When: Thursday 15 November 2001, 5.30pm to 8.30 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
Auburn Greenspace
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace
Nature Conservation Council
Sydney Olympic Park Authority
Concord West Public School P & C
City of Canada Bay, Cr Pauline Tyrell and Darryn Westman
John Hunt, Thiess Services
Jo Robertson, Rowena Lennings and Sara Phillips, PPK Environment & Infrastructure
Total Environment Centre (guest)

Guest Speakers:
Dr Peter Nadebaum, National Manager, Environment, EGIS Consulting Australia Pty Ltd, Melbourne 
Bruce Markey, EGIS Consulting Australia Pty Ltd, Sydney

Apologies: Andrew Komli, Liberty Grove Community Group
John Toohey, Meadowbank and West Ryde Progress Association (Sheila Witt attended in his absence)

Minutes:
Chairman's Introduction
The Chairman noted that the main business of the meeting was to provide the CLG with a description of the health risk assessment for the former Lednez site (also known as the former Union Carbide site) and the Bay. For this purpose Thiess have engaged Dr Peter Nadebaum, a specialist in risk assessment.
Remediation technologies - the way forward Chairman proposed that rather than ask each group to comment on their preference for either remediation technology the CLG session on the 13 December will include a segment where the CLG members nominate their issues and priorities for the remediation.
1. The meeting commenced with the discussion of the previous meeting record.
The meeting record was accepted with the following amendments.
1.1 It should be noted that Pauline Tyrell's quote referred to the consultation process for the redevelopment of the whole peninsula and not this specific EIS consultation process.
1.2 It should be noted that remediation of metals in the Bay resulting from the proposed remediation process would be minor only.
2. Matters Arising
A request was made for a briefing paper on other remediation technologies and why they are not being considered for this site. A request was made for the siting of examples of contaminated land remediated by thermal desorption technologies and redeveloped as residential land.
A request was made for the documents referred to in the 1997 EPA's State of the Environment Report discussion of water quality in Homebush Bay.
3. Dr Kate Hughes- Introduction - a regional perspective.
Presentation covered:
§ Introduction of Kate, her background & role on the CLG
§ The CLG process 
§ The Sydney Basin Airshed - regional context of this project
§ The Precautionary Principle and Ecologically Sustainable Development
§ Changing standards for dioxin regulation

4. Health Risk Assessment
Dr Peter Nadebaum
Presentation covered:
§ What is risk assessment?
§ Risk assessment on this site - general introduction - objective & boundaries of the risk assessment, clean up made possible by the value of the land
§ The regulatory framework it sits within - the changing standards for risk and what they are based on
§ The auditor's role
5. Off-shore risk assessment

John Hunt, Thiess Services
Presentation covers:
§ Current progress - off-shore studies to date (management of exposure pathways, management approaches, positive environmental legacy).
§ Next steps.

Presentation materials referred to by Dr Nadebaum and John Hunt were distributed to participants at the meeting.
6. Issues and Questions
6.1 Risk Assessment Process
6.1.1 Have you considered population sub-groups, eg children. How have you catered for different sub-groups? Would living on this site be unsuitable for any population sub-groups, eg: anaphylactic children?
Response: Risk assessment is a predictive tool that is based on a range of assumptions. In this case the assumptions take into account the likelihood of a broad range of humans including sensitive sub-groups such as pregnant woman and children living on the site. Safe levels for public exposure are determined by considering the most sensitive effects. The World Health Organisation (WHO) sets a "reference dose", on the basis of the most sensitive effects that are known at the time, to devise a daily tolerable dose that will not cause a long-term affect. Our national public health position is generally in accordance with the findings of the WHO.
6.1.2 Have you taken into account that people in this area generally suffer from a higher number of illnesses?
Response: It is acknowledged that local community opinion is that higher than average levels of illness are evident in suburbs surrounding the Olympic site. It has been suggested that this is possibly attributable to the long-term industrialisation of the area before our current knowledge and regulation of chemicals. In addition many residents also worked at these facilities and this increased their exposure. The health of these suburbs is outside the scope of this project. This project is considering exposure to the chemical on site, taking into account issues such as multiple exposures and the combination of chemicals.
6.1.3 With respect to the levels of dioxin contamination in the Bay, what Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) is the current target for the clean up?
Response: NSW Health have advised an interim recommendation for TDI of 1-4 picograms toxicity equivalent quotients per kilogram of bodyweight for dioxins and furans. In providing this advice, NSW have specified that this interim recommendation may be modified after completion of a National Review (pending).
6.1.4 Has the risk assessment taken into account that the proposed redevelopment will increase the exposure pathways, eg more people will be living here and therefore swimming/ recreating on the water and catching/eating fish off this site and contributing to traffic impacts. Is the remediation justified in light of the proposed end use?
Response: The risk assessment demonstrates that contamination in the sediments of the bay pose a long-term threat to human health through their bioaccumulation in the environment. It also demonstrates that the sea wall is not providing an effective barrier between the contaminants on the site and the sediments of the bay. The risk assessment does take into account the exposure pathways determined by the end use of the site, however it will take some time to test and register the impacts of the dioxin remediation on the local fish population.
6.2 Remediation Standards
6.2.1 How are you considering the health of the workers who may be exposed to contaminated soil during construction of the basements of buildings and utility corridors?
Response: Workers safety will be the subject of an extensive occupational health and safety plan that will be developed by Thiess' OH&S consultants and reviewed by Dr Gary Smith. Dr Smith was retained by the construction workers union to oversee the protection of workers health during the development of the Olympic site.
6.2.2 Do the main chemicals of concern have published targets?
Response: No, not all. Some are published in the National Environmental Protection Measure and NSW EPA guidelines. Others still are published in international guidelines. Published targets are generally developed using the risk assessment process and assuming particular land uses (e.g. residential, recreational and industrial). Where no published targets exist, risk assessment will also be used to determine the appropriate target levels.
6.2.3 Are there published standards for dioxin in residential soil?
Response: There are no published Australian standards for appropriate levels of dioxin in residential soils.
6.3 Remediation of Site
6.3.1 Will Thiess clean up different parts of the site to different standards?
Response: The remediation standards proposed will take into account different landuses and people's associated exposure. Areas of the site that are well below ground surface where site workers and residents will not be exposed and where groundwater will not have an affect will be remediated to a lesser standard than the surface of the site.
6.3.2 Where will the topsoil come from and how deep will it be?
Response: It is proposed to used virgin excavated natural material (i.e: undisturbed) from the site as the clean barrier which will lie between the surface and any remediated materials. This material will in general be cleaner than the surface soil in the surrounding suburbs. If insufficient clean material is unavailable on site or does not meet the required criteria, clean materials will be imported. If additional topsoils are required for gardens, this material will need to be imported. The depth and arrangement of the various fill layers has yet to be established and agreed with the auditor.
6.4 Role of the auditor
6.4.1 What is the role of the auditor?
Response: The auditor's role is to determine if the site is suitable for its proposed use following the remediation.
6.4.2 Does he have an understanding of the history of the area?
Response: Yes, the auditor is appointed on the basis of his relevant competencies and knowledge.
6.5 Health Studies
6.5.1 Will you do a baseline epidemiological study?
Response: Because of the potential multiple sources of historical contamination in this area, an epidemiological study would be unlikely to succeed in differentiating the impacts of the remediation from previous industrial activities in the vicinity of Homebush Bay. Thiess' proposal is to conduct continuous monitoring of the site both at the site boundary and in surrounding areas to measure air quality, to effectively monitor and manage dust control measures during the remediation and provide evidence that workers and residents have been protected from dust.
6.5.2 Will you request that representatives of NSW Health come and discuss these issues with us, and the health study relating to the AGL site?
Response: NSW Health has indicated that they are available to respond to a request by the CLG to discuss issues to do with the proposed remediation. The Chairman will pass the CLG's request to NSW Health.
6.6 Sampling
6.6.1 Has there been sediment sampling around the point and each side of the John Whitton railway bridge?
Response: We are not aware of any sediment sampling near the bridge and boat ramp. Thiess will arrange sampling of this area, within the timeframe of the consultation.
6.6.2 Did you sample fish from elsewhere in the river/harbour/fish markets?
Response: No this study focused on fish in Homebush Bay.
6.6.3 Did you sample fish flesh or organs?
Response: Samples included fish fillets with and without skin and ground up whole fish.
6.6.4 Does sampling disturb the sediments?
Response: Yes, there is undoubtedly a small element of disturbance in taking samples using capped metal sampling tubes or grab samples (EVS study). This has a negligible impact in the context of physical (tidal, wave and storm), biological (fish and invertebrates) recreational (boats) and other (dredging) mechanisms of sediment relocation over the last several decades in the bay.
6.7 Fish Study
6.7.1 Assumptions about the need to remediate are not justified because you have not done an ecological study of Homebush Bay that demonstrates that the fish eat in the strip proposed for remediation and not at other hot spots. How many mullet are eating in the hotspots?
Response: A number of studies have already been conducted over the past two decades while the need to remediate has been debated. There is a trade off between spending money on ecological studies of several years duration and having the money available to remediate and to prevent the contamination spreading to other areas in the bay (and creating additional hot spots) and bioaccumulating in the environment.
6.7.2 Did you consider the later life stages of fish?
Response: The EVS study focused on the early life stages of fish because that is the most sensitive time in a fish's development, as it is in humans.
7. Other Business
Clarification is to be sought at our next meeting from Kate Hughes regarding her comments about the precautionary principle and its implications for remediation.
Extracts from the NSW State of the Environment 1997 Report and pages 62 and 63 of Sydney Water's Environmental Indicators Report 2000/2001 describing water quality indicator ratings and algal blooms in Port Jackson were tabled. It was proposed that these documents indicate that the current poor water quality and algal blooms in Homebush Bay will not be improved by the proposed remediation.
8. Next Meeting
Next meeting will be held at the Rhodes Community Centre on Thursday 29 November 5.30 - 8.30 pm. The main business of the meeting will be the remediation action plan.