When: Wednesday 12 December, 2001, 4.30pm to 6.30 pm
Where: Rhodes Community Centre
Attendees: John Kent, Independent Chairman
Kate Hughes and John Pym, Independent technical reference people
Rhodes Peninsula Group 
Rhodes Residents' Group 
Meadowbank and West Ryde Progress Association 
King Street Area Residents' Group and guests
Liberty Grove Community Group
Sydney Olympic Park Authority
Auburn Greenspace
Friends of the Earth 
Nature Conservation Council
City of Canada Bay 
Ryde City Council
John Hunt, Sharon McHugh, Thiess Services
Jo Robertson, Rowena Lennings, and Di Sismey, PPK Environment & Infrastructure
Dr Gary Smith, Environmental Scientist - Occupational Health and Safety - peer review
Dr Stephen Corbett - Department of Health
Central Sydney Area Health Service -Dr Alison Rutherford and Graham Burgess 
Apologies: Concord West P & C Association
Greenpeace
Minutes:
Chairman's Introduction
The Chairman noted that the main business of the meeting was to focus discussion on issues relating to protection of the health of workers and the surrounding community during the remediation activities. 
1. The meeting commenced with the discussion of the previous meeting record.
The previous meeting record was accepted with the following amendments. 
That Concord West P & C Association had been represented at the previous two meetings and the meeting records should be amended to reflect this. 
2. Matters Arising
3. Occupational Health and Safety and Community protection
Dr Gary Smith who has been retained by Thiess Services in a peer review role for occupational health and safety standards and monitoring gave a presentation on how it is proposed to address the issues of protecting workers health and health of the surrounding community during remediation activities. The presentation materials he referred to were distributed to participants at the meeting.
Issues and Questions
3.1 Dust control
3.1.1 Dust has been a major issue on the AGL site where Thiess Services are also conducting work. How can we be assured that this project will be managed any better? 
Response: Dust will be managed through:
· Eliminating toxic pathways;
· Managing nuisance dust through watering sprays and misting systems;
· Minimising the area of contaminated material exposed during excavation;
· Pre-treating contaminated soil in an enclosure; and
· Laying turf over bare soil in remediated areas. 
Thiess referred to their previous explanation regarding their role on the AGL site. In summary, unlike the current proposal where Thiess would be able to control the work process and would be responsible for managing the dust impacts, Thiess are only contractors on the AGL site and as such do not have complete control over all activities on site. 
3.1.2 It was proposed that the AGL site is an example of the system failing to deliver adequate dust control in a long-term project, irrespective of Thiess' role on the project.
Response: Thiess agreed that there were many lessons to be learnt from the problems with this project, such as the importance of the early formulation of monitoring and consultation plans, effective feedback and action plans and good communication. These issues are being addressed in the current planning process, which includes scope for continual improvement through peer review.
3.2 Communication
3.2.1 It was emphasised that the EIS should provide information identifying the chain of command and who to contact in the event of dust from the site impacting on local residents during remediation activities. 
Response: A 24-hour phone line service was proposed for consideration.
3.3 Health Protection
3.3.1 What are the overlaps between the protection of workers on site and the neighbouring residents?
Response: The main overlap is the focus on minimising dust through management practices. 
Some workers on site will include those who have direct contact with contaminated material and will be working within an enclosure and will wear protective clothing. Site personnel will also include other employees who will work on site and not require protective clothing. The fact that the site will be managed so that comparatively nearby workers will not need protective clothing because they are not being exposed to harm means that residents who are at a further distance from the source of contamination will be even less exposed. 
3.4 Monitoring
3.4.1 Can dust be monitored effectively?
Response: Monitoring can be designed to capture both averages and peak episodes. Monitors on the site boundary will operate 24 hours per day. 
3.5 Peer Review Process
3.5.1 What is the timeline for the peer review process?
Response: Peer review will continue throughout the process. Its two main stages commence with a review of the risk assessment and then the remediation action plans. 
4. Community Health Issues 
Dr Steven Corbett, Department of Health (DOH), described the role of the Department as twofold, being:
§ To provide specific advice to other government agencies in relation to the protection of human health and to comment on planning tools such as this Environmental Impact Statement; and
§ To try to address peoples' concerns about health that usually fall into the categories of, firstly the health impacts of the proposed project and secondly the health impact of what has gone before. 
Dr Corbett mentioned that he had prepared detailed responses to the questions posed earlier by Paul Hanly but he wished to invite questions from the floor before he addressed those questions. 
Questions and Responses:
4.1 Initial Remediation
4.1.1 How closely did DOH monitor the initial remediation? How much worse was it then than it is likely to be now?
Response: It is unlikely the DOH would have had a significant role in the earlier remediation, as it was the regulatory province of the previous State Pollution Control Commission. Since that time standards have tightened to the extent that many elements of previous practice are unlikely to be acceptable now. 
The tools available to understand previous exposures tend to be rather blunt instruments. For instance, we have geographic health surveys which sometimes identify high incidences of cancer in a particular region but that may reflect a high level of people who smoke in that area rather than a geographic based exposure. These maps can identify anomalies but they don't explain them. In addition to the surveys done by the Cancer Council, which are freely available, we have data from birth defects and admissions to hospitals. 
4.2 Worker Health Survey
4.2.1 Shouldn't the DOH be looking at a long-term survey of the health of workers?
Response: DOH prefers to focus on the scrupulous control of hazards. Surveys take a long time and don't necessarily produce useful results. We know enough about these contaminants to make sure the right controls are put in place on site. Generally speaking DOH does not handle occupational health issues on site.
Thiess routinely perform before, during and after medical checks of their workers on site. These tests are tailored to specific conditions of the site that Thiess personnel will be working on. 
4.2.2 Why do you focus on testing the health of workers and not the health of nearby residents? 
Response: If workers are not exposed it is extremely unlikely the community will be exposed. In addition the Occupational Health and Safety Act has specific provisions in relation to workers because they are in the first line of potential exposure.
4.3 Community Health Survey
4.3.1 We need an epidemiological study to have a benchmark for the community for issues that may come along in ten years time. As dust emissions will be more than zero we need a benchmark for the community in terms of its level of health.
Response: While health surveys have a strong intuitive appeal to communities who wish to detect and monitor signs of deteriorating health, the comparatively small statistical samples make their usefulness highly questionable. This is due to the size of the survey group in relation to the rarity and chronic long-term nature of the possible impacts of exposure to chemicals on the site. If you were to study a group of 1000 - 5000 it would be unlikely that you would get results that could contribute to decision making. Even if risks were increased by 10 or 100 times acceptable levels impacts would be unlikely to be evident in the survey group. A negative answer wouldn't prove that you haven't been exposed and a positive answer wouldn't prove that you had. Even if we went to extraordinary lengths to survey the chances of detection of change at this level is too small.
DOH prefers to consider more effective ways to gather together evidence such as looking for evidence of actual exposure to the chemicals. We want to ensure that exposures do not occur in the first place by putting in place controls so that there are no chronic or acute illnesses. 
4.3.2 Dr Mark Donahue found chromosomal damage in 11 of the 13 people he tested in relation to impacts from the Olympic site, you need to survey the population. 
Response: A DOH peer review process that examined these results and was of the unequivocal opinion that the results of the tests had been over interpreted and there was no chromosomal damage. 
4.3.3 We have stricter environmental standards today because of previous health surveys. DOH are afraid of doing a health survey and go into denial when confronted with this issue.
Response: DOH is not afraid of doing a survey but we all need to understand the limitations of such a study. We need to focus on 
§ Why we are going to do it;
§ What we are going to do and for how long;
§ What we can achieve; and
§ Will it change anything?
While there is no level of reassurance that a survey is worth the trouble we are far more persuaded that we should focus on the level of control at source. It may be more efficient to look at domestic animals who are closer to the potential exposure pathways and see if they become exposed. 
4.4 Further actions - Health sub-committee
4.4.1 We should form a sub-committee and invite the participation of GP's such as Dr Mark Donahue to consider health issues relating to this remediation and other neighbouring developments in this region in more detail.
Response: The Department of Health and the Central Area Health Committee expressed their interest in forming and participating on such a committee. Dr Corbett said that DOH would look at closer liaison with local General Practitioners in the area to facilitate communication links if the remediation process proceeds. The confidentiality obligations of GP's are not expected to be an obstacle to this process. 
PPK will follow up with DOH and provide CLG participants' contact details to assist with the establishment of the sub-committee.
4.5 Historic Contamination
4.5.1 What about residents who have exposure pathways through their topsoil? Testing in 1998 found levels of dioxin at 0.3 ppb in the topsoil of the old school. Residents need base line testing of topsoil and roof dust to be assured they are not being continually exposed in the future. It was later commented that soil from the Union carbide site had previously been moved off-site and the higher than expected levels of dioxin in the school's topsoil had been explained by the fact that Union Carbide had brought soil from their site to the school. 
Epidemiological studies were carried out by Orica at Botany and as part of the Dulux site remediation. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for us.
Response: Offsite contamination is legally complex as to who is responsible. In determining remedial actions it often comes down to who owns the site and has the money to pay for it. Dulux were the owners of that site and had the bank account to pay for the process. 
It has been demonstrated that ceiling dust is not a risk to health unless it is disturbed. Special care needs to be taken during renovation. The proposed health sub-committee would more appropriately address these issues.

4.5 Paul Hanly's questions
Response: In view of the time limitations Dr Corbett gave a brief verbal summary of the detailed written response he had prepared. He undertook to forward the list of questions to the Minister's Office so that the written response could be passed on to Paul Hanly who will table it with the CLG.
4.5.1 Does NSW Health have an equivalent to the US ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) Minimal Risk Levels list? (See http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html for the US ATSDR list) Is it available on the Internet? Can it be made available to the people of Rhodes? 
Response: We consider a number of reference levels in Australia. Sources will be provided as part of the detailed response. 
4.5.2 I am told "NSW Health has recently advised that the provisional (it is subject to a national review process) TDI for dioxins is 1 to 4 picograms TEQ per kilogram bodyweight per day." Is this available on the NSW Health web site or elsewhere on the Internet (I have searched and can't find it)? How does it compare to the US EPA Draft Dioxin Reassessment? (Senior Environmental Engineer http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/dioxreass.htm) Is there any paper available on the Internet which analyses the differences between the NSW Health provisional TDI assessment and the US EPA Dioxin Reassessment?
Response: The provisional TDI for dioxins is 1 to 4 picograms TEQ per kilogram bodyweight per day. There may be more negotiation.
4.5.3 Are there more detailed health statistics for the Rhodes area, for example census districts or postcodes than the Local Government averages shown on the NSW Health website cancer maps? Will they be made available to the people of Rhodes? I understand that someone at Concord Hospital did a study in the area recently on chests (I think) and I am aware of a PhD thesis by Lillian Hayes which concludes that average life expectancy in the suburbs in the western suburbs life expectancy is lower than elsewhere.
Response: Detailed health statistics for this area indicates there is no difference between Concord and Central Sydney as a whole.
4.5.4 When the AGL site was remediated AGL funded some sort of a health study. You mentioned the possibility of a study at the meeting at Rhodes in March. What if anything does NSW Health propose/recommend in relation to health studies in the Rhodes area in relation to historical causes of illness death and what is proposed before and after the remediation?
Response: As mentioned earlier there are pluses and minuses in such studies. This is a matter the proposed sub-committee can consider further.
4.5.5 There have been reports of a number of claims of health problems among workers from the Olympic remediation and from the earlier remediation of the Union Carbide site at Rhodes in about 1986-9. Can NSW Health confirm or deny such claims? Will NSW Health be involved in OH&S issues for workers on the sites and on adjoining sites particularly eg on Orica if it is under development or completed and occupied while Union Carbide is being remediated? (The lack of coordination is an increasing cause of concern as each landowner is pursuing different strategies on a different time line).
Response: Workers claims generally relate to pre-Olympic contamination when the site operated as a waste facility. Interviews have been conducted.
4.5.6 I understand that there were 30 houses near Dulux at Cabarita that had their roof dust and topsoil removed during the Dulux remediation process. I also understand that there was a similar lead based plant at Berger Paints, Orica at Rhodes. Further I understand that a number of houses in Marquet Street had some remedial works regarding contamination. What is NSW Health's position in relation to the need for roof dust and soil testing (with a view to determining need for remedial action) within a radius of say 400 metres distance from the boundaries of all of the sites at Rhodes which have had lead, dioxin, VOC's and Chlorinated VOC's ? This would include all or parts of Harrison Ave, Alfred Street, Phoenix Ave, Killoola St, Blaxland Road, Cavell Ave, Leeds St and West Llewellyn St. I note that the City of Canada Bay has approved rezoning of houses at Alfred Street and there are potential OH&S issues in their demolition given the former uses of the Tulloch's Phoenix Iron Works and the Berger Paints plant.
Response: As the owner of the site Dulux was in a position to conduct the remediation and prepared a remediation action plan with the community.
4.6.7 The EPA Harbourwatch only extends west to near Iron Cove. A study by the institute at Manly shows that the tidal flushing of the middle reaches of the Parramatta River (which is not covered by Harbourwatch) is significantly reduced compared to the main harbour (which is covered by Harbourwatch). NSW State of the Environment 2000 shows that Homebush Bay had sewage/nutrient problems sufficient to cause algal bloom problems and the Sydney Water EPA licence application documents show that Homebush Bay has a significantly higher pollution problem than all the river and bays to the East. There are numerous sailing & rowing clubs and Sea Scout organisations and beaches (eg Cabarita Park) in the middle reaches of the Parramatta River not covered by Harbourwatch. There are also a number of boat ramps. Sailing in particular is a "primary" contact sport, particularly for children learning and both Sea Scouts do sailing. The local community has expressed concerns about the potential for pollution of the Parramatta River during the remediation of soil and sediments and during construction and occupation. There have already been breaches of the Rivers and Foreshore Improvement Act on the Orica site. Council of the City of Canada Bay has called for the extension of Harbourwatch to Rhodes/Meadowbank just downstream of the entrance to Homebush Bay. What is NSW Health's position in relation to the failure of EPA Harbourwatch to cover the middle reaches of the Parramatta River?
Response: Harbourwatch doesn't extend this far because it concentrates on identifying faecal contamination in areas likely to be used for swimming.
4.5.8 NSW Health has recently released a report into metal in fish and the NSW Government has indicated it will acquire the commercial fishing licences in Lake Macquarie and Botany Bay. Because of the focus on catches through the fish market, the report does not even mention the risks to amateur anglers in the Parramatta River where commercial fin fishing is banned west of the Gladesville bridge and all fishing is banned in Homebush Bay, although it does mention the risks to amateur anglers in Lake Macquarie. I note that people buying through the fish markets may be getting a mixed source of fish, but amateur anglers are likely to be returning to the same river reach week after week. What is NSW Health's position in relation to amateur anglers using the Parramatta River? When did NSW Health last comprehensively test fish in the Rhodes/Ryde area?
Response: Problems of metal concentration in fish tend to be limited to large fish at the top of the food chain. There are generally falling levels of heavy metal contamination in fish. The DOH are concerned with contamination of fish and the fin-fishing ban will be raised as an issue in the inter-departmental committee and will be addressed in the Parliamentary Inquiry.
4.5.9 Given the extensive testing of the sediments of about half of Homebush Bay opposite Union Carbide and the Meriton site, what is NSW Health's position on testing at the northern end of the Peninsula and around the Blaxland Rd boat ramp which is the area of likely greatest ingestion and dermal risk from sediments given the existing and proposed recreational open space uses in that area? What is NSW Health's position on the need for detailed testing of the sediments opposite the Orica site, given the previous uses of the site and the reclamation of portion of that site by chemical factory owners as per Union Carbide site? What is NSW Health's position on the proposed remediation not involving the metals spread over the flaw of the Bay and in particular the hotspots at testing station? What is NSW Health's position on the need for testing in the areas where Haslams and Powells Creeks enter the bay, given that these are generally areas of deposition and the history of pollution of these two creeks and their catchments?
Response: The DOH feel that the risk assessment has been adequate. DOH is currently reviewing the health risk assessment on the Orica site.
5. Next Meeting
The next meeting is proposed for Thursday 31 January 2002 from 5.30pm - 8.30pm. The main subject of discussion will be environmental controls on site.