Hydro Kurri Kurri Aluminium Smelter Remediation

I would like to raise the following concerns. 1. Future liability for any pollution or emissions from the site when it is sold. 2. Transport of toxic waste from the site, possibly through Kurri Kurri and Weston, possibly 75 truck movements per day, with no destination outlined. 3. Proximity of houses, schools, TAFE, and townships will be affected by dust, noise, emissions of toxic gasses, leachates. 4. Future monitoring, both during demolition, and in the future, particularly of containment cell containing 266,000 cubic metres of toxic waste. 5. The dust, noise and toxic releases from demolition of the smoke stacks. 6. The impact of the crushing of bricks, concrete and other waste materials of over 100 tons per day. 7. The high risk of storing contaminated waste materials and its impact on watercourses and the Huner River catchment. 8. The overall impact of the project on residents of Kurri Kurri and Weston, which is not addressed adequately, if at all, in the submission, although Kurri Kurri hospital is mentioned, which is actually surrounded by Kurri Kurri and Weston townships.

* COMMENT - much of the application is based on assumptions and minimal / no modelling has been undertaken. For such an application which is proximal to current and future residential developments and the endangered ecological community - the Kurri Sand Swamp Woodland, the application is inappropriate;
* COMMENT - section 5.3 of the EIS refers to the remediation of the former BHP, Pasminco and Sydney Olympic Park sites and contends that these projects did not require containment cells and as such require leachate recovery systems as a control measure as opposed to a contingency which the application contends is the case for the proposal. It should be acknowledged that these projects are not located as close to residential dwellings as the Hydro site and these were planned 5-20 years ago. Social and environmental expectations have increased during this time and as a consequence the applicant should treat the contaminated material as opposed to cap and forget;
* COMMENT - the application notes that the immediate area surrounding the containment cell is proposed to be rezoned industrial. As a consequence, contaminated sites are generally more acceptable within these locations. The applicant contends that the rezoning to industrial will result in positive contributions to the social fabric of the immediate community. The applicant should note that a vast amount of industrial land is available ~ 5km in the Hunter Economic Zone where transferral of environmental liabilities associated with Hydro will not be assumed by the purchaser. QUESTION - who will be responsible for the environmental liabilities if Hydro fail to sell the land? What will happen if the rezoning is not approved?
* COMMENT - the application appears to be the cheap method of dealing with the issue. Other options such as high temperature treatment are feasible and will not result in environmental degradation being transferred to future generations. The application appears to be the quickest and cheapest way for Hydro to turn their back on the site and the mess they have created;
* QUESTION - why is much of the information and data only preliminary such as the associated visual impact, the quantity of material to be disposed of within the containment cell? COMMENT - as a neighbouring landholder definitive data and impacts is required for me to give a valid and comprehensive submission;
* QUESTION - the applicant has noted that a public platform may be established for those interested to view the demolition. Furthermore, the blast exclusion zone would be set at 1.5 times the height of the structure to be demolished. The applicant also notes that some dangerous waste may not be possible to be recovered from buildings / stacks prior to demolition due to safety / access issues. Has the applicant not considered the potential for airborne asbestos fibres / heavy metals migrating to the viewing platform and subsequently having adverse health impacts on those watching?
* QUESTION - there is a growing trend of high temperature treatment of asbestos, for example Germany receives a considerable volume of asbestos and treats via incineration. Has the applicant not considered this option for asbestos?
* QUESTION - if there are a number of firms who purchase proposed industrial lands (all of equal area and value), who inherits the environmental liabilities such as maintenance of the water treatment plant and performing environmental monitoring? Moreover, if this firm is a small business and widespread failure of the containment cell occurs, who will be responsible for remediation / decontamination? What happens if this forces the firm into receivership? Will Hydro establish a fund for potential failure of the containment cell?
* QUESTION - will groundwater monitoring bores be established within proximity of the containment cell to ensure no impact on groundwater networks?
* QUESTION - if the HDPE liner (still to be confirmed by the applicant) fails, what methods of detection are in place and what actions would be taken to remediate the issue?
* QUESTION - no details are provided for the water treatment plant. Who maintains the plant? What method of treatment would the plant offer? Is reverse osmosis considered? Following treatment, where will the brine be disposed of? Have Hydro determined appropriate disposal methods rather than assumed? Will water be pumped to the North Dam for irrigation?
* QUESTION - North Dam is viewed as an evaporative pond. What fail safe measures will be implemented to ensure this dam does not overtop and discharge into the surrounding environment? Who will ensure the dam does not silt and minimise storage capacity?
* QUESTION - no methods of decommissioning are discussed in the application. Once the containment cell is sealed, will earthmoving equipment be decontaminated? If so, where will the runoff be directed? How will the runoff be treated?
* QUESTION - the applicant assumes clay on site will be capable of sealing the containment cell. It has been described as dispersive on adjacent developments. What modelling has been completed to assess the clay on site? Where will clay be sourced if it is not suitable on site? If clay is sourced from site, what will be done with the void created by sourcing this material?
* QUESTION - an assessment regarding transferring spent pot lining to other sites is currently detailed as ongoing by the EIS. If the result of the assessment is unfavourable for transferral, will this material also be included in the containment cell?
* COMMENT - Section 1.4 notes that Hydro is committed to managing environmental legacies. Hydro should not be managing environmental legacies but rather resolve these issues. The application appears to be remediation where decontamination should be undertaken through high temperature treatment to deal with the issue rather than cover up. When were initial high temperature treatment trials undertaken?
* QUESTION - Table 5.4 justifies high temperature treatment as a non-viable option due to unknowns associated with whether the material would then be classified as inert or not etc. Why has the applicant not undertaken pilot / small scale experiments to disprove this option? Further table 5.6 notes that high temperature treatment on site is not time or cost effective without providing any justification. Why has offsite high temperature treatment not been considered if this is technologically sound? If this option is selected, the liability will not be transferred to another party and subsequently future generations;
* QUESTION - Table 5.5 describes the technological risks associated with unproven technology of high temperature treatment where table 5.6 notes onsite high temperature treatment is technologically sound. Please confirm this discrepancy;
* QUESTION - the applicant notes that offsite treatment and or disposal was not considered as this would transfer liabilities elsewhere and result in carbon emissions associated with transportation which would not be in line with Hydro's vision. Has the applicant not considered the emissions that will be produced through earthmoving and excavation for the creation of the containment cell or the fugitive emissions to be emitted for generations and discharged through the gas vents?
* QUESTION - Section 6.2 details Hydro's corporate social responsibility, with a positive social legacy by providing ongoing social, employment and economic opportunities. How do these values align with transferring adverse environmental legacies which have been `covered up' to future generations? This is a prime example of intergenerational inequality;
* QUESTION - the EIS notes that aluminium by products may emit flammable and harmful emissions when coming in contact with water. What controls will be in place to ensure human exposure prevented and bushfire risk eliminated?
* QUESTION - Section 8.83 notes that vegetation cover of the containment cell will be shallow rooted native grasses as these grasses will not adversely impact the capping layers (ie roots put pressure on the HDPE liner). What methods will be implemented to prevent growth of tree species? Moreover, the EIS notes that the containment cell will be designed to be water shedding to prevent infiltration and potential generation of leachate. In the case of high rainfall, will the grass species have the capacity to retain / deal with this water or would this water migrate to the liner? Moreover, in periods of drought and then followed by high rainfall (as predicted with climate change), with the lack of significant tree species, erosional risk is high when native grasses may die off. Have Trigger Action Response Plans (TARPs) been developed to deal with grass die off, high rainfall (which has been experienced in the past two years) and increased erosion?
* QUESTION - as described above, has climate change been assessed when determining the adequacy of the containment cell?
* QUESTION - table 8.2 provides an overview of the expected timeframes. Moreover, the EIS notes sediment and erosion controls such as hay bales and sedimentation fences will be implemented throughout the period of works. What control measures will be implemented to ensure contaminated material (located in the containment cell, stockpile area etc) is not transported during periods of high rainfall or drought? Will stockpiles be misted to minimise dust generation? Sedimentation fences will not contain heavy metal accumulations within sediment runoff;
* QUESTION - the EIS has noted a number of monitoring commitments to be undertaken quarterly, annually and following certain rainfall events. Why has telemetry not been considered? Telemetry should at a minimum be installed in containment dams etc to warn of nearing levels of overtopping. Telemetry would also be a safe measurement of gas emissions. If environmental monitoring is subcontracted out, what assurances are in place to ensure monitoring is implemented immediately after high rainfall events? What is the response time (for example, maintaining the water treatment plant, implementing sediment and erosion control measures etc) for implementing environmental controls as required?
* COMMENT - Section 9.4.2 and table 9.9.1 clearly demonstrates Hydro's motivations of converting the site into a mildly remediated site to then transfer onto another party and remove any future financial obligations. The application appears to be the bare minimum for dealing with a direction from the EPA to clean up and also make the site appealing to divest. If Hydro was serious about decontaminating the site, a high treatment method would be implemented, however this will impact Hydro's bottom line more considerably. The cell should not be developed as if it fails and the transferee does not have the financial capability of amending, the liability will be left to the NSW taxpayer. IF this cell is to be approved, Hydro at minimum should provide financial sureties as they are the ones who benefitted from the creation of this adverse environmental legacy;
* QUESTION - have soil samples, surface and groundwater samples been taken to ensure offsite migration has not occurred?

The remediation of the Hydro aluminium land should reduce the mass of waste going to landfill and/ or onsite encapsulation (which has the effect of reserving land as a waste repository) for future generations, when there are resource recovery options available and preferred by NSW Waste. Allowing Hydro to bury SPL waste containing other unknown fill substances sets a precedent for other interests to resist resource recovery initiates set by NSW Waste to reduce waste going to landfills whether managed onsite or off-site. Hydro land could become a valuable asset for other important uses that NSW needs to have available without it being designated as restricted use due to legacy chemical contamination.

A major focus of remediating and/or rehabilitating an aluminium smelter site should be the optimal management of hazardous materials and substances. Indeed, the fundamental premise of the Chemical Control Order for aluminium smelter wastes (as issued by the NSW EPA) is the recognition of their hazard potential and to ensure appropriate controls are in place for the management of these materials.

More specifically, there are treatment options available for spent pot lining (SPL) materials. I see no attempt within the EIS to discuss or justify its conclusions (regarding the fate of SPL materials) on the basis of factual technical assessment of the options. For example, regarding the SPL currently retained on-site under cover, Section 3.4.2.2 conveniently excludes consideration of their fate by excluding them from the scope of the project. This is considered an inadequate approach given the title of the EIS would suggest site remediation was a core consideration. Regarding the SPL currently in the capped waste stockpile, Section 5.3.3.2 and Table 5.4 provides no technical justification for the rejection of any option other than to place the entire capped waste stockpile inventory into the new containment cell. Given options are acknowledged as being available for the treatment of SPL, once again this is an unsatisfactory assessment.

It appears from the narrative within the EIS, the new containment cell is presented as an inevitable fact with no justification given for this inevitability. Worse still, no test results, trials or technical justification is provided for the conclusions of Table 5.4 that treatment of some or all components of the existing capped waste stockpile is not justifiable on the basis of technical or social risk. Surely some evidence should be presented in support of such important conclusions. It appears the rationale behind Table 5.4 is incomplete at best and an uncharitable analysis could deem it to be lazy.

In fact there are 2 separate organisations located in the lower Hunter alone, treating and recycling SPL materials. It is astounding that neither is mentioned and neither is technically assessed in relation to their capability to treat SPL materials arising from Hydro and this project. In addition, other options are available more remotely and these are not canvassed at all either.

Simply saying the under cover stored SPL will be dealt with at some other time by means unspecified/uncanvassed and the existing capped waste SPL must be condemned to a new containment cell without technical justification seems somewhat insulting to the reader.

The EIS is impressive regarding the detail involved in the assessment of GHG emissions arising from proposed site activities, the detail in assessing biodiversity values and ecology considerations and the precision with which audio impacts are reviewed to the nearest dB. This then prompts the question; "How is it possible the same EIS document comprehensively fails to transparently address an issue of the significance of the hazardous nature of SPL wastes and the management of these materials?"

I have a very good comprehension of the proposal being a community representative on the Hydro Community Reference Group and have read the EIS.

My only concern relates to the controls and auditing of what goes into the containment cell. There should be no SPL that is currently stored in the 10 sheds or what has been recently removed from the pots placed into the containment cell under any circumstances and it must all be processed to detoxify it.

There should also be an independent auditor appointed to ascertain what can and cannot be transferred from the capped waste heap to the containment cell based on whether or not it is practical to recycle or detoxify with the decision not left solely to Hydro representatives. This will be the only way the community will feel confident that toxic materials are not being buried unnecessarily.

The first key issue for community members that I have spoken to, and the majority of comments being made at the community information session in Kurri Kurri that I attended, is the proposal for onsite storage of the waste material.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) broadly comments on other options for disposal, citing some justifications for the proponent's preferred disposal method. Community concern is also heightened given the recent Williamtown groundwater contamination issues. The EIS simply assumes that the containment cell will perform to design in the long term.

Suggested assessment actions:

1. Peer review of the risk assessment for containment cell design, assessing the adequacy and robustness of controls and worst case outcome of land, groundwater and surface water contamination. It is extremely important to understand and predict onsite and offsite pollution potential.

2. Further assessment and costings of more `community acceptable' treatment methods for waste. For example, on site treatment/processing and offsite disposal. If the proponent's preferred disposal method is implemented it is likely that the State will take on the burden of any long term issues.


Suggested conditions of approval:

1. Independent sign off of each stage of containment cell construction, with the independent certifier to be approved by the Secretary.
2. Long term management plan for the site.


Secondly, the air quality assessment does not include suspending or modifying works during adverse weather, such as high winds and/or unfavourable wind direction (when wind is blowing towards sensitive receivers). This would be of great importance for sensitive receivers, especially when handling contaminated material. I believe a condition of consent should include these management measures.

I would like to raise my concerns regarding the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), proposed rezoning and blasting of the stacks and water tower.

The TIA states that it was conducted to assess the impact on the safety or operation of the adjacent road network during construction and operation of the proposed works. It mentions that a desktop analysis of the transport network was carried out, rather than on site inspections. It concludes that there will be no adverse traffic impact on the road network.

I am of the opinion that key parts of the road network were not considered during the assessment, and that the cumulative impacts of the road and bridge upgrades on feeder roads (namely the upgrade of the bridge on Frame Drive from single lane to double lanes) currently being commissioned by Cessnock City Council have not been taken into account when conducting the assessment, nor has the current proposal by Weston Aluminium that would utilise Hart Road as it's primary route to access the Hunter Expressway. This is not in keeping with the requirements of the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs), specifically Key Issue 11, Transport and Access and the requirements listed in the letter from the RMS dated 15th September 2014.

Hydro owns land that stretches almost to the intersection of Hart Road, Sawyers Gully Road, Government Road and Gingers Lane. This is a major intersection, and is mentioned as a route that will be taken by approximately 28 vehicles during the completion of the project. It is noted in the TIA that the main purpose of Hart Road is to provide access to the existing Hydro site. I would argue that the main purpose for Hart Road is to provide access to the Hunter Expressway for vehicles travelling from Weston, Sawyers Gully, Abermain and Neath, among other areas, as the Hydro site was closed when the Hunter Expressway was being constructed and opened, and when the upgrades to Hart Road were carried out. Yet, the intersection of these roads was not addressed in Section 5.2 of the TIA (Traffic analysis of major/relevant intersections), and no traffic counts were carried out at this location. This intersection in its current state is dangerous, and already has a number of issues (it is not properly aligned, so visibility of oncoming traffic is difficult, traffic does not stop at stop signs, speed limits are too high close to the intersection and the road is not wide enough to allow safe turning without crossing onto the wrong side of the road) and often struggles with current traffic volumes. Increased traffic volumes from the proposal would only compound these issues. Again, the exclusion of this intersection from the TIA is not in keeping with the requirements of Key Issue 11 of the SEARs and the letter from the RMS.

Throughout the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), it is stated that Hydro is committed to achieving the aims of the Hunter Regional Action Plan,the Draft Hunter Regional Plan and the Draft Plan for Growing Hunter City, by facilitating the rezoning and development of the Hydro Land Project Site for employment, residential, and biodiversity conservation purposes. This includes rezoning of the land close to the intersection of Hart Road, Sawyers Gully Road, Government Road and Gingers Lane to allow a Business Park (see Figure 2-1 in EIS). However, the traffic impacts of the proposed rezoning and development of the current buffer land has not been addressed in this EIS. It is instead indicated that the proposal would have no impact on regional and state road networks and bridges, and that no upgrades to any roads would be required for the proposal. In addition to this, should the proposal be approved, and the rezoning go ahead, Hart Road would then also provide access to residential land, which would also increase traffic volumes on feeder roads. This does not meet the requirements of Key issue 11 of the SEARs or the letter from the RMS.

It is noted in the TIA that there are no public transport routes in the near vicinity of the site, and therefore the traffic impacts on public transport routes were deemed to be not applicable. However, a school bus route exists along Sawyers Gully Road and Government Road, with the pick up/drop off points being located on the intersection of Hart Road, Sawyers Gully Road, Government Road and Gingers Lane. The letter from the RMS requires that impacts of the proposal on public transport facilities be addressed, and therefore, this requirement has not been met.

In order to address the concerns outlined above, I suggest that the following actions be carried out prior to project determination:

1. An in depth Traffic Impact Assessment should be carried out, that includes the intersection of Hart Road, Sawyers Gully Road, Government Road and Gingers Lane.
2. The TIA should also take into account the cumulative impacts of the proposed rezoning, the upgrades to the Frame Drive Bridge, the current proposal on exhibition for Weston Aluminium, and the safety and design of the intersection. A site inspection, rather than a desktop study would also be beneficial.
3. Assessment of the impacts that increased traffic and rezoning would have on the current school bus route.

In addition, I suggest that the following points be included as conditions of consent for the proposal:

1. Upgrades to the intersection of Hart Road, Sawyers Gully Road, Government Road and Gingers Lane to include a roundabout or traffic lights to aid in the safety of the intersection and the management of increased traffic volumes.
2. Lowering of the speed limits on Hart Road and part of Gingers Lane to be in keeping with the 60km/hr speed limit along Government Road and Sawyers Gully Road.

In regard to the blasting of the stacks and the water tower, it is noted in the EIS that blasting will only be carried out when the wind speed is less than 8m/s and the wind is blowing from a S-SE direction. I feel that this is an adequate control measure and that it should be included in the conditions of consent should the proposal be approved in order to protect sensitive receivers from blasting impacts.

EIS FORMER HYDRO ALUMINIUM KURRI KURRI SMELTER DEMOLITION AND REMEDIATION.
DATE: 12 Sept 2016.

My name is Marcia Maybury, I am the Secretary of Kurri Kurri Landcare and have lived in this town since the smelter, then named Alcan, was opened. During this time I have fought for our town to be environmentally safe, but have struck strong opposition from those who can afford all sorts of spin doctors and the like to strengthen their case whenever they meet with objections. I have stage four bone cancer am a non drinker, non smoker and have never been overweight, having eaten a healthy diet all my life. I then had to be concerned when I saw photos of Eve Giles ` fluoride affected cattle with horrific bone deformities. With fluoride impacting our environment, the smelter must be cleaned up and the area returned to its original state.

This cannot be when Hydra propose leaving 350,000 tonnes of toxic and demolition waste.

My children and grandchildren live in this area and cannot be expected to live with this danger.

For these reasons I strongly object to this E.I.S.

MARCIA MAYBURY.

1. TEC has been following this issue for some time and made submissions to the EPA on the owner's apparent disinterest in recycling and the toxcity of the waste. We were assured the EPA did not support this situation.
2. We note the EIS statement:
"Hydro would continue to identify and employ reasonable and feasible recycling opportunities for these materials. Hydro would only transport these materials to facilities that comply with legislative and regulatory requirements that apply to the recycling of such materials."
(p3.25)
However this statement is too vague, particularly since it is proposed to greatly expand the landfill site.
3. The proponent needs to be far more specific about what will be recycled and how it will ensure that landfiling is a last resort. This requires a comprehensive and public audit of the material and an independent review of what can be recycled.
--

Jeff Angel

Executive Director, Total Environment Centre

Convenor and Director, Boomerang Alliance

Please refer attached submission

Please find attached a submission from Tellus Holdings Ltd

pdf attached

Submission attached

We note that we will provide the disclosure of political donations shortly, in accordance with our email to Kate Masters (Planner) - see attached at item 4.

see attached

see attatched

see attatched

see attatched

see attatched

see attatched

see attached