Please find attached a submission from Tellus Holdings Ltd

Please refer attached submission

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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?"