CAPS Inc. Alcoa Wagerup Buffer Zone and Health Issues

CAPS Inc. Alcoa Wagerup Buffer Zone and Health Issues

The Hon. Colin Barnett MEc MLA Your Ref. 24-547121/JH

Premier; Minister for State Development

1 Parliament Place

WEST PERTH WA 6005

10th August 2015

Alcoa Wagerup Buffer Zone and Health Issues

Dear Premier,

Thank you for your reply to our correspondence to Professor Tarun Weeramanthri of the Department of Health (DoH) regarding a buffer zone around the Alcoa Wagerup Refinery and other issues.

Once again it appears that you have either been misled or misinformed in regard to much of the available information, as our already tabled documents and information from various government departments demonstrate.

We believe that it is in everyone’s best interest to have this situation resolved as the evidence presented in this and attached document suggests.

We comment on the content of your letter as follows:-

1. Para 2. “Protecting public health and the environment are fundamental considerations in government decisions”

We agree, protecting public health and the environment should be paramount and where there is doubt of industrial impact the precautionary principle should be applied.

2. Para 3.DoP- “However, it does not have specific expertise to determine whether applying a buffer zone is appropriate and acts on advice provided by the Department of Health (DoH) and the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER)”

CAPS are well aware from various documents and departmental responses that the Department of Planning (DoP) has been waiting for advice from the DoH and DER for several years now. Thus, it is incomprehensible as to why the DoH and DER have not responded to the request by the DoP.

The Greater Bunbury Strategy has stalled due to the fact that the buffer and land use around the Wagerup Refinery have not been defined.

The State Planning Policy 4.1 State Industrial Buffer (Amended) (Draft), July 2009, which CAPS were invited to comment on, states under Department of Planning Objectives:

This policy applies state wide, to planning decision-making, and proposals which seek to provide for new industrial areas and uses, and essential infrastructure, sensitive land uses in proximity to existing industrial areas.

The objectives of the policy are to:

• avoid conflict between industry and/or essential infrastructure and sensitive land uses;

• protect industry and/or essential infrastructure from encroachment by those land uses that would be sensitive to impacts and adversely impact the efficient operations;

• provide for the development of industry and/or the provision of essential infrastructure in a way that maximises amenity, minimises environmental and health impacts and takes account of risk to nearby sensitive land uses; and

• promote compatible uses in areas affected by off-site impacts of industry and/or essential infrastructure.

Further:-

Subsequent to this, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its Bulletin 1215 Wagerup Alumina Refinery-Increase in Production to 4.7 Mtpa; and Wagerup Cogeneration Plan of January 2006 provided the following recommendation amongst others in relation to addressing health issues in the locality surrounding the refinery:

“The Government establish a formal land management scheme for the area, with the principle that there be no intensification of residential development within the 5km health management zone, with the objective of ensuring land uses compatibility with the operation of the refinery within this area.”

Reference: Department of Planning - letter to CAPS (22-7-15) Re Proposed Buffer for Alcoa’s Wagerup Refinery.

It is extremely embarrassing for the government to have an ad hoc policy approach for implementations of buffer zones and the inability of making The State Planning Policy 4.1 State Industrial Buffer (Amended) (Draft), July 2009, law so there can be a uniform policy addressing all these issues for the whole state.

We thus ask; why these objectives are ignored in Wagerup?

3. Para 4 –“I am advised that an assessment undertaken by senior DOH toxicologists in relation to the refinery determine that there is not sufficient evidence to support the creation of a buffer zone.”

CAPS respectfully requests that a copy of this report/advice be provided for it appears to be at odds with all previous advice from many informed sources.

For example:-

DoH submission to Alcoa’s- Environmental Review Management Program (ERMP) 2005, recommends a 5km buffer zone.

As far back as 11 October 2011, Mr. John Hyde, Parliamentary Secretary to the then Minister for Health stated “both the DoH and the Government readily accept that there have been health issues with the refinery and this has never been questioned”.

Bob Kucera, in response to the proposed Wagerup Alumina Refinery Unit Three Expansion, States that:

“This is an issue of ethics (in terms of social justice) of a decision that could lead to the local community carrying most of the burden of potential health and social costs so that Alcoa and the State can gain economic benefits. On this basis we consider the risk of further compromising the health and social functioning of the local community to be too high; and the trade-off of this risk against the broader economic benefits to be unjust”

There is a considerable weight of medical opinion that there is a medical problem in the communities as a direct result of the close proximity of the existing Refinery:

Medical Practitioner’s Forum held in June 2005 reached the conclusion that,

1. in their collective professional opinions, the history of workers at the Refinery showed that some workers had suffered acute and chronic adverse health consequences as the result of their employment

They stated further:

1. The available evidence indicates that some of the neighbouring community members, including the people of the township of Yarloop, in our professional opinion, have suffered acute and chronic adverse health consequences as a result of the close proximity of the existing refinery.

1. The Wagerup Medical Practitioner’s Forum 2001 Perth concluded-

“There needs to be a focus on getting affected people out of the exposure situation”. The forum supported exposure reduction either via planned buffer zone or via reduction of emissions.

CAPS have logged over 230 cancer cases between Waroona and Harvey in a population of approximately 10,000.

The CRC CARE Report 2009 modelled its findings on dust particles of 50 μm diameter where in reality the dust from stacks and red mud waste is more likely to be closer to 1 μm diameter which is approximately 1/50th that of the particles studied. Therefore, the carcinogenic load delivered to humans by the smaller particles will be much larger weight for weight.

Dr Geoff Pain states - “the smaller the particles, the larger the surface area, the greater the dose delivered”. To date, the size of PM in relation to levels of VOC has not adequately been studied.

• This means the carcinogenic load delivered to the workers and residents surrounding the Refinery will be significantly larger than previously thought.

• Evidence arising from earlier investigation and assessment clearly indicates geography and topography of the area of Yarloop was never a suitable site for the Refinery.

• It is on public record that the Wagerup refinery was built in the wrong location.

The Premiers suggestion of exposure to surrounding communities of the Wagerup refinery and mud lakes as intermittent is incorrect as the surrounding communities are bombarded by noise and toxic pollution 24/7.

The adverse health effects are not adequately addressed by GPs, as they do not have the expertise regarding the impact of either noise or toxic emissions that are emitted from this industry.

They do not know how to treat the chemical symptoms and are reluctant to be involved in the Alcoa conflict.

Para 5.

We are very familiar with the ‘Wagerup and Surrounds Community Health Study’; June 2008 which showed significantly elevated rates for most symptoms potentially related to chemical exposure but failed to include information on former affected residents who had moved away or were deceased.

We were under the impression that a new study had been undertaken, after 7 years, to provide more accurate, current and inclusive information required by the DoP in relation to their deliberations on the buffer issue.

Para 6.

There is a vast difference between the proposed refinery at Toodyay and the one at Wagerup, which is located too close to the scarp; creating inversion layers with toxic pollution concentrations held at ground level for up to 18 hours (See DEC winter study 2006). This is but one of a number of compelling reasons that a buffer zone is required at Wagerup.

We are extremely disappointed that the Premier, without full knowledge of the health and environmental impacts that have and are occurring in the Wagerup and surrounding communities, has informed Prof Weeramanthri’s office, that there is no need for an additional response on his behalf.

As the DER, DoH and Government have all the relevant evidence/documents which expose the true health and environmental impacts of Wagerup, we expect our concerns to be addressed and a proper solution put forward by the Department of Health/Government.

We thank you for your attention and in anticipation of an early and more constructive reply, which the weight of evidence provided undoubtedly deserves.

Yours sincerely

Vince Puccio Merv McDonald, AFSM
Co-Chairs: Community Alliance for Positive Solutions Inc.

Proudly supported by:

Cc: Hon Albert Jacob, Professor Tarun Weeramabthri (DoH), Sue Burrows (DoP)

Attachments: (5) CAPS Health Submission to DoH (plus Cover Letter),(DoH Reply to CAPS Health Submission; Work in Progress),Wagerup and Surrounds Community Health Study June 2008 Summary (by Dr Geoff Pain), CRC CARE Report 2009 Summary (by Dr Geoff Pain), Curtin University Peer Review on CRC CARE Report 2009.

(Further Information on attached documents and other relevant documents please visit our website

Page 1 of 5