When: Thursday 29 November 2001, 5.30pm to 8.30 pm
Where: Rhodes Community Centre
Attendees: John Kent, Independent Chairman
Kate Hughes & John Pym, Independent technical reference people
Rhodes Peninsula Group 
Rhodes Residents' Group 
Meadowbank & West Ryde Progress Association 
King Street Area Residents' Group & guests
Auburn Greenspace
Friends of the Earth 
Greenpeace
Nature Conservation Council
Concord West Public School P & C
City of Canada Bay, Cr Pauline Tyrell & Darryn Westman
Ryde City Council, Henryk Matulewicz
Department of Land and Water Conservation, Trevor Flewin
Doug Moss, Thiess Services
Jo Robertson, Rowena Lennings, Sara Phillips and Di Sismey, PPK Environment and Infrastructure
Apologies: Andrew Komli, Liberty Grove Community Group
Sydney Olympic Park Authority
Minutes:
Chairman's Introduction
The Chairman noted that the main business of the meeting was to provide an overview of the Remediation Action Plan and a recap on the health risk assessment for the former Union Carbide (Lednez) site and the Bay. Following this a general discussion would be facilitated to establish the participants issues and priorities for the remediation of the site.
The Chairman encouraged members of the CLG to avail themselves of the expertise of the technical experts to receive help with any information and concepts they had difficulty with.
1. The meeting commenced with the discussion of the previous meeting record.
The previous meeting record was accepted with the following amendments. 
3.2.3 Are there published standards for dioxin in residential soil?
It was maintained that Dr Nadebaum had said that there were published standards but that they were inadequate. Clarification will be sought from Dr Nadebaum.
2. Matters Arising
Pauline Tyrrell's meeting notes should be sent to her home address.
A request was made for a spreadsheet of contact details for CLG members to be provided with the meeting notes.
Craig Redfern, Ryde Council to receive meeting notes.
It was noted that the EVS abbreviated report did not detail an Australian context for the development of a dioxin standard. It was confirmed that the EIS would provide the relevant information and that a draft dioxin standard for Tolerable Daily Intake is currently being subject to a peer review process.
3. Remediation Action Plan
Jo Robertson, Project Manager, PPK Environment & Infrastructure gave a presentation on the Remediation Action Plan. The presentation materials she referred to were distributed to participants at the meeting.
Issues and Questions
3.1 Emergency Response Plan
3.1.1 Will the Plan be made available to the public? The community need to know who to contact and what to do in the event of an emergency.
Response: Yes. An emergency response procedure will be made public and this issue will be discussed in more detail as more information is available.
3.1.2 Role of the Auditor
To whom does the Auditor owe his duty of care?
Response: The Auditor is responsible for signing off conformity to the Remediation Action Plan. The Remediation Action Plan nominates the standards to be achieved by the remediation activities. The Remediation Action Plan is developed in consultation with the Environment Protection Authority and approved by them before any work begins. Once the work is completed the Environment Protection Authority reviews the Auditors report. The Auditor is accountable for his findings to the Environment Protection Authority and other interested parties.
3.1.3 On-shore and Off-shore Remediation Action Plans
How will the overlaps within the on Shore and off-Shore Remediation Actin Plans contained in the EIS be addressed? 
Response: The EIS may need to contain an overarching document. This issue has not yet been resolved.
3.1.4 Meriton Site
How can you proceed with the EIS and the remediation of the Bay without knowing what is going to happen on the Meriton site?
Response: The Environment Protection Authority has the power to order remediation. If the Meriton site was not remediated a barrier would have to be constructed to stop contaminants from the site entering the Bay.
4. Health Risk Assessment for the Former Union Carbide (Lednez) Site and the Bay Sediments
Doug Moss, Project Director, Thiess Services, provided a recap in laymen's terms of the information provided at the previous CLG meeting. The presentation materials he referred to were distributed to participants at the meeting.
Questions and Responses:
4.1 Remediation Standards
Is there a document that compares NSW standards with the rest of the world?
Response: There was a comparison produced by the forerunners of the Environment Protection Authority approximately 12 years ago. Standards have been revised in most places since then. Australian standards tend to be aligned with Dutch standards. The Netherlands has particularly stringent standards, because of their reliance on groundwater. Dutch standards take into account that groundwater may need to be drunk in the future.
4.2 Trucking
If you had to treat the soil off site how many truckloads would be involved? 
Response: It is not proposed to treat soil off site, however for the exercise - there are approximately 400,000 cubic metres of material to be treated, one cubic metre of fill weighs an average of about 1.8 tonnes, and the average truck can transport 25 tonnes per load.
4.2.1 Will you need to import any soil?
Response: It is unlikely because 80,000 tonnes of soil was imported to this site 10 years ago as part of the capping exercise. A mass balance is to be conducted to confirm all quantities required for the site.
4.3 Exposure Pathway for Gardeners
It is understood that the top soil will be treated to the highest standard, however is it likely that people gardening would dig through the top one metre layer of topsoil or further?
Response: The Environment Protection Authority recognises that the proposed redevelopment of the site as strata title high-density development with landscaped public lands reduces the likelihood of people digging on public property. Conversely, a low to medium density redevelopment would increase exposure pathways through this sort of activity.
4.4 Vegetation
What are the implications for vegetation on the site?
Response: Considerations similar as those for the Olympic site will be taken into account. Native trees are most suitable. The roots of young trees will spread along the topsoil layer. The option for planting larger established trees is to dig a hole and fill it with topsoil.
4.5 Remediation Standards Land Use
4.5.1 Does that mean that the whole site will not be remediated to the same level at every depth?
Response: That is correct. The site extends to depths of 11 metres at some places. Different standards will be applied to the various sections of the site according to three major criterion - how far away the material is from contact with people and proximity to the surface of the site, where the buildings are positioned and proximity to groundwater.
4.5.2 So that means you need to have the development plan in place before you begin work? Can you accommodate changes to the plan?
Response: The development control plan is very prescriptive and the remediation is carried out to meet the requirements of that plan. Major land use changes can not be accommodated, however the shifting of the location of structures within large areas set aside for residential development can be incorporated.
4.5.3 What is the capacity for community consultation regarding the end use?
Response: The establishment of the Regional Environment Plan and the Development Control Plan incorporate capacity for consultation regarding the end use. In addition, this issue is also one of the terms of reference for the Parliamentary Inquiry.
4.6 Dust Emissions
Can you show there will be zero dust emissions?
Response: As dust exists everywhere in every environment, zero emissions are impossible to achieve. Details of how it is proposed to manage dust on site and monitor the effectiveness of dust management will be discussed in details at further CLG meetings that focus on environment controls.
4.7 Off- shore Remediation
Why are you targeting this area when the Bicentennial wetlands is a major spawning ground for fish and the metals in that area are not going to be removed?
Response: The risk assessment considered metals. Metals in the bay are not a concern for human health, but could potentially affect the benthic community. However EVS concluded that as levels of metals in the bay are similar to those elsewhere in the Parramatta River, that remediation for metals was not justified. A benefit of targeting this particular contaminated area of the Bay for remediation, rather than the whole Bay, is that 50 percent of dioxins can be removed while minimising the ecological impact on the Bay. This will maximise the benefit of the works.
4.7.1 The lead contamination of Homebush Bay is higher than within the rest of the harbour.
Response: It is similar to other industrialised areas of the harbour.
4.7.2 You need to do clinical studies into the background levels of dioxin in this area.
Response: Studies are based on published information regarding background levels. Clinical trials of dioxin levels present difficult methodological issues.
4.8 Project Justification
Is cleaning up the site really important? What would happen if the sarcophagus was left on the site and maintained?
Response: It is technically possible to contain the materials on site as a landfill as a temporary measure if someone was prepared to take liability for the site and incur the cost of its maintenance. Through the proposed remediation the government is adopting a more conservative/protective approach and is seeking to protect the environment, reduce their long-term liability and consequently minimise any demands on the public purse.
4.9 Fishing Bans
Questions were raised about the nature and extent of fishing bans.
Response: PPK undertook to bring copies of the gazetted notices regarding the fishing bans to the next CLG meeting.
5. Next Meeting
It has been necessary to reschedule the next CLG meeting to Wednesday 12 December from 4.30 pm to 6.30 pm. As you are aware the next CLG meeting will focus on how human health will be protected during the remediation process. Dr Gary Smith has been appointed by Thiess to address this issue and is the Study Team's expert on this matter and he is unable to attend on Thursday 13th. It is essential to have Dr Smith present at this meeting in order to describe the process and respond to concerns. Dr Steve Corbett and his colleagues from the Health Department have been advised of this change and are able to accommodate the new meeting time.
We apologise for this inconvenience and have moved the meeting time forward to accommodate the majority of CLG members who have conflicting evening engagements.