrounding Road Network 230
Table 12.4 Site Establishment Stage Truck Movements (Worst Case Scenario) 233
Table 12.5 Expected Intersection Operation During Site Remediation 236
Table 13.1 Relevant Ecological Performance Standards 249
Table 14.1 Registered Indigenous Sites Within A 2.5 Km Radius Of The Project Site 254
Table 14.2 Results Of National Native Title Tribunal Search Request 255
Table 14.3 Summary Of Site History From Aerial Photographs 260
Table 16.1 Population Of Rhodes As Compared With Concord LGA 280
Table 16.2 Age Cohorts For Rhodes, The Study Area And Sydney Statistical Division: 1996 281
Table 16.3 Labour Force Status For Rhodes, Study Area And SSD: 1996 281
Table 16.4 Language Spoken At Home: Broader Study Area 1996 282
Table 17.1 Dangerous Goods Classifications And Relevant Australian Standards 288
Table 17.2 Hazard Analysis Of Dangerous Goods Storage And Use 291
Table 17.3 Hazard Analysis For The Site Establishment Phase 293
Table 17.4 Hazard Analysis Of The Site Remediation Phase 294
Table 18.1 Summary Of Contaminants On Site And Predicted Impacts 304
Table 18.2 Summary Of Chemicals Of Interest And Chemicals Of Concern 307
Table 18.3 Target Clean Up Levels (Mg/Kg Soil) For Residents With Combined Exposure To Residential Areas And Open Space 319
Table 18.4 Clean Up Goals For Utility/Construction Worker 320
Table 18.5 Toxicity Reference Values For Terrestrial Plants And Soil Invertebrates 322
Table 19.1 Summary Of Criteria In The National Management Plans For Schedule X Wastes 330
Table 19.2 Summary Of Energy Consumption For The Remediation Works 332
Table 19.3 Lifecycle Assessment Of Key Site Materials 333
Table 20.1 Summary Of Potential Intra-Developmental Effects During Site Establishment 339
Table 20.2 Summary Of Potential Intra-Developmental Effects During The Remediation Works 341
Table 20.3 Emission Characteristics For Lednez DTD Plant 343
Table 20.4 Estimate Of Dust Emissions On An Annual Basis From Lednez Site 343
Table 20.5 Comparison Of Predicated Levels Former Allied Feeds And Lednez Sites 344
Table 20.6 Predicted Worst Case Traffic Noise Impacts 346
Table 20.7 Predicted Cumulative Operational Daytime Noise Levels, dB(A)Leq 351
Table 20.8 Predicted Cumulative Night-Time Operational Noise Levels, dB(A)Leq 351
Table 20.9 Expected Intersection Operation During Concurrent Site Remediation Projects 352
Table 21.1 Relevant Plans Included In EMP 356
Table 21.2 Summary Of Procedural Documentation Managing On-Site Practices 357
Table 21.3 Summary Of Issues And Mitigation Identified In The EIS 358
Table 22.1 Summary Of Statutory And Regulatory Policies And Compliances Of The Proposed Project 371

Top

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Regional Setting 2
Figure 1.2 Site Location 4
Figure 1.3 Features Of Interest 6
Figure 1.4 Approvals Process 13
Figure 2.1 Site Layout Plan 17
Figure 2.2 Proposed Excavation Phases 20
Figure 2.3 Components Of The 64 Mt DHTD Treatment Unit And Compound 21
Figure 2.4 Process Flow Of The Remediation Technology 22
Figure 2.5 Proposed Site Layout 23
Figure 2.6 Process Flow Diagram 32
Figure 4.1 Zoning Plan 76
Figure 6.1 Current Land Uses 107
Figure 7.1 Heavy Metals And PCB Results For Soil Samples Exceeding The Nominated Threshold
Criteria 115
Figure 7.2 Organochlorine Pesticide Results For Soil 116
Figure 7.3 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Results For Soil 117
Figure 7.4 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Results For Soil 118
Figure 7.5 2,3,7,8 - TCDD And Total Dioxin And Furans Teq Results For Soil 119
Figure 7.6 Phenoxy Acid Herbicides Results For Soil 120
Figure 8.1 Acid Sulfate Soil Management 139
Figure 9.1 Regional Surface Water Drainage 142
Figure 9.2 Local Drainage 143
Figure 9.3 On Site Water Management Features 152
Figure 10.1 Predicted Maximum 24 Hour Average PM10 Concentration At Ground Level - µG/M³ 175
Figure 10.2 Predicted Annual Average PM10 Concentration At Ground Level - µG/M³ 176
Figure 10.3 Predicted Annual Average TSP Concentration At Ground Level - µG/M³ 177
Figure 10.4 Predicted Annual Average Dust Deposition G/M²/Month 178
Figure 10.5 Predicted Annual Average PM 2.5 Concentration At Ground Level - µG/M³ 179
Figure 10.6 Predicted 1 Hour Maximum NOx Concentration At Ground Level Due To DHTD Plant - µG/M³ 183
Figure 10.7 Predicted Annual Average NOx Concentration At Ground Level Due To DHTD Plant - µG/M³ 184
Figure 10.8 Predicted 1 Hour Maximum CO Concentration At Ground Level Due To DHTD Plant - µG/M³ 185
Figure 10.9 Predicted 8 Hour Maximum CO Concentration At Ground Level Due To DHTD Plant -- µG/M³ 186
Figure 10.10 Predicted Maximum 24 Hour Average PM10 Concentration At Ground Level Due To DHTD
Plant - µG/M³ 187
Figure 10.11 Predicted Annual Average PM10 Concentration At Ground Level Due To DHTD Plant - µG/M³ 188
Figure 11.1 Noise Measurement And Assessment Locations 206
Figure 12.1 Existing Traffic Flows Am Peak Period 7.30 - 8.30 229
Figure 12.2 Existing Traffic Flows - Pm Peak Period 4.30 - 5.30 231
Figure 12.3 Expected Traffic Flows Am Peak Period 7.30 - 8.30 234
Figure 12.4 Expected Traffic Flows Pm Peak Period 4.30 - 5.30 235
Figure 13.1 Threatened Species Records In The Locality Of The Site 242
Figure 14.1 Registered Indigenous Sites Within A 2.5 Km Radius Of The Study Area 253
Figure 14.2 Parish Map Showing Frederick Meredith's Holding (1794) 259
Figure 15.1 Visual Catchment And Key View Points 273
Figure 18.1 Potential Exposure Pathways 310
Figure 20.1 Predicted Maximum 24 Hour Average PM10 Concentration At Ground Level Due To
Cumulative Activities - µG/M³ 347
Figure 20.2 Predicted Annual Average PM10 Concentration At Ground Level Due To Cumulative
Activities - µG/M³ 348
Figure 20.3 Predicted Annual Average TSP Concentration At Ground Level Due To Cumulative
Activities - µG/M³ 349
Figure 20.4 Predicted Annual Average Cumulative Dust Deposition G/M²/Month 350

Top

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 13.1 Corridor Of Casuarina Glauca And Gums To Foreshore Along Seawall 243
Photograph 13.2 General Site View (Disturbed) Wetland Habitat In Foreground 243
Photograph 13.3 Existing Erosion Of Intertidal Area From Wave Action 243
Photograph 13.4 River Mangroves Recolonising Foreshore 243
Photograph 15.1 View Of Southern Portion Of The Site From Walker Street 267
Photograph 15.2 View Of Northern Portion Of The Site From Walker Street 267
Photograph 15.3 View Of Central Portion Of The Site From Cycle Path On The Elevated Railway Embankment 268
Photograph 15.4 View Of The Site From The Elevated Southern Portion Of Blaxland Road 268
Photograph 15.5 View Of Northern Portion Of The Site From Meadowbank Memorial Park 269
Photograph 15.6 View From Meadowbank Memorial Park (Cycle Pathway) 269
Photograph 15.7 View Of Parramatta Rive From Cycle Pathway, Meadowbank 269
Photograph 15.8 Far Left View From Elevated Residences In Melrose Park (Crowley Cr) 270
Photograph 15.9 View Of Site From Bicentennial Park Observation Tower (South) 270
Photograph 15.10 View Of Western Portion Of The Site From Wentworth Point 270

Top

Supplementary Report
1 Introduction
1.1 Background 1
1.2 The Purpose of this Report 1
1.3 The Structure of this Report 2
2 Project Description
2.1 Introduction 3
2.2 Additional Information 3
2.2.1 DHTD Technology 3
2.2.2 Commissioning Trials 11
2.2.3 Manufacturer's Warranties 14
2.2.4 Enclosure for the Soil Drying Area 14
2.2.5 Blending of Validated Soils 17
2.2.6 Soil Remediation Validation 17
3 Project Alternatives
3.1 Introduction 21
3.2 Additional Information 21
3.2.1 Remediation of Metals 21
3.2.2 Landfarming 24

Top

4 Statutory Context
4.1 Introduction 27
4.2 Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act 1985 27
4.2.1 Declared Chemical Wastes 27
4.2.2 Chemical Control Orders 28
4.2.3 Compliance with the CCOs 31
4.3 Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 36
4.3.1 Application of the Act 36
4.3.2 Compliance with the Act 36
4.4 National Environment Protection Measure 37
4.4.1 Application of the National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) 1999 37
4.4.2 Compliance with the NEPM 37
4.5 Waste Avoidance And Resource Recovery Act 2001 37
4.5.1 Application of the Act 37
4.5.2 Compliance with the Act 37
4.6 Comparable Legislative Criteria 38
4.7 Stockholm Convention On Persistent Organic Pollutants 42

Top

5 Contamination
5.1 Introduction 44
5.2 Additional Information 44
5.2.1 Soil Contamination 44

Top

6 Hydrogeology
6.1 Introduction 46
6.2 Additional Information 46
6.2.1 Potential for Contaminant Migration Post-remediation 46
6.2.2 Groundwater Sampling 50
6.2.3 Installation of the Sheet Pile Seawall 51

The method of protecting the waters of Homebush Bay during the removal of the seawall are not adequately dealt with. The Meriton site must be remediated including the seawall and the earth which supports it. This means the removal of the wall or at least a likelihood of its collapse when surrounding earth is removed on the land side. When the former Union Carbide site was remediated 15 metres width of earth was left undisturbed to support the sea wall. Meriton cannot do this and achieve a proper remediation of that area. The method of protecting the bay during the remediation of the seawall area has not been described and supported with the necessary hydrological reports dealing with tide, wash and wind driven waves. The method of protecting the bay during the erection of the measures necessary to protect the bay during the remediation is not dealt with. If the say 15 metres along the sea wall of the Meriton site is to be remediated by Thiess to overcome the lack of information above, the information on the management of the boundary issue between the rest of the site and the 15 metres has not been dealt with at all. Given SREP 24, SREP 22, the Rivers & Foreshores Improvement Act, and Australia's obligations under the JAMBA and CAMBA treaties (which require not harming food stocks) and the XXX (EPOA?) Act the EIS must deal with this issue and with how the seawall structure is going to be dealt with including stabilisation, removal, protection of the bay while seawall removed, protection of the bay while seawall in place, protection of the bay during erection of other protections eg silt curtains etc.) It is really impossible to assess this part of the EIS without the EIS for the remediation of the Bay being made available. The Remediation Action Plan is also grossly deficient in  respect of handling the Bay and Seawall. It is impossible to assess this issue without the benefit of the EIS for the Bay and adjoining site. The EIS is fundamentally deficient on this point and the preliminary discussions with Waterways referred to are not sufficient to properly define the scope of works, staging, risks, protective measures, mitigation and risk management. 

Top

7 Surface Water
7.1 Introduction 54
7.2 Additional Information 54
7.2.1 Water Quality Objectives 54
7.2.2 Water Management 58
7.2.3 Sediment Water Management System 61
7.2.4 Sediment Basin 61
7.2.5 Pollution Load Assessment 62
7.3 Potentially Contaminated Water Management System 62
7.3.1 General 62
7.3.2 Treatment Plant 63
7.3.3 Trade Waste Agreement 64
7.3.4 Monitoring 65
7.3.5 Silt Curtains 67

Top

8 Air Quality
8.1 Introduction 70
8.2 Additional Information 70
8.2.1 Background Data 70
8.2.2 Stack Emissions 71
8.2.3 Compliance with the Clean Air (Plant and Equipment) Regulations 80
8.3 Methodology Information 82
8.3.1 Odour Control 84
8.3.2 Cumulative Impacts 87 

Top

9 Noise and Vibration
9.1 Introduction 88
9.2 Additional Information 88
9.2.1 Noise Modelling Process 88
9.2.2 Plant Location 88
9.2.3 Residential Class Mufflers 93 

Top

10 Public Health
10.1 Introduction 94
10.2 Additional Information 94
10.2.1 Criteria for Dioxins 94
10.2.2 Residential and Open Space Criteria 95
10.2.3 Concentrations in Groundwater and Homebush Bay 95

The science and supporting papers referred to in the US EPA Dioxin Reassessment should be considered. while the document remains in draft it has been subject to substantial peer review processes and therefore should not be ignored. The implied clean up levels from the Reassessment should be examined and presented as by the time this project is on the market, the Reassessment may well have been adopted.

The Preliminary Remediation Goals of Region 9 US EPA should be considered and commented upon as they are very persuasive in the US. The consideration of the issues is clearly much further advanced in US regulatory circles and due regards should be had to the recent and draft guidelines and decisions of that jurisdiction. The PRG's are available from:

http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/index.htm 

Background dioxin TDI data should be based on a statistically reliable sample of the population of Sydney and various groups therein. The US EPA dioxin re-assessment indicates that the background dioxin TDI in the US may already be above the proposed Australian equivalent TDI of 2.3 pg/kg/bw/day. There are sufficient differences between Sydney and NZ cities in terms of size and industrialization and   sufficient similarities between Australian and American lifestyles, that there may well be as much justification for adopting the figure from the US as for the one from NZ. Given the number of proposed residents on the site and the adjoining site, no residentail development should be should be permited until a Health Risk Analysis has been done, based on reliable local data as to background daily intake of dioxin.

Top

11 Waste and Resources
11.1 Introduction 96
11.2 Additional Information 96
11.2.1 Clean-up Criteria and Landfill Disposal 96
11.2.2 Off-site Disposal and Management of Industrial Waste 98
11.2.3 Additional Waste Streams and Estimated Waste Quantities 98
11.2.4 Off-site Disposal of Inert and Solid Waste 101
11.2.5 Classification of Waste Streams 103
11.2.6 Liquid Waste 103
11.2.7 Clarification of Terminology 104
11.2.8 Licence Agreements and Statutory Guidelines 104
11.2.9 Waste Tracking 106
12 Errata 108

Top

Constraints

I note that the comments below have been prepared in good faith by a lay person relying mainly on materials available from the internet from a diversity of sources. Proper footnoting and citing has not been uniformly applied in view of the constraints discussed below. 
It has been impossible to review the documents to my satisfaction due to lack of time and expert assistance.
I note that I have sought to obtain expert assistance from my local council referring them to their practice of using consultants for complex DA's and citing the recommendations of the Orica Botany HCB Commission of Enquiry and an example of the US EPA Superfund providing substantial funding direct to a community group called Mooreforce in relation to a Superfund or CERCLA clean up.
I also note that I have requested extensions of time to comment and have had no direct notification of the granting of such an extension as at 8 December 2002, although I have heard indirectly that the exhibition period has been extended.
I note that one of the independent technical persons employed to assist the community in relation to this EIS resigned her role during the process. This has significantly reduced the assistance available to the community in formulating comments on the EIS. I ask that Planning NSW ascertain the reasons for that person's resignation from that role.
There has been a failure of natural justice and procedural fairness in the restricted time allowed for comment, the failure to provide the community with independent expert assistance given the dependency on the party of persons holding the relevant ministerial positions on donations from property developers creates a widespread community concern about possible lack of independence of government, and because of the complexity and volume of the materials to be reviewed, and particularly in light of an apparent need to double check all documents back to source and possible failure to disclose materials quoted extensively.

In the circumstances I have made broader rather than narrower statements and have not been able to cross check that material is not covered elsewhere or in another way. 

Top