Summary of Issues Raised at Community Meetings6 and 7 March 2017

Summary of issues raised at community meetings6 and 7 March 2017

Table of Contents

Summary of issues raised at community meetings 6 and 7 March 2017

1.Technology

1.Location

2.Climate Change

3.EIS documentation

4.Sale of block

5.Feedstock and waste plastics

6.Health impacts

7.Air Quality

8.Regulating operation

9.History of proponent

10.Public Inquiry Panel process

11.Suggested comments for future consultation

12.Fire, hazards and safety

13.Water and Soil

14.Noise and Traffic

15.Financial implications

16.Government Waste Policy

These notes are a summary of key concerns raised by community attendees.

Issues raised will be explored through the panel’s review process.

1.Technology

• Berkeley Vale facilityshould not be used as a comparison to this facility as it is not comparable
• Berkeley Vale has a sea breeze and is located in a different environment to the Hume site.
• First time this technology would be used in Australia
• A similar proposal was rejected in NSW? NSW EPA rejected the proposal as the technology was untested
• No guidelines for EPA addressing new technology (exact reason for failure in NSW)
• Concerns about whether any trials have been undertaken?Consultants need to be commissioned to review technologies
• Are there any other similar facilities in Australia?
• The technologies should be tested first
• It may set a precedent for other hazardous facilities
• Diesel being produced is a Euro 4 standard which is being phased out
• Processed LPG will be used in processing
• People do not always understand the technology aspects
• Experimental technology
• Ask CSIRO scientists to look at Berkeley Vale’s location
• Concerns about how much fuel will be stored on the site
• Concerns the plant will be built before data is available to prove the technology
• Data on partitioning of outputs is needed
• A pilot study should be conducted

1.Location

• The proposed location of the facility is not adequate - a better site combined with an existing waste facility might be more suitable

• Village Building Company: Areas in NSW are already rezoned for the development of Tralee (residential, schools, etc.) DA has been submitted
• The facility is only located 600 meters from NSW residences, for example the proposed Tralee residential development
• Suitability of the site
• National Capital Authority should be consulted as Monaro Highway is a main approach route
• This proposal is too close to built up residential areas
• Land could be rezoned to compliment the residential areas
• FOY has said that ACT is halfway to Melbourne and Sydney
• Should be closer to be bush or should be closer to the plastic feedstock
• These types of facilities should no be allowed in Canberra
• Tarago would be better, the type of facility is not suitable for the ACT
• Concerns ACT is going to be used as a processing plant and as a rubbish tip
• Diesel might be used locally
• Valuable storage facilities nearby (including data centres and national document storage) which could be impacted if an emergency situation arose at the facility
• Flight path may be impacted
• Area within western Hume are conflicting with permitted retail areas
• Hume is becoming a waste capital
• Concerns about incompatible land uses being allowed near future residential development
• Creep – will this allow other similar projects
• Rose Cottage 350m approx away has been identified as a sensitive rural receptor – this is not the case it is a function centre and an area where people congregate.
• Territory Plan needs to change to not permit these types of facilities

2.Climate Change

• Traffic, lights and increased CO2 emissions
• Plastic recycling or landfill? Which is better for the environment? Power derived from methane
• Site is in a fire prone area -the location of such a facility in a fire prone areas needs to be reconsidered due to climate change
• In 2020 buses will not be running on this type of diesel so we don’t need it in the ACT
• Climate change and a triple bottom line assessment needs to be considered by experts
• Fossil fuels have been transformed into plastics and then will be transformed back into fossil fuels
• Feedstock travels long distances
• Shipping fuel out of the ACT after shipping waste in doesn’t seem like a good approach
• Can these plastics be recycled in other ways? If so, this should be considered
• Quality of fuel and feed stock
• Climate change adaption policies
• Renewable energies implications for the plant
• 38% reduction in greenhouse gas production by plastics to diesel
• Emissions from LPG
• The full lifecycle is not clear – needs to be established to understand the pollution equation and the energy production equation
• A recycling analysis in the context of the Waste Policy which is still under development needs to be considered

3.EIS documentation

• Documentation does not flow
• Emission data was missing on the website
• Foy has not provided reasons why other uses (or facilities) are not more suitable
• Rose Cottage was ignored during the assessment process (Draft EIS stage)
• Issue with the EPSDD scoping document
• ACT Government notification process is lacking
• Didn’t mention Tralee in NSW
• Lack of trust in FOY Group and concerns about incorrect information regarding plants that are already operating (see below)
• Concerns about the quality of the EIS provided by FOY Group and whether it contains misleading information

4.Sale of block

• Has the proponent paid for the block?
• Land Development Agency should not sell land without consulting with the public and undertaking investigationson the suitability of the site
• Paid $150,000 (5% deposit)
• Proposal included 3 blocks. Why was block 11 chosen?
• Why were these issues not considered before the land was sold? Should the land have been sold?
• Concerns about how they have the land – did they buy it?
• Consideration should be given to other uses for the site

5.Feedstock and waste plastics

• Type of plastic (PVC excluded?)- PVC contains hazardous chemicals

• Feedstock and feedstock sorting is difficult
• Feedstock containment proposed by FOY, lack of feedstock control on site.

• Plastic is end of-life plastic
• All plastic will be recycled in the future
• Feedstock will consist of 50% polyethylene, 30% polypropylene and 20% Polystyrene
• FOY provided misleading information during consultation and are indicating that recyclable plastics will be used
• Will plastic feedstock only consist of non-recyclable plastics
• Where does feedstock come from? (None from ACT?) Feedstock will be sourced mostly from NSW
• Unreliable track record with the industry
• Feedstock may be contaminated
• 5% PVC should not be present
• How is the quality control going to be managed
• The proposed 73000 tonnes of plastics will be removed from the recycling industry.

6.Health impacts

• The next generation needs to be considered
• Latest Health Impact Assessment is not sufficient
• Contaminated site (sheep dip site) Coppers log block nearby

• Hume and Rose Cottage residences may be affected. 13 residents in Hume and 2500 employees
• People who work in Hume will be affected and need to be considered in addition to people who live nearby, as those people spend so much time there
• Toxic air emissions may have long term health impact

7.Air Quality

• Noise and odour concerns
• Emissions: Information in EIS does not show evidence about actual emissions
• Concerns about breaking down plastic to diesel – worried about benzenemolecules (what is the process?)
• Dispersion modelling needed
• Cold inversion layer (what are the levels?) - proposed gas powered data centre may have looked at temperature inversion

• Air quality assessment not from the area - climate is not suitable for this type of development
• Inversion layer - emissions were based on the Wagga Wagga area

• Air emissions were based on models and not on actual performance
• Processing facility burns unknown material
• Emissions will need to be monitored
• Health Impact Assessment – says emissions fromthe facility will be under acceptable levels, but concerns about cumulative health impacts are not considered(concerned this has not been assessed for 24hr exposure)

• Pollutants will sit stagnant in the air

• Wood heaters are banned in Tuggeranong
• Odour from the tip – will the facility add to this problem
• Australian Standards are there to protect air quality
• Rose cottage residences and Hume residences may all be affected
• Emissions no worse than a wood fire?
• Plume issue - model needs to be redone
• Potential cancerous matters have not been addressed
• It takes one week to be exposed and there is a health risk
• Air emission data showed hazardous materials - air emissions were based on a level 6 facility
• Have higher stacks been considered? Flight path may be an issue
• If winds are stronger, will the air emissions become worse?
• Modelling done on group 6 limits
• No observational data, FOY group states that emissions are no worse than wood fire

• Emissions data should be collected with correct altitude - AUSPLUME model is not appropriate for Canberra’s climate
• Rural horses and livestock will be exposed to toxic materials
• Will fumes be carcinogenic? What happens to the residuals?
• Methane production
• Wood heating was banned based on inversion, so this should be too.
• Emissions into NSW
• Quality of AUSPLUME modelling questionable, an independent review of new modelling should be done
• Canberra is a light industry city and attractive due to lack of pollutants in the air which will change with this facility
• Odourless gasses

8.Regulating operation

• Regulating and monitoring (howis monitoring undertaken?)
• Community involvement in regulation

• Stockpile could get out of control like existing pile in Hume
• ACT Government is not policing rubbish pile down the road so can they police this site quickly and effectively

• Suggest that the facility should be licensed and a bank guarantee set to ensure the site can be cleaned up if the company leaves
• What happens when testing finds dangerous levels?
• Continuous real-time air monitoring (could be viewed online) should be used
• Other testing needs to be sent to a laboratory which takes time
• Frequency of audits for the emissions?
• Random tests should be undertaken during operation
• Testing will be undertaken by proponent
• The development is proposed to operate 24/7
• Maintenance of the site will need to be considered, will it be shut down for maintenance?
• Government monitoring will need to be undertaken
• Government resources are an issue in regulatory management of the facility
• If the facility breaches standards, what are the consequences?
• Would appropriate controls be put in place once the facility is operating
• Is there information available on whether the Berkeley Vale plant is complying with regulations and standards?
• What policy will the inquiry panel use as the basis for assessing waste

• Set up testing facility in Hume
• Self monitoring is an issue

9.History of proponent

• FOY Group responsiveness to issues
• Not enough background information available on the proponent

• Notification to the community
• Consultation that FOY went through was insufficient
• Proponent and public relationship has not been good
• Lack of trust in the proponent as they have been misleading
• Proponent only engages at the last minute
• Financial stability of FOY group
• The proponent may start processing more and more in the future and this may get out of control
• FOY has not consulted with the proponent for Tralee
• Has work commenced on site? Works related to the Estate Development Plan and stormwater runoff has been undertaken
• FOY Group stated at consultation that FOY had another facility
• FOY Group documentation states that Hume was the test factory for NSW
• Jerrabomberra was not consulted by FOY Group
• FOY lack of interest in security measures

10.Public Inquiry Panel process

• Concerns about the timeframe for the panel to consider all the documentation
• Location of meetings should have been more central
• New facts come to light every day, not enough time to review them
• Time of meeting is not suitable for all
• Report from inquiry panel needs to be clear and concise

11.Suggested comments for future consultation

• Community consultation was lacking throughout the process
• Consultation needs to be wider during all stages of the EIS process
• Suggestions such as signs, on the radio, letters and newspapers
• Website has information only
• More notification required for hazardous EIS
• People travelling into Canberra for work etc need to be consulted
• More consultation with nearby NSW communities
• Community consultation should be undertaken during the monitoring of emissions etc
• Concerned that not enough people were consulted

12.Fire, hazards and safety

• Fire hazards (what fire protection measures will be in place?)
• The capacity of the fuel storage is a hazard
• Fire-stations were not aware of the proposal
• Pollutants as a result of fire, for example the recent fire involving plastics in Melbourne and the toxic smoke
• It is within 2km of the flight path and planes will be between 1000 and 3000 ft flying to/from the airport so the proposal has potential to cause havoc with air traffic
• People are concerned about chemicals catching fire and the proximity to suburbs
• Hazardous materials will be burnt

• Risk of sabotage/explosion

• Evacuation limited in the suburbs
• Bushfire

• Earthquakes
• Notification in an emergency
• Maintenance and chemicals used for extinguishing fire

• Substation near Rose cottage which supplies electricity to surrounding suburbs
• Water storage on site
• Can the hospital cope in an emergency?
• Fuel tanks of this size are located too close to residences
• Polystyrene is on the carcinogenic list
• Hazardous waste may be disposed of in the ACT
• Major incident will cut off roads (Monaro Highway)
• Fire could impact on horses
• Cyber security for operating systems

13.Water and Soil

• Cardno identified (for the LDA) a problem on the site with stormwater seepage – clays in the soil will expand and contract and therefore foundations may collapse
• Trucks will disrupt soil and soil leakage may occur
• Petrol leakage near burners
• There are a number of springs in the area that could be affected
• Blocks in Hume were within water channels
• Groundwater pollution
• Concerns about drinking water
• Impacts on health of garden produce/vegetable patches
• Subsoil liquefaction
• Potential for contaminants to travel to the Murrumbidgee River

14.Noise and Traffic

• Transport costs
• Increased truck traffic

• Traffic modelling must be undertaken in winter
• Noise and safety issues with truck movements
• Noise modelling is season dependent
• Pollution and noise - need to use local and relevant data
• Traffic and lighting in Hume
• Noise report didn’t consider impacts on residential areas e.g. Macarthur
• The topography of the area allows noise to travel
• Increased potential for accidents – Monaro Highway already designated a high accident road
• Narrow roads will have difficulty coping with the truck traffic
• Concern that the noise levels will be up to 101 db or more

15.Financial implications

• Cost to government if the facility falls through
• Who pays for EPA audit costs?
• Impact on land values in nearby ACT and NSW suburbs.
• Will there be public liability insurance
• Do they have funds to support effective operation of business
• Proponent’s financial viability – if this proposal is not successful can they just leave the site? Can they afford monitoring?
• How will the EPA be able to ensure compliance?
• Can a guarantee be set to protect the community if they walk away in the event of a disaster/business collapse

• Insurance for site from catastrophic failure

16.Government Waste Policy

• Lessons have not been learnt from Mitchell fires?
• Concerns about waste being dumped
• Recycling cycle is broken
• Transporting waste into the ACT
• Polystyrene can be recycled but will be 20% of feedstock and is toxic
• Will feedstock that doesn’t meet quality standards end up in ACT landfill

1 | Page