Agendas | Minutes

Homebush Bay Dioxin Remediation Project
Community Liaison Group
8th Meeting
Minutes of Meeting 2/5/02

When: Thursday 2 May, 2002, 5.30pm to 8.30
Where: Rhodes Community Centre
Attendees: John Kent, Independent Chairman
Dr Kate Hughes and John Pym, Independent technical reference people
Rhodes Residents' Group 
Meadowbank and West Ryde Progress Association 
King Street Area Residents' Group & guests
Auburn Greenspace
Friends of the Earth 
City of Canada Bay Council
Greg Lewin and Narelle Hayer, Ryde City Council
John Hunt, Thiess Services
Doug Moss, Thiess Services
Dr Kerry Holmes, Holmes Air Science
Jo Robertson, Ian Grey, Rowena Lennings, and Sara Phillips 
PPK Environment & Infrastructure
Graham Watt and Ben Fullagar, Department of Public Works and Services
Apologies: Nature Conservation Council

Minutes:
Chairman's Welcome
1. The meeting commenced with the discussion of the previous meeting record.
The previous meeting record was accepted. 
2. Matters Arising
There were no matters arising.

3. Report back from Thiess 
John Hunt gave a report back his recent visit to the USA (with Doug Moss) where they inspected two differently configured types of direct thermal desorption plants from six different firms. The presentation material he referred to was distributed to participants at the meeting.
Issues and Questions
3.1 Is conducting the performance test (of the plant) that you have described in the presentation a legal requirement in Australia?
Response No it isn't, but Thiess is committed to carrying out this test.
3.2 What if a stack test fails during a performance test? Is there a health risk to workers or residents?
Response: Stack gas emission criteria are very low and conservative. They are developed in the expectation that a plant would be operating at a location for several decades. Give the short duration of a stack test (around 6 hours), the risk of adverse health effects to site workers or residents due to an exceedence during a test would be negligible.
3.2 How many people are required to operate the plant? 
Response: We estimate there would be around six people on day shift, four to run the plant and two to conduct maintenance activities. Up to four people would be required to operate the plant during night shift.
3.3 What about OH & S requirements?
Response: We are developing a specific OH & S plan for workers on this site. The highest levels of protection would apply to workers in the pre-treatment building.
3.4 How noisy was the plant?
Response: Noise generated by the plant is a rumbling background type noise. We could stand near the plant and still carry on a conversation. 
3.5 How close will residences be to the plant?
Response: 300 - 400 metres.
3.6 Have you ruled out indirect thermal desorption?
Response: No both indirect and direct thermal desorption are viable, however the EIA process requires us to select one as a preferred option. We are waiting for more information from the USA to make a final decision on which one to use. Currently, the direct method is presented as the preferred option in the EIS. 
3.7 Will that information come back to the CLG?
Response: No at this late stage in the process it will go straight into the EIS. 
3.8 Is it up to the EPA to decide between direct and indirect?
Response: It is up to the EPA to issue a licence for any plant to operate. They will not do this until they are convinced of the merits of the proposal.
3.9 Did you visit any indirect plants during your visit to the USA?
Response: During this visit we concentrated on direct plants and met with only one ITD plant contractor. During our previous visit we inspected only indirect plants.
3.10 Are you able to help the CLG look into the community views in the areas you visited where this technology is operating? Did the community seek to have any special licence conditions included?
Response: Yes we will liaise with Dr Kate Hughes to help the CLG gather that information. 
3.11 There is a perception in the community that the direct process is more risky than indirect because the open continuous stream process provides a greater chance of contaminated emissions.
Response: As a general rule, the more simple the process the greater its reliability. The indirect process is more complicated than the direct process, because of its second stage. The main risk with the direct process is the after-burner shutting down; this is addressed by having a stand-by generator on site.
3.12 Contaminants at the North Newington site are similar to this site. Where is the machine that didn't work there and is it coming to this site?
Response: The contaminants at North Newington were similar to the contaminants on this site. The ITD technology did work on the North Newington project. 
· The North Newington project was also a dioxin cleanup. Dioxins were present at the start of the process probably at around 50 ppb and they were reduced to levels significantly below the target of 10 ppb to 0.5 ppb. Issues existed with the remediation of other chlorinated contaminants. They were present at around 3000 ppm and were removed to about 3 ppm with a target of 1 ppm aggregate. The target of 1 ppm aggregate required the achievement of levels that were below the threshold of measurement. The reason that 1 ppm aggregate is in the regulations is to catch any associated dioxins.
· Of the five stack tests undertaken to measure levels of dioxins and furans in stack gases, one failed because a fire eye that was not approved for use in Australia was replaced with a fire eye with a plastic shield. The fire eyes monitor the presence or absence of flame in the furnace burners. The plastic melted causing the fire eye to malfunction, resulting in the higher than acceptable dioxin readings. This fire eye was replaced and there was no problem with dioxin readings after that. Dr Gary Smith conducted a risk assessment into the likely impact of that incident on local health. He concluded that even if workers has been exposed to dioxin levels similar to those experienced during that incident throughout the whole project he would not anticipate health impacts because they were still within safe levels. This is not unexpected because the standards are very conservative and are set assuming facilities will be operating for decades, not months or a few years as is the case with remediation projects. 
NB: The Homebush Bay Environment Reference Group (HBERG) convened a special meeting to discuss this incident. A record of the meeting is on the Ecology Programs website; www.sopa.nsw.gov.au/ecology . Look in the Community Section and go to Consultation and then to item Dioxin Emission.
Secondly, last I heard the plant used at North Newington was in Victoria and it is not being considered for this site. 
3.13 Kate Hughes reported that an out-of-session CLG meeting had been held to work through a number of outstanding issues including the preferred method of waste destruction and the risks associated with both direct and indirect methods. 

The experience of American communities with licensed waste destruction technologies was a key issue for CLG members and the out-of-session meeting agreed that it was critical to have more information, including community reports, about the technology options. Because Direct Thermal Desorption is not a closed system technology, it was critical for the community to see the track record of each technology in operation. 

Because of the shorter time frame and lower cost for Direct method, the community would consider support for the Direct Thermal Desorption method if information was provided on the licence conditions applying to the technology when used close to residential areas in (for example) California and as well if reports could be obtained from community groups living near those areas about the actual effects of remediation on local people. The out-of-session CLG also requested information about any reports of licence breaches by the operators of those plants and the results of those breaches including enforcement measures and penalties

In the absence of such information and adequate time to review it, the community preferred indirect method. 
3.14 Lidcombe Liquid Waste Plant uses direct thermal technology and odours are a real problem, you can smell emissions in the stack area in particular.
Response: Although Lidcombe Liquid Waste Plant refers to the process as direct thermal it is actually pyrolysis which is an oxygen deprived process. Direct thermal desorption is an oxygen saturated process in which the after-burners will destroy odours. The chemical profile of what is coming out of the stacks at Lidcombe is different to this site. 

4. Outcomes of Technical Studies
Ian Grey and Jo Robertson of PPK and Dr Kerry Holmes of Holmes Air Sciences gave presentations on the outcomes of technical studies that are mostly complete. Ian spoke on the groundwater and geological studies, Kerry on the air studies and Jo on noise, health and odour.
The presentation materials they referred to and summary notes were distributed to participants at the meeting.
Issues and Questions
Water
4.1 An earlier report referred to the sea wall as being of indeterminable depth. How deep is it?
Response: 6-7 metres.
Air Quality
4.2 What do you mean by "short term" incidents.
Response: In modelling exercises short term is between one hour and 24 hours.
4.3 You have recommended perimeter dust monitoring. Are you aware of this methodology being adopted in other places?
Response: Yes it is being used at some coal mines to help monitor short term impacts, it is often these short term nuisance dust incidents that present the greatest source of irritation to people.
Noise
4.4 What is the expected peak noise?
Response: This study has not yet been finalised but will be reported in the EIS. The majority of the works will be conducted during the day.
4.5 Have you monitored across the water (the Bay).
Response: Yes, we have monitored noise across the Bay at Meadowbank (Meadow Crescent). 
Cumulative noise
4.6 Local residents will be living with noise from a number of developments. Are there any plans to co-ordinate with other sites?
Response: Cumulative impacts such as noise, air quality and traffic have the potential to impact on the local community. An assessment of these is included in the EIS. In particular, potential air quality issues have been modelled cumulatively with consent from Thiess and Meriton.
4.7 If a noise or some other impact cannot be clearly attributed to one site or another then all site should be jointly responsible.

Next Steps
Sara Phillips outlined ongoing community consultation activities:
Planning NSW is co-ordinating the exhibition of the EIS. It will be displayed at publicly accessible locations locally and in the city. 
A CD-rom copy of the EIS will be provided to the groups who are represented on the CLG. Members of the public will need to approach Planning NSW for a copy. 
Household Update Number 5 will be distributed around the time of exhibition.
Members of the CLG noted than residents of Meadowbank were still not receiving copies of the Household Update. They pointed out that Ryde Council now engage their own staff to deliver newsletters in this area after five unsatisfactory experiences with commercial letterboxing companies.
It was noted that this was the last meeting of the CLG during the EIS development phase. Participants were thanked and acknowledged for their contribution.