When: Thursday 14 March, 2002, 5.30pm to 8.30pm
Where: Rhodes Community Centre
Attendees: John Kent, Independent Chairman
Dr Kate Hughes and John Pym, Independent technical reference people
Rhodes Peninsula Group
Rhodes Residents Group and guests
Meadowbank and West Ryde Progress Association and guests
King Street Area Residents Group and guests
Auburn Greenpeace
Friends of the Earth 
Nature Conservation Council
City of Canada Bay Council
Ryde City Council
John Hunt, Thiess Services
Jo Robertson, Ramana James, Lisa France, Rowena Lennings, and Sara Phillips PPK E&I
Peter Miller, Mc Ross Developments

Apologies: Ben Cole, Total Environment Centre
Doug Moss, Thiess Services
Darren Westman, Canada Bay Council

Minutes:
Chairman's Welcome
1. The meeting commenced with the discussion of the previous meeting record.
The previous meeting record was accepted with the following amendments.
The previous meeting noted the City of Canada Bay in attendance, this should be amended to the City of Canada Bay Council.
Dr Kate Hughes indicated that the minutes would benefit by reflecting more of the detail of comments, particularly on issues of ongoing concern to the community.
2. Matters Arising
There were no matters arising.
3. Cumulative impacts
The Chairman noted that most of the committee members have been engaged in a number of parallel consultation processes over the past three months regarding redevelopment of the Rhodes Peninsular. He mentioned that the EIS study team was keen to understand participants' perceptions on how they would be affected by the combination of proposals involving the remediation of the former Union Carbide along with the former Allied Feeds site. Impact were nominated as follows:
§ Dust;
§ Noise;
§ storm and wastewater management, risk of leachate from two sites, rather than one, migrating to waterways;
§ lights during night works - the combined effect of two sets of very bright lights;
§ cross-contamination;
§ truck movements - traffic routes need to be co-ordinated between the two proposals to minimise impacts on local roads;
§ odours from sediments that have been excavated from the bay;
§ increased risk - whatever risks are present are potentially doubled;
§ whether the sites have similar standards of remediation;
§ site demarcation and works along the boundaries of the sites;
§ acceptance of responsibility and accountability to the community. The potential for buck-passing is a real issue if the local residents want to lodge a complaint about aspects of site management;
§ delays to remediation - if one remediation project is postponed/cancelled while another proceeds, it could eventually result in one site being re-developed, with people already in residence in their new homes, while next door a contaminated site begins the remediation process. In this case, the proximity of residences to the site undergoing remediation would present a whole new set of conditions for remediation because of the altered risk profile;
§ combined remediation plant emissions.
4. Outcomes of Technical Studies
Jo Robertson and Ramana James of PPK gave presentations on the outcomes of technical studies that are mostly complete. Jo spoke on the meteorological, traffic, heritage, visual and terrestrial ecology studies. Ramana provided information on the hydrodynamics and ecology of Homebush Bay. The presentation materials they referred to and summary notes were distributed to participants at the meeting.
Issues and Questions
4.1 Monitoring
There were some general questions and comments including clarification as to the ownership of the dust monitor at the Rhodes Community Centre. It was confirmed that the dust monitor is part of the Thiess project, and not managed by Meritons, as was claimed during a recent Allied Feeds site visit.
Are you going to monitor areas of the site that have been cleaned-up to check that they do not become re-contaminated?
Response: As the site is remediated, cleaned up areas are validated to ensure that no residual contamination remains. Site monitoring would be used to ensure that recontamination does not occur.
King Street Area Residents Group want a dust deposition monitor established in King Street when remediation takes place.
Response: Due to the diffuse sources of dust that may affect the King Street area it is proposed to monitor dust at the site boundary rather than off-site, to control and monitor the level of dust that is leaving the site.
4.2 Remediation Standards
The standard of PM2.5 for particulates is well established internationally. Why hasn't this standard been adopted on this project by the Australian authorities?
Response: This is a matter that needs to be referred to the regulators as they are responsible for setting these standards. The EIS would discuss the selection of PM10 versus PM2.5
4.3 Air Sampling
Who will be reading and interpreting the results of the air sampling?
Response: A specialist subconsultant is likely to be employed to undertake ongoing air monitoring.
4.4 Place names
Millenium Parklands and Silverwater Nature Reserve should be cross-referenced in the EIS documents as Bicentennial Park and Newington Wetlands respectively because that is their common usage names.
4.5 Dust Control
The logistics of controlling dust emissions from excavated made for basements was discussed. The point was made that importing turf may would introduce chemicals to the site. Potentially, residues of atrazine and/or endosulfan (both organochlorine pesticides) may be present in the soils associated with the turf as they are sometimes used in insect and weed suppression during turf production. The suggestion was made that native grasses be preferred.
4.6 Traffic
Which streets would the trucks travel down? McRoss Developments plan to put lights at Averill Street.
Response: The trucks would be preferentially directed along Blaxland Road to the traffic lights at the corner of Concord Road. However Mc Ross intend to install traffic lights on Averill Street in around April 2004. If this is the case it may be appropriate to redirect northbound trucks there to ease the burden on Blaxland Road.
When would the cars and trucks be travelling? And how did you arrive at the figure of 45 cars per day?
Response: The following table summarises the additional traffic assumptions that have been employed in the studies to date for peak traffic flows to and from the Lednez site. This is for the periods as shown.
Movement of Additional Traffic for AM and PM Periods
Time Movement Type of Vehicles Travel Direction on Concord Road Critical Intersections Number of Additional Movements (pcu's)
AM(7.00-7.30) 1 Light Southbound Concord Road/Averill Road 20
Heavy Concord Road/Blaxland Road 3
2 Light Northbound Concord Road/Blaxland Road 25
Heavy 6
PM(6.00-6.30) 1 Light Northbound Concord Road/Averill Road 20
Heavy Concord Road/Blaxland Road 3
2 Light Southbound Concord Road/Blaxland Road 25
Heavy 6

We would like an official channel through which we can report trucks with uncovered loads and so forth.
Response: This would be managed through on-going community consultation and feedback mechanisms during the remedial phase. An independent technical adviser noted that the Environmental Management Plan was the document that would provide information identifying the chain of command and contact details in the event of dust migration from the site during remediation activities.
4.7 Impacts on migratory birds
The concern was expressed that the remediation process, including night lights, would disrupt the flight paths and feeding patterns of migratory birds. At the Parliamentary Enquiry, the Nature Conservation Council recommended that the Lednez site be made a public park. It was noted that studies have shown migratory birds adapt to disruption by feeding at and flying to alternative areas during disruptions. An independent technical adviser referred to the experience of the Homebush Bay Olympic site. He explained that monitoring of the Lathams' Snipe by Phil Straw had shown that the birds relocated to the Shortland Wetlands area in the Hunter Valley during the remediation of wetlands at the Olympic site. It was also pointed out that following the completion of the remediation project, new habitat had been created for the migratory species. During this discussion, it was suggested that the Sydney Olympic Park Authority write to the Federal Government and provide information about the newly rehabilitated wetlands. (National List; Wetlands of Significance).
4.7 Rivercat
Have you calculated the power of pressure waves from the Rivercat to impact on the cofferdams and silt curtain?
Response: Manly Hydraulics Laboratory has provided information on conditions in Homebush Bay. The impacts of the Rivercat will be considered in the EIS.
4.8 Bay flushing
The time that it takes for the flushing of the whole Parramatta River, not just Homebush Bay, should be considered in the EIS. The bay may flush in five days, but the pollutants and sediments may linger in Parramatta River for far longer.
Is there overall deposition or accretion in the bay?
Response: Deposition. This may be a result of the reclamation activities over the past 50 years. Alternatively it may be a result of the rejuvenation of the area with mangroves that trap sediments.
It was also mentioned that the Sydney Harbour Catchment Management Board had a display on until 5th April.
4.9 Bay pollution
The water is deeper on the western side of the bay. Wouldn't the sediments gravitate to the deeper western side of the Bay? This side is not proposed for remediation. 
Response: The proposed silt curtain captures silt, and therefore the contaminants that may adhere to silt. This would stop the sediments from travelling to the Western side of the Bay.
4.10 What is the rationale for the selection of reference sites?
Response: Reference sites need to be as similar an environment as possible (in terms of tides, turbidities etc) while far enough apart not to confound any recorded impacts.

5 Remediation technology
John Hunt of Thiess gave an update on the remediation technologies selection process. He confirmed that both indirect and direct thermal desorption options were still being considered. John Hunt and Doug Moss plan to visit the US in April to review the availability and performance of direct thermal desorption plants. He also announced that Theiss had considered housing the waste destruction machine and waste stockpiles in an existing building on site (the old GLAD Factory), which had 6-8 metre ceilings and may be suitable for the intended purpose.
Issues and Questions
What is the down time for the plant?
Response: The plant is designed to work for 24 hours for six days followed by one day for plant maintenance.
Who will operate the plant?
Response: Thiess plan that the thermal desorption plant will initially be operated by an experienced US crew, supplied by the thermal subcontractor. They will undertake training of local operators, who will take over operation of the plant after several months. An experienced plant manager(s), will remain in Australia in charge of the thermal plant operations for the duration of the project.
When will you be able to announce the target clean-up level? The Colman-Evans superfund site in the USA has a clean-up level of 1 part per billion. Will it be in this vicinity?
Response: The site clean-up level should be agreed by end April following sign off by the independent EPA accredited contaminated land auditor. The clean up target will be determined through the risk assessment process, taking into account tolerable daily intakes. This matter is discussed in detail in CLG Meeting No 3.
Is their any legislation/regulation that specifies a buffer zone between residences and the stack. Does legislation exist for this in the United States? In the event of a malfunction, a five kilometre buffer would be desirable. 
Response: Thiess is not aware of any legislation. Thermal plants treating hazardous waste have operated close to residential dwellings in North America. Whichever technology is used would be required to meet the emission standards set by government.
A request was made for copies of the risk assessment to be emailed to members of the CLG, when it has been approved by the auditor and EPA. 
The request was again made for Sydney Olympic Park Authority to release the Best Practice Remediation and Data Base of Remediation Technologies reports and make them available to CLG members. (The reports were commissioned as part of the Olympic Coordination Authority's Ecology Programs).
A request was made for information concerning the particle size of the soil to be remediated.