Agendas |Minutes 

Homebush Bay Dioxin Remediation Project
Community Liaison Group
1st Meeting
Minutes of Meeting

When: Saturday 6 October 2001, 10.00 am to 12.30 pm

Where: Rhodes Community Centre

Attendees: 
Rhodes Peninsula Group
Rhodes Residents' Group
Meadowbank & West Ryde Progress Association
King Street Residents' Group
Greenpeace
Friends of the Earth and 
Nature Conservation Council.
John Kent, Independent Chair
Doug Moss and John Hunt, Thiess Services
Jo Robertson, Rowena Lennings and Sara Phillips, PPK Environment and Infrastructure

Apologies: Cr Pauline Tyrell of the City of Canada Bay
Paula Majstorovic, Blaxland Road resident

Minutes:

1. The meeting commenced with a welcome and confirmation of the objective and format of initial Community Liaison Group meeting. The proposed objective of the meeting was agreed as being to determine a term of reference and protocols for the Community Liaison Group.

2. Introductions and determination of role and scope of group
Participants introduced themselves and nominated what they would like to achieve - (their personal perspective on the best possible outcome from the liaison group process). 
Responses included the following categories:
§ To ensure a genuine consultation process that factors local input into the EIS, ensures the complete understanding of community concerns by the EIS study team and ensures these concerns are appropriately represented in the EIS.
§ To facilitate a genuine two-way communication flow from the earliest stages of the project between Thiess/PPK and the CLG and the CLG and the wider community - by passing on information, avoiding secrecy, promoting understanding, information flow and the opportunity to learn about remediation.
§ Ensure stated remediation objectives are met and that local residents are protected.
§ EIS should represent best practice (not best attempt) this will involve engaging everyone involved in the project through to the workers on site.
§ Ensure community input is sincere.
§ CLG process should be continued to the conclusion of redevelopment process.
Response
Thiess confirmed while acknowledging the CLG's desire that this group cover all remediation through to the construction stage, this EIS will only be dealing with the remediation stage and only for the Union Carbide site and Homebush Bay sediments. They are not looking at issues regarding the ultimate land use eg. density, transport, traffic and community facilities for the people who will eventually live there. Thiess will maintain meetings with this group during the EIS and during remediation activities.

3. Establishment of work program for CLG
Participants nominated priority areas they would like to give input to and receive information about:
§ remediation options, remediation standards and outcomes of remediation (water quality, dust, soil, sediment, fish and noise);
§ odour impacts;
§ hours of work;
§ risk of piecemeal remediation - co-ordinating with neighbouring remediation projects, a lobbying role for this group;
§ cumulative impacts of remediation of sites on the peninsula (volatile hydrocarbons) for the workers and residents;
§ effects of remediation on flora and fauna in both local and broader environment;
§ traffic (remediation, construction, end-use);
§ baseline studies (dust and top-soil, water quality and fishing);
§ air flow (air quality modelling and monitoring);
§ communication activities during the remediation;
§ site history;
§ health studies; and
§ mitigation measures.
During general discussion Thiess confirmed that there are a number of conditions precedent before they can actually do any remediation tasks, including resolution of boundary issues with neighbouring sites and the Environment Protection Authority advising of its required standards for remediation and control. 
They have established a weather station on the UCAL site to get wind information for dust control. There are a number of documents to be produced over the next few months including the Environment Management Plan, Health Risk Assessment and Remediation Action Plan. These documents will all provide information for the EIS. 

Thiess noted that while the EIS will examine various options for the remediation process, they believe only a thermal process is currently viable. There are issues about whether secondary processing will take place at Rhodes or elsewhere. 
Thiess indicated that they would work in strips and turf each strip as they finished to minimise potential dust impacts.

These CLG's priority areas were grouped into workshop sessions and a timetable of meeting dates was developed. PPK have a timetable to meet in preparing the EIS so the group will meet fortnightly in the short term.
Meeting 1: Site Visit, Site history, Scope of EIS and Consultation - Wednesday 17 October
Meeting 2: Remediation Treatment Technologies - Thursday 1 November
Meeting 3: Health Risk Assessment - Thursday 15 November
Meeting 4: Remedial Action Plan - Thursday 29 November
Meeting 5: Health - public and worker - to be brought forward?
Meeting 6: EMP - to be scheduled after Christmas holidays

3.1 Scope of EIS
A number of issues relating to the content and focus of the EIS were raised. It was proposed that EIS should address the following issues:
a) The EIS should conclude whether, if the proposed work is done to the proposed standards, the claims contained in an advertisement for Trafalgar in the Financial Review will be true. These claims, possibly quoting The Hon Carl Scully MP on 2GB Radio News 1:00 pm 25 August 2000, state that there would be "good swimming", "good fishing" and "no more pollutants".
b) Whether the ceiling dust and the topsoil of nearby houses, particularly in Blaxland Road, Rhodes are safe both before and after the remediation.
c) The impacts on threatened species and JAMBA/CAMBA species and the nearby Newington and Bicentennial Park wetlands which are of national significance.
d) Whether the fishing bans regarding Homebush Bay and commercial fin fishing west of the Gladesville bridge would be able to be lifted on completion of the proposed works to the proposed standards.
e) To examine whether would be substantial import of soil onto Waterways former Union Carbide site after remediation to obtain levels suitable for building.
f) To examine why the conclusions in the 1989 Risk Assessment for the Dept of Planning that there be no residential building on even the natural part of the site were no longer justified.

4. Establishment of Protocols and Code of Behaviour
Participants were asked to reflect on the best and worst aspects of consultation/committee processes they have been involved in/are familiar with. From these reflections key elements were identified to guide the current process. They included a number of categories including:
§ Behaviour:
< no individual should dominate the meeting;
< everyone should have a full say;

< good manners should always prevail; and
< group members should be open to constructive criticism.
§ Skills:
< experts engaged to address the CLG should have good communication skills; and
< agendas should be well planned.
§ Administration:
< meeting records should indicate issues raised and a summary of responses, they should include copies of presentation materials and references to Technical Reports;
< it was agreed that the meeting notes should reflect both minority and majority opinions. The CLG is not a decision making body but where possible, process issues will be resolved by consensus;
< meeting records should be accepted by the CLG before they are made public; and
< meetings should be appropriately timed.

§ Attendance at meetings:
< anyone can attend a meeting as an observer by prior arrangement with Rowena Lennings rlennings@bigpond.com or 9419 2871. All issues should be raised through one of the community representatives; and
< in order to keep up with the learning curve that will be sustained by the group participants are urged to attend consistently and if this is not possible to fully brief their alternatives in their absence.

§ Media:
< members of the media will not be invited to meetings as it was generally agreed this would constrain discussions. Members can raise matters with the press as individuals or representatives of their organisations, but only the Chairman can speak for the group as a whole.

§ Ongoing consultation:
< CLG representatives expressed a need to communicate through the press as a representative of their own organisation;
< an "opt in" email list was suggested as a means of communication with the wider community;
< newsletters should allow the group to put out its views, even those that conflict; and
< Some allowance for community group expenses was requested. This issue will be discussed further in the context of the wider consultation process.

§ Group composition:
< CLG group members have proposed John Kent, Kate Hughes and John Pym as independent technical advisors. The CLG will consider their credentials at the next meeting; and
< it is hoped that Liberty Grove and Mariners Cove community groups will be represented at the next and forthcoming meetings.