Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project
Issues and Responses Log
Date: June 2017 This integrated Issues and Responses Log collates questions and comments lodged through the various consultation activities, and responses provided by Jemena. The issues and responses are listed chronologically and as received. Some issues and questions may therefore have been asked more than once, and in different ways. Key issues may have changed over the period of the project.
Item Feedback Response
Issues and Responses Log
1. Would you please let us know what the purpose The planning proposal, as submitted by Jemena in October 2012, recommended the temporary of the "proposed area for reclassification"? Is it reclassification of a portion of Cabarita Park from community to operational land, so that this area can be a temporary reclassification? made available to Jemena to allow it to carry out the Project as quickly as possible and to minimise impacts on the surrounding community.
Jemena requires the temporary access to a portion of Cabarita Park for the purpose of using the area as a temporary construction compound, which will be used for the storing of various construction related materials. Once this work is complete, the area will be rehabilitated fully.
2. If this contamination is a result of AGL’s waste, Jemena has spent many months up to now, exploring access options for this Project. As part of this, why isn’t the works compound located on Jemena has engaged the Rose Group directly, enquiring about the possibility of using the open area on former AGL property at Breakfast Point? The the side of the Breakfast Point development. Jemena has received written correspondence indicating Rose Group developing Breakfast Point get all that this option is not supported. the amenity and no pain. There is park land adjacent to Area A and Area B in Breakfast Subsequently, Jemena has continued to look for suitable available access options to service the Project. Point precinct. It too can be re-developed after This has included investigating possible water access options. Unfortunately, to date no feasible water the remediation process with far less damage to option or landing point site has been identified. Although Jemena continues to evaluate all alternatives to well established trees. Surely all folk using the remediation of the Bay, any access option utilising water will require careful consideration with Cabarita Park for recreation, marina, ferry and respect to potential environmental impacts. bus transportation and commuter parking are a Based on the work done, the only feasible option available to Jemena to carry out the remediation work larger group than residents from Breakfast is through the use of a portion of Cabarita Park. A detailed options analysis of all site access alternatives Point. It’s more disruptive using Cabarita Park, will be included as part of the Part 3A application, which will be completed and placed on public than parkland and walkways off Kendal Bay at exhibition later this year. Breakfast Point. I understand that road access may only be available from Cabarita Park...but 1 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response why road? Use barges up the river if possible and there is no disruption to park users.
3. I am a nearby resident to Cabarita Park and I A comprehensive Odour and Dust Assessment for the project is currently under way and therefore we spoke to you about potential dust problems at are unable at this time to provide you information regarding mitigation measures to manage odour and Kendall Bay, after last night’s meeting at dust generation during the remediation work. However your concerns have been noted and have been Massey Park Golf Club. This is just a reminder passed onto the respective specialist. you were going to organise information for me regards the proposed methods Jemena intends A range of measures will be identified to ensure that odour and dust are managed in accordance with using to eliminate dust problems, and if they are relevant legislation and guidelines and will also be used to mitigate any potential offensive odours to responsible for any problems (such as nearby residential properties and excessive air emissions relating to dust. The Odour and Dust discolouration of adjacent residences caused by Assessment will be made available to the public once completed and will be posted on the Department dust from Site A.....even if Jemena have fulfilled of Planning & Infrastructure website, once the Environmental Assessment has been submitted, and also all their agreed undertakings to minimise dust the project website: www.kendallbayremediation.com.au problems. I'd appreciate any advice on this matter, as I am in fact the closest resident to Site A.
4. I was at the meeting at Massey Park Golf Club Jemena wishes to thank you for your suggestions. We have spent many months up to now, exploring on Monday 3/12/12. I subsequently visited the access options for this Project, including options along the lines of those you have suggested. We have site on Tuesday to have a look around. I have previously had consultancies investigate availability of sites around Sydney Harbour (as part of a corresponded with Friends of Cabarita Park (My comprehensive assessment of the merits of a broad range of land and water-based access options). email text below) with regards to natural Unfortunately no feasible waterborne option or landing point site has been identified. Although Jemena environment aspects of the project. As I continues to evaluate all alternatives to the remediation of the Bay, any access option utilising water will mentioned in my email below, I have concerns require careful consideration with respect to potential environmental impacts. Access through the for the mature trees and damage to the soil and Breakfast Point Development is not possible as it requires approval from both the developer and the slope by heavy machinery. I have a couple of residents association, and neither have provided consent. suggestions for your consideration: 1. A Barge mounted work station moored on the outside of the coffer dam. Shipping upriver to a transfer depot at the Rhodes Boat ramp. The Rhodes boat ramp while a couple of kilometres up river has an adjacent vacant commercial space; is surrounded by light industry and construction; and has easy access to major roads. 2. A Barge mounted work station moored on the outside of the coffer dam. Shipping upriver to a transfer depot at wharves on 2 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response the western side of Homebush Bay. This site, like Rhodes, also has the disadvantage of distance but the advantage of industrial neighbours and good transport access. 3. A Barge mounted work station moored on the outside of the coffer dam. Shipping upriver to a transfer depot at Bennelong Park, Putney. A pro is its proximity to Kendall Bay, however there may be difficulties with council and residents. I am also uncertain that there is sufficient depth of water at this location. 4. A piped or conveyor transfer system through Cabarita Park to avoid damage to the slope and established trees
5. We are most concerned about the extent of the Thanks for your feedback. We note your intention to make a submission when the EA is exhibited. proposed mature tree removal in Cabarita Park, Regarding your question on the contaminants, under the Voluntary Remediation Agreement (VRA), two the possible disruption for pedestrian access to areas within Kendall Bay have been identified as requiring remediation. These are known as Area A and the Rivercat, and the odour that may be Area B, and have been delineated as a result of numerous environmental investigations and risk released during the excavation process, and we assessments involving the EPA, the Department of Health and a number of technical experts. The will provide a submission when the EA is contaminants of potential concern as described in the Remediation Order are polycyclic aromatic exhibited. hydrocarbons (PAHs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). Could you please provide a list of the contaminants that are present in both areas proposed for remediation?
6. 1. About how many people turned up over 1. The public open day, held on 8 December 2012 was well attended, with Jemena recording the 10am-1pm period? approximately 40 participants. 2. What's you feedback on the views of those 2. A broad range of views were expressed at the session last Saturday and we are working through the attending? information provided. Jemena is not in a position to offer feedback yet on the views expressed. 3. Is the remediation confirmed or if it's 3. Jemena is subject to a binding legal obligation to carry out this work. While this obligation remains in opposed by the majority of the residents of place Jemena is required to proceed with the remediation. However Jemena remains committed to Breakfast Point and Friends of Cabarita engage all potentially interested and affected parties to ensure that, as far as practically possible, the Park is there any chance that remediation remediation of Kendall Bay is undertaken in a manner with the least impact to the surrounding might be abandoned? community and environs. 4. Some representatives attending last 4. A noise impact assessment report is currently being prepared as part of the Environmental night's Tuesday briefing of Strata and Assessment (EA). Jemena has never made any comment about noise levels at Breakfast Point.
3 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Community Assn reps reported that when 5. The timing for the Environmental Assessment (EA), and therefore the consultation period, during the issue of the remediation's noise December 2012, was being driven by a deadline set by the DP&I for the submission of the EA. nuisance was raised, they were told Jemena has subsequently engaged the DP&I to request an extension. To date no response in this Breakfast Point residents 'were used to regard has been received. noise'. What's your response to this? 6. We will have a much better idea of the likely cost once all the necessary approvals (including the 5. Some resident's point to the consultation Part 3A approval) have been obtained, but our early estimates are that it will run into millions of period starting at the beginning of the dollars. The duration is approximately 12-14 months from site establishment to final Christmas / New Year break which decommissioning and rehabilitation as mentioned above. effectively reduces time for their input. If required can the consultation period be 7. Yes, consideration has been given to additional capping over the area that requires remediation. It is extended. not considered as a suitable option. 6. What are the estimates of the project's duration (years, months etc.) and cost? 7. Has consideration been given to just adding additional capping over the area that requires remediation?
7. I live on the shores of Kendall Inlet and I would Thanks for your feedback on these issues. Jemena has spent many months up to now, exploring access like to express my concern for what is proposed options for this Project. We have previously had consultancies investigate availability of sites around for the remediation of the bay. Sydney Harbour (as part of a comprehensive assessment of the merits of a broad range of land and water-based access options). Unfortunately no feasible waterborne option or landing point site has been I am basically in favour of remediating the bay, identified and from an environmental perspective, this option is not preferred, for a number but only if it can be done without upsetting the environmental management and sustainability reasons. park, the path around the bay and the nearby residents. I had presumed the toxic substances Under the work public access to the majority of Cabarita Park will not be affected and a pedestrian would be sucked out and taken away by barge, walkway will be maintained. In addition, areas of Cabarita Park affected by the Project will be but the proposal to take it away by road is rehabilitated following completion, in consultation with City of Canada Bay Council. unacceptable. The destruction and disruption that will involve is not worth the end result. In terms of leaving Kendall Bay as it currently is, this is not an option. Jemena is subject to a legally binding obligation to carry out this remediation, as set out in the Voluntary Remediation Agreement If removal along the river is not possible (and (VRA) entered into by Jemena’s predecessor (AGL) with the NSW Environment Protection Authority I’m not convinced of this), there has to be an (EPA). option to leave the bay as it is and to not disturb it in the future. The toxic substances are Finally, the ecological assessment work that is being undertaken as part of the current Part 3A probably buried and most likely could be safely environmental assessment for the project indicates that the mangroves within the southern portion of left that way. Removing them will not have any Kendall Bay are in a disturbed state as a result of the contamination and therefore should be removed. practical benefits for residents if the offending The mangroves will be replanted following the remediation in consultation with relevant stakeholders. material is not a threat left as it is.
4 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Finally I would like to mention that a few residents might support removal of the material simply because this will require removal of the mangroves and the mangroves are currently blocking their views of the river. I believe the mangroves have more priority as natural parts of the river ecology.
8. 1. The park is a “charitable trust” and Council Thank you for your comment. Your feedback does not accord with our advice on this issue, nor does it cannot give approval for a change in use, accord with information we have received from Council. even a temporary one. 2. The regulations to the Local Government Act does not permit the proposed change of use.
9. 1. Can you please check your archives and Jemena has spent many months considering and investigating alternative access options, to service this forward me all information on the Project (which we are required by law to undertake). We have previously had consultancies investigate alternatives that you have looked at in the availability of sites around Sydney Harbour (as part of a comprehensive assessment of the merits of a last three years to trucking waste on broad range of land and water - based access options). Unfortunately no feasible waterborne option or Cabarita Road. landing point site has been identified. Although Jemena continues to evaluate all alternatives to the remediation of the Bay, any access option utilising water will require careful consideration with respect to 2. We live next to the Park and have done for potential environmental impacts. We have also sought access through the Breakfast Point development the past 4 ½ years. Next year we will sell – this is not possible as it requires approval from both the developer and the residents association and and move back to Perth. Who is going to neither have provided consent. A detailed options analysis of all site access alternatives will be included compensate us for the loss we will incur as part of the Part 3A application, which will be completed and placed on public exhibition later this year. due to the scope of work proposed? We require an answer to this immediately not in 2, 3, 6 months.
10. After the Community "drop in on December 8th”, During the public consultation sessions in December 2012, Jemena indicated that it would ask the DP&I I asked if Jemena had requested an extension for an extension to the submission date of the Part 3A. At the time of the meetings no request had been of time from DP&I, which we requested at our made. In early 2013, Jemena had further discussions with DPI officers, following which we have initial meeting with you on 3rd December and requested an extension to the 15 March 2013 deadline to submit the Part 3A Project application for the you confirmed that you had. proposed Kendall Bay sediment remediation project. We will notify the community, via the Kendall Bay website, once we receive a response from DPI on whether an extension has been granted. I requested a copy of that letter, which you agreed to email. Jemena is committed to a comprehensive community and stakeholder strategy that actively involves and engages with the community. The next phase of community consultation is expected to start in the next few weeks and will continue through the remaining environmental and planning assessment stages of the project. Information in this regard will be provided shortly.
5 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response As we have not received a copy to date, we In addition, please find below a summary of the notes taken following the discussions at the Community would be pleased to receive Jemena's letter to Information and Feedback Session on 8 December 2012: DP&I as promised by you. • Jemena will demonstrate that they have considered options other than use of the park for access. I also requested that the Convener, email a • Jemena remains committed to continued consultation with community and government agencies in summary of our informal talk and it was agreed I 2013. would receive this. • Jemena to request an extension of time from DP&I to allow for additional community consultation. As I don't have the Convener email contact, • Jemena will consider additional community consultation early in 2013 prior to lodging the would you please oblige by sending it to application. FOCP&W or forwarding this email on to her with • Jemena will demonstrate that they have completed studies and understand the heritage issues our request. associated with the park including the significance of certain trees. • Jemena will minimise impact to the park and consider a public meeting in the park to outline the extent of the work to be undertaken in the park including the size and location of the proposed compound. • Jemena will ensure the works in the park will not prevent pedestrian access to bus or ferry services and pedestrian access along the foreshore will be preserved. Jemena will ensure recreation users can still access the park (outside of the area forming the works compound) and consider the needs of businesses operating in the park.
11. Attached is a statement representing the views Thank you for forwarding us a copy of the Bay and Park Communities Alliance statement. of the meeting, (the Bay and Communities Alliance and the 3000 residents they represented) which unanimously resolved to reject the use of Cabarita Park for any purpose associated with the remediation of Kendall Bay and supports Council resolution requesting Jemena to examine alternative options to the use of the Park.
12. Is concerned that the remediation of Areas A The areas being identified as requiring remediation have been identified following a comprehensive and B are not sufficient and that the whole bay process involving both the NSW EPA and the NSW Department of Health, as well as technical experts. should be remediated. A Remediation Action Plan (RAP) is currently being prepared for the project by an environmental Also concerned that once the remediation of consultant, in accordance with NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) guidelines and Areas A and B is completed, the water requirements. Once finalised and agreed with the EPA the RAP will, amongst other, set out the rationale movements caused by the rivercat will re- for selecting the preferred remediation approach such that the remediation strategy is both contaminate the bay. environmentally and technically appropriate to manage the contamination in the bay during the period in which the works as being carried out and also into the future. All remediated areas will be appropriately capped and covered with clean fill.
6 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response It should be noted that with the remediation of the Mortlake gasworks site, the source of contamination has being removed. Therefore the two areas identified as requiring remediation are directly related to past activities, namely a loading and unloading wharf (Area B) and a storm drainage pipe/ channel (Area A) from a gaswork containment dam/structure. Contamination in the rest of the bay is largely considered to be representative of the whole of Sydney Harbour. The recontamination or redistribution of contamination on remediated areas is therefore not considered to be a risk. The RAP will be made available to the public once completed and will be posted on the Department of Planning & Infrastructure website as part of the Environmental Assessment and also the project website: www.kendallbayremediation.com.au
Issues and Responses Log – uploaded 30 April 2013
Access to Cabarita Park
13. Members of the Bay and Park Communities The Planning Proposal to reclassify a portion of Cabarita Park to enable the temporary use of part of the Alliance (BAPCA) reject the use of Cabarita park as a works compound and work access point for the project was not supported by City of Canada Park for any purpose associated with the Bay Council in December 2012. Subsequently, in February 2013, Jemena submitted an application to remediation of Kendall Bay. the NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure (DP&I) seeking a review of Council’s Planning Proposal decision. Jemena does not appear to be listening to the community’s objection to the use of Cabarita The review will occur through the State Government’s Pre-gateway Review Process. Jemena submitted Park as it has sought a review of Council’s the request for review in February, to comply with the statutory requirement that the application for decision to reject the Planning Proposal. review must be made within 40 days of notification of Council’s decision. The Planning Proposal review process is expected to take several months. Jemena is seeking a review of Council’s decision, as, based on the extensive work undertaken to date, Jemena remains of the opinion that accessing the remediation site through Cabarita Park is still the most appropriate approach, given environmental, safety and technical considerations. However, to ensure that all practical alternative options are fully assessed, Jemena will continue to expand and review its research and analysis of possible alternatives while the review is occurring. Jemena will continue to engage actively with the local community and interest groups during this process. The DP&I may refer the Planning Proposal to the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) for an independent review. Should the Planning Proposal application proceed to the JRPP and then be subsequently supported by the Minister, it will proceed through to assessment and public exhibition processes, with further community consultation at each stage of those processes, before a final decision is made.
14. The ‘environmental’ factor nominated as one of The specialist studies have included all of the relevant subject areas that are required to enable a full the Project Criteria to consider the access and comprehensive assessment of the impact of the project on the environment at, and in close 7 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response options appears not to include Cabarita Park proximity to, the remediation site. This includes assessing impacts on Cabarita Park itself, as well as on and its trees and heritage. the local community. The specialist reports that are being prepared as part of the Project Application include: Have there been any studies on the impact of the remediation works on pedestrians, • Marine and Terrestrial Ecology Report commuters and users of Cabarita Park for • Soil and Water Report leisure? If not, why not? If so, please share the • Air Quality Report including Odour and Dust information. • Hydrological Assessment Report • Noise and Vibration Report • Traffic Report • Heritage Report (European and Indigenous) • Social Impact Assessment • Human Health Risk Report • Hazard and Risk Assessment; and • Visual Impact Assessment A social impact assessment has commenced and will consider the impacts to the local and surrounding community as a consequence of the works, including commuters, park users and others. In relation to potential disruption to ferry and bus users, Jemena confirms that access to the commuter transport networks will be maintained throughout the project works. In addition, there are a range of management strategies that would be employed to minimise impacts including controlling the number of points required to cross the footpath and reviewing peak hour usage. In relation to the impacts on the park, specialist studies to date have highlighted that the proposed works will not impact on any heritage items in the park. Although it is likely that a small number of trees may need to be removed, this impact will be minimised as far as practicable.
Remediation Approach and Do Not Disturb Order
15. 1. Why is Jemena only remediating two small 1. The proposed remediation areas represent those parts of Kendall Bay where the sediments are areas of Kendall Bay (Areas A and B)? known to be contaminated at concentrations above local background levels and which pose a potential risk to users of these parts of the Bay (should exposure occur over an extended period of 2. Why has Area A and Area B increased in time) and the related aquatic environment. The shapes of the remediation areas have been size since 2011? determined from the results of investigations and risk assessments undertaken in accordance with 3. Why isn’t Jemena remediating the entire NSW EPA guidelines. This work resulted in a voluntary remediation agreement (VRA) with the shoreline around Kendall Bay? NSW EPA in September 2005. The remediation areas have been delineated as a result of numerous environmental investigations and detailed risk assessments involving the NSW EPA, the Department of Health and a number of technical experts.
8 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response 2. The proposed remediation areas have increased in size due to the availability of new data obtained by investigations conducted in October 2009 (AECOM) and in May 2011 (E3 Consult), and because a detailed human health and ecological risk assessment was completed in October 2012.
3. There are variations in contaminant concentrations in the sediments along the shoreline of Kendall Bay. However, these variations follow patterns consistent with the manner in which the contamination was likely to have been caused. The highest concentrations occur at past source locations, with concentrations decreasing with distance from the shoreline. The available information indicates that the main sources were past discharges from the former gasworks site at the south-western corner of Kendall Bay, as well as where former wharves were connected to the shoreline. The proposed remediation areas target all parts of the shoreline around Kendall Bay where the sediments are considered to pose a potential risk to users of the Bay (should exposure occur over an extended period of time) and the aquatic environment. It is not proposed to remediate those parts that don’t pose a hazard for the following reasons: a) There is no scientific justification for such work; b) To avoid disturbing and impacting the aquatic organisms that live in those sediments; c) To minimise environmental impacts that would inherently be caused by a larger remediation project; and, d) To avoid the unnecessary generation of waste that would need to be disposed off-site.
16. Jemena is only remediating a small area (2%) The ‘Do Not Disturb’ order that is currently in place was implemented and is managed by the NSW EPA. of Kendall Bay under the Voluntary Remediation Agreement (VRA) and therefore the ‘Do Not All issues pertaining to such a matter should be discussed with the NSW EPA. Jemena’s future Disturb’ order from the EPA must remain over involvement will be reviewed by the EPA following the completion of the remediation works. all of Kendall Bay. Does Jemena just walk away from the site once the VRA has been fulfilled?
17. How long are the remediation works expected A land-based approach using a portion of Cabarita Park is expected to take approximately 12-14 months to take? which is the quickest of the various approaches that have been considered by Jemena. These timeframes are approximate and will be finalised when the site access point and in turn the remediation What quantity of treated material is expected to methodology is finalised. be removed from the site? The quantity of treated material potentially to be removed is approximately 20,000m3, however this is only an estimate and subject to further refinement depending on the finalised remediation methodology.
18. How long will it take to remediate Area B? The duration of the Area B remediation depends on the approach adopted. Jemena’s proposed remediation method employed for Area B is envisaged to be a dredging approach. The dredge approach Will the exposed rocks adjacent to Area B be also has the capability to undertake mechanical excavation with a bucket or similar device, which will be treated? particularly important in Area B, where there are a number of obstructions including timber piles and rocks. Oversize material would be excavated and placed into covered bins for appropriate disposal.
9 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Where does the remediation of Area B fit into The proposed remediation of Area B requires the remediation work to be undertaken in Area A first and the overall schedule? therefore the work in Area B will be towards the end of the schedule.
Access Options Analysis and Plan B
19. How can Jemena choose the option of Cabarita A ‘Plan B’ is dependent on finding an alternative site that meets the Project criteria including adherence Park as it’s preferred option when it is obvious to the NSW EPA guidelines. Despite extensive site searches commencing in 2009 and the consideration that no ‘Plan B’ exists to compare it with? of approximately 50 sites, to date, no alternative feasible site has been identified. As part of this, Jemena has engaged the Rose Group directly, enquiring about the possibility of using the open area on the side The only excuse for not adopting a barging of the Breakfast Point development. Jemena has received written correspondence indicating that this approach appears to be that Jemena has not option is not supported. found an alternative site. The remediation approach (access via Cabarita Park) will enable the works to be executed in general accordance with the EPA guidelines of treating contaminated material at the remediation site, rather than having to transport untreated material to other locations, before treatment and disposal. As has previously been stated, access via Cabarita Park is also favoured over other approaches such as barging for a range of environmental, safety and technical considerations.
20. Won’t it be difficult for Jemena to locate a site Our experience to date is that it is, and will continue to be, difficult to locate a site, however we continue that will remain available throughout the long to look for options in that regard. The current timeframe and criteria of the DP&I is unknown, however the and variable assessment timeframe through the specialist reports are at a stage, albeit, in draft form, where Jemena can act quickly if an alternative site Department of Planning & Infrastructure is located and the remediation approach is finalised. (DP&I)?
21. It is not believed that ‘Financials’ should be a Noted. factor in considering the access options. Surely any option to remediate the two small areas is more cost effective than Jemena remediating the entire Bay.
Desire to Review Specialist Reports and Information
22. Where is the evidence of the ‘extensive Jemena will provide the community, including BAPCA, with information with respect to access and the research’ that has been undertaken to date on specialist studies, but this must be done in line with the DP&I’s environmental planning approval process the Project? Why not make this available to the and timing. In the meantime, we remain open to feedback from BAPCA and others in relation to access members of BAPCA to consider and enable us issues for this project. to work with Jemena to identify an alternative approach? Public exhibition of the environmental assessment (including selected studies and research Jemena has commissioned) will also be undertaken by DP&I. Any person will be able to read this documentation and, should they choose, make a submission to DP&I at that time, this is in line with standard practice for a 10 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Can Jemena provide the technical requirements significant project. DP&I will then ask Jemena to consider and if necessary respond to the submissions for selecting an alternative site and the list of made. sites which have been considered? The criteria for the works methodology and requirement for access point include but are not limited to: a) Will be compliant with NSW EPA contaminated site remediation principles. b) Access must include an adequate area and configuration for the servicing and carrying out of the remediation. c) Has suitable zoning or likelihood of achieving suitable zoning. d) Has suitable access for trucks to arterial roads e) Will be capable of providing legal certainty over access (i.e. the landowner can offer a legally binding agreement for the required term of occupation). f) Will enable works to be carried out with acceptable safety, including maritime safety. g) Will result in a reasonable project schedule.
23. Why haven’t the specialist reports for the The specialist reports that were started in late 2012 are currently in draft format. The finalisation of all Project Application been finalised to date? reports has been placed on hold until the site access approach has been settled, and in turn the remediation approach finalised. The work undertaken to date in preparing the specialist reports has been important in terms of establishing baseline data for use in the options analysis. Once the Project Application has been lodged with the DP&I, all of the specialist reports will be publicly available during the required exhibition period.
24. We are not convinced that the estimate of 14 Jemena acknowledges the concerns raised with regards to the traffic impacts on the community and the truck movements per day is correct. Assume Park. The specialist studies undertaken to date have included all of the relevant subject areas that are this is an average as would expect more truck required to enable a full and comprehensive assessment of the impact of the project to areas on and in movements to be required. A detailed spread close proximity to the remediation site. Included is a Traffic Report which has assessed the traffic that sheet of truck movements was requested for would be generated by the various activities throughout the Project duration. review. The number of trucks per day (14) is an estimate across the whole project length assuming the current land-based approach using a portion of Cabarita Park and the design work conducted to date. This number may slightly fluctuate up or down during the various stages of the project however the traffic generated will be dependent on the site access point and in turn the remediation methodology and will be finalised once these project aspects are settled. The community will be provided with an opportunity to review and comment on these specialist studies, as part of the DP&I’s environmental planning approval process.
Status of Planning Processes
11 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
25. The Project Application was required to be Jemena commenced discussions with DP&I in January 2013 following its commitment at the community submitted to the DP&I by 15 March 2013. Given consultation sessions in December 2012 to seek an extension to the submission date. A formal request this date has passed, has Jemena received an for an extension of time was sought in February 2013. As at early April 2013 Jemena has not received extension to the submission date for the Project any formal response from DP&I regarding an extension to the submission date. DP&I has advised Application? verbally that Jemena is likely to receive an extension of some sort. The length of that extension is not yet known. Jemena will make any formal notification on the project approval process and timing from DP&I publicly available on the Project website.
26. Will Jemena be issued with a penalty by the The 15 March 2013 deadline for submission of the Project Application is not related to the Voluntary EPA given it has not met the 15 March 2013 Remediation Agreement (VRA) entered into with the EPA in 2005. The deadline had been imposed by deadline for the submission of the Project DP&I, and relates to the Project Application which is required to be submitted to the DP&I for Application? consideration, before the remediation works may occur. The EPA, whilst being invited to comment as a State agency, does not have a regulatory role in determining that Project Application. The Director General’s Requirements for the Project Application (issued by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure) expire in August 2013, however Jemena is still in the process of undertaking assessments.
27. It appears as if Jemena has not achieved much Jemena and its project team has progressed the specialist reports up to a stage where they are now on since the last community consultation sessions hold until the site access approach has been settled and in turn the remediation approach finalised. The in December 2012. This represents a very environmental baseline data has also been established which provides important information on existing casual approach to the community on Jemena’s conditions. part. The community consultation that continues to be conducted represents an opportunity to take on board the comments and feedback from the community as part of the project approvals phase.
28. If the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) The JRPP has a Code of Conduct to follow, and this is a matter for consideration by the DP&I. appointed to review the Planning Proposal includes a Council member, isn’t this a conflict of interest seeing as Council rejected the Planning Proposal?
Community Stakeholder Desire to Work Together
29. Why does Jemena not partner with the As is typical of a large and significant project extensive community consultation on the matters covered community to reach a solution and allow an in Jemena’s Planning Proposal is being undertaken in accordance with the Department of Planning appropriate level of consultation? guideline A Guide to preparing Local Environmental Plans.
12 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response As such a community and stakeholder consultation program commenced in December 2012. The consultation process has and will continue to include a range of actions designed to actively engage the local community and seek input and feedback about the proposed remediation work (recognising that different members of the local community and interest groups have a broad range views and perspectives on various aspects of the project). Further, Jemena will actively seek community feedback on the proposed remediation work prior to submission of the Project application (including the environmental assessment and specialist studies) to DP&I. Public exhibition of the environmental assessment will also be undertaken by DP&I. Any person will be able to review this information and make a submission to DP&I at that time.
30. What extent of the community has been Newsletter No 1 (March 2013) and the earlier Fact Sheet (November 2012) were distributed to provided with communications regarding the approximately 3,600 properties in Breakfast Point, Cabarita and parts of Mortlake and Concord. Project? All information circulated in hard copy to date has detailed where community members can find further information on the Project (including Project website, community information telephone line and email How does the community know to go to the address). Project website for information? Feedback regarding ongoing communication related to the Project is noted and will be considered further Please consider placing a large advertisement by Jemena. in the newspaper. When the Project application has been submitted and is placed on public exhibition, advertisements will be placed by DP&I in newspapers. Requested that the Powerpoint presentation The PowerPoint presentation was made in April 2013 on the Project website at from the focus group session be made available www.jemena.com.au/kendallbay on the Project website.
Issues and Responses Log – uploaded 17 September 2013
31. February 2013 Jemena is committed to notifying interested members of the public when it receives the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s (DPI) response to Jemena’s request for an extension of the deadline for the Friends of Cabarita Park and Wharf request as Part 3A Application submission. This was previously set for 15 March 2013. major stakeholders in Cabarita Park, that when confirmation of your request for an extension of On 14 May 2013, Jemena received notification that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure had the Part 3A submission date for the project signed a Government Order on 4 April 2013 declaring the Kendall Bay remediation project to be a State application to the Department of Planning & Significant Development (SSD) under Clause 6 of Schedule 6A to the Environmental Planning and Infrastructure is received, that Friends of Assessment Act 1979. Cabarita Park and Wharf be advised directly. This took effect in the Government Gazette issued on 12 April 2013 and means that the project will be dealt with as a development application under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. This information was provided in the “May 2013 Update” on the project website and can now be viewed under the link “Previous Updates” on the same website.
13 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response The transition of the Kendall Bay Remediation Project from Part 3A to the SSD framework will provide Jemena with an improved opportunity to fully engage with the local community as well as to adequately complete all the necessary specialist studies. Jemena is currently reviewing the DPI decision and will communicate a revised project schedule in due course. The above information was communicated directly to Friends of Cabarita Park on 3 June 2013.
32. March 2013 During the course of the feasibility studies undertaken for the Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project, Jemena explored alternative site access options for the project. This has included investigating We totally reject Jemena’s use of Cabarita Park possible water access options. Consideration of alternative access options for the project will be for use as a work station. There have been no ongoing. At this stage, whilst no feasible water option or barging landing sites have been identified, other options offered for consideration. We live Jemena is considering other technical methodologies and alternative site access options. Subsequently, adjacent to this area proposed and are horrified following an extensive and ongoing review of alternative properties, since 2009, Jemena has identified a at what effect this will have on the value of our property – 140 Tennyson Road – located on the northern end of Breakfast Point, which may be utilised home. The anxiety that this matter has caused to service the remediation works. Jemena is currently undertaking extensive due diligence studies to us is very unfair, we have been here for 13 assess the technical, legal and environmental suitability of the property. years and suffered with all of the obnoxious odours for the whole time Breakfast Point has Access options require careful consideration with respect to potential environmental impacts. Studies will been developing, as well as the noise and dust. be provided as part of the respective legislative planning processes, including during the necessary If this area has to be remediated wouldn’t public exhibition periods. barging at least not be as intrusive on our lives?
33. March 2013 During the course of the feasibility studies undertaken for the Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project, Jemena explored alternative site access options for project. At this stage, whilst no feasible I strongly object to your proposal to use water option or barging landing sites have been identified, Jemena is considering other technical Cabarita Park as a staging point to cart polluted methodologies and alternative site access options. Subsequently, following an extensive and ongoing matter from Kendall Bay. I also object to review of alternative properties, since 2009, Jemena has identified a property – 140 Tennyson Road – Jemena using Cabarita Park for any business located on the northern end of Breakfast Point, which may be utilised to service the remediation works. purposes. Jemena is currently undertaking extensive due diligence studies to assess the technical, legal and This park is a recreation area and is very much environmental suitability of the property. Cabarita Park remains a feasible option to carry out the used by visitors and locals. Any occupation will remediation work, until such time that the due diligence assessments on 140 Tennyson Road have been also interfere with commuter's access to the finalised and the findings reviewed. ferry & bus at Cabarita Wharf. Access options require careful consideration with respect to potential environmental impacts. Studies will Jemena has been fully aware of its obligations be provided as part of the respective legislative planning processes, including during the necessary regarding pollution in the Parramatta River & public exhibition periods. Kendall Bay for a long time, but has chosen not The potential impacts that are likely to occur in the vicinity of the temporary works compound area and to fulfil its obligations, instead waiting until the vehicle access routes in Cabarita Park can be managed. Further, disruption to park users will be area was fully developed before acting. minimised as access to the foreshore footpath and ferry wharf will be retained throughout the remediation works.
14 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Any polluted matter should be removed by way of barge through a non-residential area.
34. March 2013 During the course of the feasibility studies undertaken for the Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project, Jemena explored alternative site access options for the project. This has included investigating As a resident of Edgewood, I object to the possible water access options. Consideration of alternative access options for the project will be proposal to use Cabarita Park as a toxic ongoing. At this stage, whilst no feasible water option or barging landing sites have been identified, dumping ground. AGL sold the land to Jemena is considering other technical methodologies and alternative site access options. Subsequently, Rosecorp for the express purpose of creating following an extensive and ongoing review of alternative properties, since 2009, Jemena has identified a the suburb of Breakfast Point and pocketing property – 140 Tennyson Road – located on the northern end of Breakfast Point, which may be utilised millions of dollars profit. Inherent in this to service the remediation works. Jemena is currently undertaking extensive due diligence studies to transaction is the responsibility of remediating assess the technical, legal and environmental suitability of the property. Cabarita Park remains a feasible Kendall Bay at their own expense, not the larger option to carry out the remediation work, until such time that the due diligence assessments on 140 communities. Tennyson Rd have been finalised and the findings reviewed. I find it totally outrageous that Rosecorp has left The proposed that use of Cabarita Park is for access to the remediation site as well as the potential this remediation process drag on while their location of a temporary works compound. No processing of contaminated sediment will occur in the Breakfast Point development has been Park. proceeded to build more and more apartments. Your points regarding Rosecorp are noted. Plan B: using barges is the only real alternative to the remediation process. As discussed at various public meetings, the barging of contaminated sediment is not considered a viable option as to date no alternative barge landing site have being identified. The extensive use of Jemena needs to listen to community discontent barges in Kendall Bay will be subject to technical constraints that make the option unviable, moreover to and would be well advised to engage in real date Jemena has not been successful in identifying suitable alternative sites within Sydney Harbour and community engagement, not token liaison by the Parramatta River, to which material can be barged. All access options require careful consideration having community meetings with with respect to potential environmental impacts. Studies will be provided as part of the respective representatives of the community. legislative planning processes, including during the necessary public exhibition periods. Jemena acknowledges the community’s desire to engage on various matters, particularly those pertaining to the access to the Kendall Bay Remediation Site. To this end, Jemena is finalising a compilation of access-related-studies it has undertaken since 2009. Once this is completed, Jemena will be able to further engage with the community. To date Jemena has consulted with the community through various forums and media. Community consultation has involved meetings with the broader community, which were informed by means of ‘posted’ invitations, focus group meetings as well as the distribution of various information newsletters. Recently advertisements have been placed in the local newspapers inviting community members to register their interest for the participation in a Community Liaison Stakeholder group, which in addition to community wide meetings will provide a means for Jemena to engage with the public.
35. March 2013 Relevant studies will be provided as part of the respective legislative planning process. Detailed analysis of options in relation to alternative access options will be considered for the project and included as part 15 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response I found one of your "Newsletter Issue 2 March of the Project Application. This will be completed and placed on public exhibition upon lodgement. This 2013" in my letter box the other day and, on will be posted on the Department of Planning & Infrastructure website and also the project website reading it, I note that on page 2, under the www.jemena.com.au/kendallbay. heading "Planning Proposal", it says "Based on extensive research to date..." it is "...most In addition, Jemena acknowledges the desire by the community to engage on various matters, appropriate..." to use Cabarita Park for the particularly those pertaining to the access to the Kendall Bay Remediation Site. To this end, Jemena is proposed remediation. finalising a compilation of the access-related-studies it has undertaken since 2009. Once completed, Jemena will be able to further engage with the community. I would be pleased to get a copy of the "extensive research" referred to in the Newsletter.
36. April 2013 During the course of the feasibility studies undertaken for the Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project, Jemena explored alternative site access options for project. This has included investigating I would like to express my opinion regarding the possible water access options. Consideration of alternative access options for the project will be Remediation Project of Kendall Bay. ongoing. At this stage, whilst no feasible water option or barging landing sites have been identified, As a resident who lives on Cabarita Road, Jemena is considering other technical methodologies and alternative site options. Cabarita Park remains nearby the entrance to the park, myself and my a feasible option available to carry out the remediation work. family are strongly objecting to the use of Notwithstanding the above, Jemena continues to evaluate various feasible site access alternatives for Cabarita Park to remove the waste. It is a family the remediation project. Access options require careful consideration with respect to potential area and frequented by people most of the day environmental impacts. and night. We also object to the trucks that will be going back and forth to take the waste away. A social impact assessment has commenced and will consider the impacts to the local and surrounding community as a consequence of the works, including impacts to commuters, park users and others. In We do not want this in our area. addition, there would be a range of management strategies employed to minimise such impacts. Jemena should barge the waste out, possibly taking it up river and having the trucks access it from Olympic Park - there is a lot of space there and it does not impact on residential area. I eagerly await further information, but will participate in protests against Jemena and actively get media coverage if required.
37. April 2013 Thank you for providing us with the latest bapca statement. Copy of statement by bapca concerning present situation regarding Jemena proposal to remediate Kendall Bay via Cabarita Park
16 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Attached is an update of bapca’s current position and outcomes of discussions with Jemena, Local Member and Council.
38. May 2013 Your concern with respect to Jemena disputing Canada Bay Council’s decision is noted. My wife and I are extremely unhappy that Jemena is committed to remediating Kendall Bay, in line with the Voluntary Remediation Agreement Jemena is disputing Canada Bay Council’s (VRA) agreed with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Jemena is seeking a review of decision and that progress to-date is limited. Council’s decision, as, based on the extensive work undertaken to date, Jemena remains of the opinion that accessing the remediation site through Cabarita Park is still the most appropriate approach, given The clean-up should occur via a barge so as not environmental, safety and technical considerations. The request for the review was also based on the to impact Cabarita Park. The cause of the situation at that time in that Jemena could not identify a suitable alternative access point to the pollution is Jemena / AGL, they should pay to remediation site. Access via Cabarita Park enables the works to be completed in general accordance resolve this, and with minimal impact to with the EPA’s preferred policy of treating contaminated material at the remediation site, rather than community or environment. having to transport untreated material to other locations, before treatment and disposal.
39. June 2013 Thank you for your email regarding your school assignment on the Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project. In response to your email, we offer the following responses to the questions you have raised: I am residing in Breakfast Point and am a student at North Sydney Girls High School. For 1) The proposed remediation works involve the treatment and removal of sediments in two areas of my Year 10 Senior Geography Project, I am Kendall Bay (described as Area A and Area B), as well as carrying out further works within those asked to Investigate an issue in my local area areas to re-establish and maintain environmental attributes. (whether it is environmental or social) and do fieldwork and collect primary data regarding the Based on the work undertaken to date, Jemena remains of the opinion that a land-based approach issue. I have decided to investigate the for accessing the remediation site through Cabarita Park is the most appropriate approach, given remediation plan of Kendall Bay, its’ possible environmental, safety and technical considerations. Jemena acknowledges the community’s desire impacts on Cabarita Park or the environment to engage on various matters, particularly those pertaining to the access to the remediation site. To and how the past industrial activity in the areas this end, Jemena is finalising a compilation of the access-related-studies it has undertaken since of Breakfast Point, Cabarita and Mortlake 2009. Once completed, Jemena will be able to further engage with the community. Additionally, to (namely the AGL gas works and various other ensure that all practical alternative options are fully assessed, Jemena is continuing to review its factories) affect its current residential research and analysis of possible alternative site access remediation options. developments. More information regarding Jemena’s proposed approach to remediating parts of Kendall Bay can It would be greatly appreciated if you could be found on the Project website located at (http://jemena.com.au/kendallbay/) with information input in to my primary research for this project including a Fact Sheet, a document called Frequently Asked Questions, Presentations from Focus by answering a few questions. Group Sessions and various responses to questions and feedback received from interested and affected parties (or stakeholders). Firstly, I would like to know what your current proposed plan for the remediation of Kendall 2) Jemena acknowledges the concerns which have been raised by members of the surrounding Bay is and why Jemena believes that this is the community and Council, particularly in relation to whether alternative approaches to access Kendall best possible plan for the remediation of Kendall Bay have been adequately considered. Jemena also acknowledges the feedback received from Bay. What are some of the other methods of stakeholders in this matter including (but not limited to) the Bay and Park Communities Alliance,
17 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response remediation or plans that Jemena wants to Breakfast Point Residents, Friends of Cabarita Park and City of Canada Bay Council. For your implement for the remediation of Kendall Bay? reference, Jemena commenced a community and stakeholder program in December 2012. The consultation process has and will continue to include a range of actions designed to actively Secondly, I would like to know how Jemena engage the local community and seek input and feedback about the proposed remediation. feels about the disagreements that is arising Following an extensive and ongoing review of alternative properties, since 2009, Jemena has with the Bay and Park Communities Alliance, identified a property – 140 Tennyson Road – located on the Northern end of Breakfast Point, which the Breakfast Point Residents group and with may be utilised to service the remediation works. Jemena is currently undertaking extensive due the Canada Bay Council (if there are others, diligence studies to assess the technical, legal and environmental suitability of the property. please specify) and their discontent of Jemena’s Cabarita Park remains a feasible option to carry out the remediation work, until such time that the proposal for the remediation. Are their opinions due diligence assessments on 140 Tennyson Road have been finalised and reviewed. being considered, and how may you go about changing your proposals to suit their needs? 3) Jemena has for some time and continues to engage with the NSW Government regarding the project. This includes but is not limited to matters pertaining to the transition of the Kendall Bay Thirdly, it would be great if you could briefly Remediation Project from a Part 3A Application to an Application for State Significant Development mention what is being done with Jemena and under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. By way of update, on 14 May 2013, the State Government in attempt to have the Jemena received notification that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure had signed a proposal accepted by government. Government Order on 4 April 2013 declaring the Kendall Bay Remediation Project to be a State Lastly, I would like to know whether Jemena Significant Development (SSD) under Clause 6 of Schedule 6A to the Environmental Planning and feels that the previous industrial activity (namely Assessment Act 1979. This took effect in the Government Gazette issued on 12 April 2013 and the AGL gas works and other factories around means that the project will be dealt with as a development application under Part 4 of the these areas) has impacted on the new Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Jemena also engages with the NSW residential developments around Cabarita and Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) regarding the project. Breakfast Point, and whether you feel that the 4) The sediment remediation works are required to address potential health and environmental risks remediation plans for the future will impact on posed by the contaminated sediments within Kendall Bay, pursuant to a Voluntary Remediation homebuyers’ or current residents’ decisions to Agreement (VRA) entered into with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Therefore, purchase a property or continue living in these Jemena remains committed to meeting the NSW EPA’s requirements for remediating Kendall Bay. areas. This last question asks for general opinions and will not be used as a means to We trust that the above responses are of assistance to you and we wish you all the best with your judge the potential consequences of the studies. remediation of Kendall Bay (if it is implemented in the future). Responses to these questions (even if only some) will be greatly appreciated to assist me with this investigation.
40. June 2013 Information regarding Jemena’s proposed approach to remediating parts of Kendall Bay can be found on the Project website located at (http://jemena.com.au/kendallbay/) with information including a Fact I am a Year 11 PLC Sydney Student who is Sheet, a document called Frequently Asked Questions, Presentations from Focus Group Sessions and completed a firsthand investigation on the various responses to questions and feedback from interested and affected parties (or stakeholders). remediation of Kendall Bay Breakfast Point.
18 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response I am very interested in this proposed project, as 1) The purpose of the Project is to meet the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) it concerns my community and local requirements for the remediation of Kendall Bay such that it meets all ecological and human health environment. If possible could you send through objectives as stipulated in the Voluntary Remediation Agreement (VRA) which Jemena entered into any information you may have on the with the EPA in 2005. remediation. Assessment of the sediments in Kendall Bay commenced in 2002. Following several years of Additionally I have a few questions I wish to investigations and discussion with authorities, in September 2005, Australian Gas Light Company, ask. now Jemena, entered into a Voluntary Remediation Agreement (VRA) with the NSW EPA. The VRA sets out Jemena’s obligations to further assess and remediate sediments in Kendall Bay. In What do you believe is the purpose of 2007, Jemena committed to remediating two areas within Kendall Bay. remediation works in Kendall Bay? 2) A full environmental assessment and approval is required by law before any remediation can proceed. A range of specialist studies are being prepared to enable a full and comprehensive If Jemena were to proceed with the process of assessment of the impact of the project on the environment as well as the local community. Once remediation of Kendall Bay, what would be the the Project Application for the proposed remediation works has been lodged with the Department of environmental and community impact? Planning and Infrastructure, relevant reports will be publicly available during the required exhibition period. Thank-you for your time. Any responses- please reply to this email address. Whilst any proposed remediation works are likely to be associated with some temporary impact to the community and environment, Jemena intends on managing such impacts through appropriate mitigation strategies.
41. Communication to Jemena via NSW EPA June We wish to provide you some more information, in addition to the previous email we sent to you 2013. regarding your question on the River Quays Marina and your more recent email dated 16 July 2013. You may have seen the below advice from We are continually investigating new options to try and satisfy the community concerns regarding the Jemena regarding additional sediment project and in particular, whether there is an alternative to the proposed use of a portion of Cabarita Park investigation in Kendall Bay. It was our for carrying out the remediation project. As part of this, we are talking to various landowners in the area impression from two Jemena presentations that and further afield to try and find a viable solution and to ensure that all practical alternative access they had undertaken all necessary options are fully assessed. Currently, nothing has reached the stage where it looks viable. investigations and were in the throes of putting forward their complete proposal prior to the Please be assured that we will be in contact with you to let you know if and when any access option March deadline (now extended). reaches a point where we consider it may have greater certainty for carrying out the remediation project. Are you aware of the purpose of these new We do acknowledge the community’s desire to engage on a number of matters regarding the investigations and what matters are being remediation project. Jemena is currently finalising a newsletter for the local community, which will detail investigated to further inform residents? the establishment of a community reference group and detail our commitment for ongoing consultation. This will be followed by an expression of interest process for membership of the community reference Communication to Jemena July 2013. group, which is envisaged to be sent to a range of established community groups and will be advertised in the local newspaper in August 2013. I trust this information is satisfactory, however, if you have any A query we have, we have heard that Jemena questions, please do not hesitate to contact the project team. are considering the leasing of the River Quays Marina adjacent to Kendall Bay. Is this correct 19 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response and is it related to the remediation work in Kendall Bay in anyway?
42. August 13. Access to carry out the remediation work is proposed through a portion of Cabarita Park that is directly adjacent to Kendall Bay. An area of the Park is also required for a temporary works compound. These I have just read the newsletter on the Kendall matters are currently being progressed with City of Canada Bay Council, the owner of the Park. Bay Sediment Remediation Project. There will be no treatment of sediments within Cabarita Park itself and consequently the Park will not be Could you tell me, if you are using Cabarita used a hazardous material dumping ground. Park as the dumping ground - will you still be able to access the Cabarita Wharf by the Note public access to the majority of Cabarita Park will not be affected and a pedestrian walkway from walkway from Breakfast Point? Breakfast Point to Cabarita Wharf will be maintained. In addition, areas of Cabarita Park affected by the Project will be rehabilitated following the completion, in consultation with City of Canada Bay Council. The potential impacts that are likely to occur in the vicinity of the temporary works compound area and vehicle access routes can be managed. Further, disruption to park users will be minimised as access to the foreshore footpath and ferry wharf will be retained throughout the remediation works.
Issues and Responses Log – uploaded 20 September 2013
43. August 2013 The remediation employed at Rhodes was undertaken using excavation and treatment using a thermal desorption process with reinstatement of material on site that met certain criteria (reference Rhodes Dear Sir, Remediation Projects website). In this treatment process the soil or other medium is heated until the As a resident living in Breakfast Point, I am very contaminants turn into vapour or gas, with the contaminant vapour then being destroyed by a concerned about the way Kendal Bay will be combustion process. Our current remediation option is to blend the sediments with cement or similar cleared of the toxic sediment. Is it like the way material to stabilise the contaminants and transport off site, rather than use thermal desorption and re- when the bay near Rhodes was cleaned, use the materials on site. Jemena will also cap the remaining sediments with clean material and to causing serious air pollution for 4 years? restore the seabed to the original level. Thank you for your attention. A full and comprehensive assessment of the impact of the project on the environment as well as the local community will be undertaken. A range of measures will also be identified to ensure that odour and dust are managed in accordance with relevant legislation and guidelines and will also be used to mitigate any potential offensive odours to nearby residential properties and excessive air emissions relating to dust.
44. August 2013 The ecological assessment work that has been undertaken (yet to be finalised) as part of the environmental assessment for the project indicates that the mangroves within the southern portion of Dear Sir/ Madam, Kendall Bay are in a disturbed state as a result of the contamination and therefore may be removed as I read with interest the proposed remediation part of carrying out the remediation project. However, new mangroves will be replanted following the project at Kendall Bay which is scheduled to be remediation work in consultation with relevant stakeholders. Therefore there could be a potential completed in 2015. I am with the 1st Yaralla Sea opportunity for the Yaralla Sea Scout Group to become involved and we would welcome this. Scout Group and our Group has run a 20 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response mangrove planting program since 2008 along Jemena is committed to a public consultation process and will continue to consult with members of the the Parramatta River. Each year we encourage community and stakeholders on matters relating to the remediation of Kendall Bay, a process that our youth members to propagate mangrove commenced in late 2012. The consultation program involves a number of activities, including amongst seedlings and, once they are about 20 cms high other, open community sessions, broad community focus groups, stakeholder briefings, and the we have transplanted them at various locations formation of a community liaison group (CLG). along the Parramatta River. To date we have had limited success due to the wave action of Please may I propose that representatives from the Yaralla Sea Scout Group attend a future community the river cats. Some of our Venturers attended event and/ or apply to join the CLG. Should you be interested in participating in the CLG, please contact an Environmental Camp and discussed different us by emailing the project team at [email protected] by Friday 4 October 2013. Notices of all ways of increasing the likelihood of the upcoming events will be published on the project webpage www.jemena.com.au/kendallbay . seedlings taking hold which we will be trialing The CLG will include a mix of participants selected through an openly-advertised expression of interest this coming season. Would this project be able process and invited participants who represent community groups, environmental groups and local to fit in with the remediation work at Kendall Bay businesses. In addition, an open community session is currently being planned for late October 2013, and if so, what would be the best way to during which Jemena will provide an update on the project. coordinate the efforts of the Scout Group? Would it be best if I applied for the Community Liaison Group? Your advice on this matter would be appreciated. Yours Truly
45. September 2013 Thank you for writing. Firstly, we would like to stress that Jemena is very conscious of concerns regarding the use of Cabarita Park and has continued to search for alternative access options over I am writing to lodge a protest at the method by recent months. which Jemena plans to do the 2% remediation of Kendall Bay. It is outrageous that Jemena The sediment remediation works are required to address potential health and environmental risks posed think it okay to destroy so many trees - our by contaminated sediments within the Bay, pursuant to a Voluntary Remediation Agreement (VRA) natural heritage - for such a small project. This entered into with the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) in 2005. are with all the native trees you plan to destroy will take a 100 years to rebuild if we are able to Since 2007, Jemena has been investigating a range of options to remediate areas of Kendall Bay. All rebuild it at all and all this for such a short term remediation options considered have been evaluated against a set of environmental, social, planning project and profit. and technical criteria. Access to the remediation site has been one of the most limiting factors. Please please consider an alternative method Since 2009, Jemena has been exploring suitable foreshore sites from which to access the remediation by which you do this work as it is entirely site and has researched numerous sites within Sydney Harbour and Parramatta River. Until recently, ridiculous that you want to destroy such a large Cabarita Park was considered by Jemena as the only viable site which could serve as both an access area of natural heritage and beauty for such point to the Bay and for the establishment of a temporary works compound area. short term gain. Is it at all possible that we could In recent months, Jemena became aware of the potential sale of a property near Kendall Bay at 140 have a company that really thinks long term and Tennyson Road, Mortlake (River Quays Marina). The property was previously unavailable. Preliminary protects the environment? Could we possibly
21 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response hold out hope that you will consider how you studies indicate that this property may be a viable alternative option to access the remediation site in impact the local area? which case the project would not require the use of Cabarita Park. Thank you We have recently completed a transaction where the organisation has an exclusive option to purchase the Tennyson Road property by the end of 2013. Completion of the purchase will depend on the outcome of detailed due diligence, which includes technical, environmental, legal, planning and social impact investigations. Please note that the suitability of the Tennyson Road site is not yet a certainty. If Cabarita Park is pursued as an access option, planning approval would be required before any work can commence. This process would include a full environmental assessment and approval supported by a range of specialist studies, including arboreal and heritage studies. These studies would identify steps to mitigate any adverse impacts on Cabarita Park. In doing this Jemena will demonstrate that they have completed studies and understand the heritage issues associated with the park including the significance of certain trees. The specialist studies will include all of the relevant subject areas that are required to enable a full and comprehensive assessment of the impact of the project on the environment at, and in close proximity to, the remediation site. This includes assessing impacts on Cabarita Park itself, as well as on the local community. A social impact assessment has commenced and will consider the impacts to the local and surrounding community as a consequence of the works. In relation to the impacts on the park, specialist studies to date have highlighted that the proposed works (access via Cabarita Park) will not impact on any heritage items in the park. Although it is likely that a small number of trees may need to be removed, this impact would be minimised as far as practicable. The Park would also rehabilitated in consultation with City of Canada Bay Council.
Questions submitted by participants at 4 November 2013 CIFS
46. Will toxic particles be emitted as a result of the Toxic particles will not be emitted to the air, as a result of the works. works? All potentially offensive odours, which may be associated with the treatment of the sediments, will be managed as a result of all treatment works being proposed to occur within an enclosed area, which will be under negative pressure thereby ensuring that all air is treated before being released to the atmosphere. Air will be treated through an Emissions Control System (ECS) where air will be extracted from the enclosed area and passed through appropriate pollution abatement systems to remove all odour, prior to releasing it into the atmosphere. Ongoing monitoring will occur across the site as well as at any area, required by the EPA, to ensure that odour does not impact on the surrounding communities. All work will be required to adhere, as a minimum, to any odour threshold levels stipulated by the EPA or otherwise contained in the respective regulations.
22 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response With respect to any potential for toxic particles to be released into the bay it should be noted that all work areas will be enclosed with silt curtains, ensuring that pollution will remain within the contaminated areas being remediated. Moreover, water quality monitoring will be undertaken for the entire duration of the project. All results will be compared to existing baseline conditions as well as being required to comply with both EPA and regulatory requirements.
47. How many truck movements will there be? Current estimates indicate that there will be between 2-4 truck movements per hour. One truck movement means a one way trip. It is likely to be closer to 2 truck movements an hour. These estimates are considered to be representative of the highest level of activity. The project will be associated with site establishment and decommissioning phases which will likely be associated with fewer movements. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will assess any potential impacts associated with the estimated truck movements.
48. What odour and noise impacts will there be? The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will identify and assess all potential impacts that may arise from the works associated with the remediation works. This will include the assessment of all potential odour and noise related impacts as well as any mitigation measures which may be required. All potential impacts will be assessed in terms of the Remediation Action Plan (RAP), which is currently being developed.
49. Where will the trucks go? Route? The truck routes have not yet been determined. They will be developed through extensive specialist studies undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Statement.
50. Will works impact on walkways around Kendall It is currently envisaged that the works will not impact on any walkways around Kendall Bay. Bay?
51. The Mangroves in the river look healthy and are The remediation is required by the EPA because of the level of risk to human health. Contact with the shooting. Isn’t this remediation overkill for two contaminants in the remediation areas has been calculated to increase the risk of cancer by 1:10,000 in small sites? a lifetime. The Department of Health requirements say that anything exceeding 1:100,000 is unacceptable. Therefore, Kendall Bay poses ten times the level of accepted risk. It may be noted, however, that the guidelines used to calculate risk are conservative (e.g. the drinking water guideline is based on the assumption of the consumption of 2L per day every day). Nevertheless, the EPA has applied national and international standards by which Jemena must abide. The EPA is concerned with intergenerational equity. In other words, if we have the tools to fix something now, let’s not leave it for another generation.
23 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will identify and assess all potential impacts that may arise from the works associated with the remediation works, including the mangroves.
52. Why remediate? Why remediate the identified The remediation is required by the EPA because of the level of risk to human health. Contact with the areas? contaminants in the remediation areas has been calculated to increase the risk of cancer by 1:10,000 in a lifetime. The Department of Health requirements say that anything exceeding 1:100,000 is unacceptable. Therefore, Kendall Bay poses ten times the level of accepted risk. It may be noted, however, that the guidelines used to calculate risk are conservative (e.g. the drinking water guideline is based on the assumption of the consumption of 2L per day every day). Nevertheless, the EPA has applied national and international standards by which Jemena must abide. The EPA is concerned with intergenerational equity. In other words, if we have the tools to fix something now, let’s not leave it for another generation. The two areas identified as requiring remediation have been selected as such based on investigation of the sediments and the concentration of contaminants that have been reported.
53. Water treatment – recycled to which part of the The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will identify and assess all potential impacts that may arise Bay? Does this create extra wash effect/tidal from the works associated with the remediation works. This will include the assessment of all potential against sea walls? hydrological and water quality related impacts as well as any mitigation measures which may be required. All potential impacts will be assessed in terms of the Remediation Action Plan (RAP), which is currently being developed. All issues raised will be included as part of the scope of the necessary specialist studies, which will inform the EIS.
54. Will the works impact on mangroves? The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will identify and assess all potential impacts that may arise from the works associated with the remediation works, including the mangroves.
55. How long ago was the most recent assessment Assessments, specifically with regard to the sediments within Kendall Bay, have been ongoing since of Zones A and B? What time frame is between 2006 and have continued through to 2013. Recent investigations have noted that there has been no assessments? Any change noted? noticeable decline in the level of contamination, with respect to tars located in the sediments.
56. Hours of operation of treatment plant? Hours of The works are planned to operate between Council regulated hours. trucking movement? During the water treatment time, there may be a requirement to marginally exceed Council regulated hours, but only if Jemena can demonstrate to Council that it can minimise noise impacts and get agreement from the community.
24 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
Questions Tabled at CLG #2, 21 November 2013 – submitted via email by community liaison group members
57. Can we see independent expert reports on The detailed technical reports prepared as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (to commence noise, health, traffic and environmental impact early next year) will be uploaded to the website when available. In the meantime the Human Health Risk of proposal? Assessment and Environmental Risk Assessment reports can be accessed on the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/ .
58. Can we see a copy of the current Jemena The Remediation Action Plan will be publicly available after it is finalised. proposal?
59. Why is the proposal one of State Significance? This matter is at the discretion of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. The Kendall Bay Remediation Project was originally required to meet the requirements of Part 3A, however following various transitional arrangements, implemented by the Department of Planning (DP&I) the project has been declared a State Significant Development (SSD) in terms of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This was gazetted in April 2013.
60. Why has the EPA allowed remediation to occur Please refer to EPA PowerPoint presentation - Slide #17. after development had commenced? Why has http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Kendall-Bay-Remediation- this process been delayed for so long? Project_CLG-Meeting-2_EPA-Presentation.pdf
61. There have been incidents of high rates of NSW Health is not aware of this. Please contact NSW Health directly regarding this concern. cancer when remediation at Breakfast Point was undertaken. Can we see a relevant history of the health effects?
62. Can we have more representation from Agreed. Two additional members have been appointed to the CLG. Mortlake?
63. What guarantees exist that contaminated The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will identify and assess all potential impacts that may arise product will not escape the proposed facility- from the works associated with the remediation works. This will include the assessment of all potential either into the air or the water? hydrological and water quality related impacts as well as any mitigation measures which may be required. All potential impacts will be assessed in terms of the Remediation Action Plan (RAP), which is currently being developed
64. Has Jemena considered legal implications of The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will identify and assess all potential impacts that may arise any harm to residents due to increased from the works associated with the remediation works. All potential impacts will be assessed in terms of pollution, noise and traffic? the Remediation Action Plan (RAP), which is currently being developed. Should the Department of Planning and Infrastructure determine, based on the findings of the EIS, that the project potential may result in unacceptable harm to the environment or surrounding communities, they may consider withholding approval or alternatively request that Jemena reconsider key aspects of the proposed remediation project. 25 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
65. Has Jemena considered that Mortlake is a The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will identify assess all potential impacts that may arise from rapidly growing community and may double in the works associated with the remediation works. All potential impacts will be assessed in terms of the size within a year? Remediation Action Plan (RAP), which is currently being developed.
66. Would Jemena executives live in Mortlake? Thank you. Your comments are noted.
67. All options need consideration not just the River Please refer to the community liaison group (CLG) meeting #2 EPA PowerPoint presentation – Slide #16 Quays option. The "do nothing "option was http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Kendall-Bay-Remediation- clearly one that a large number of those Project_CLG-Meeting-2_EPA-Presentation.pdf attending the public meeting on 16th September clearly wanted to have addressed.
68. Health Issues - in order for the "do nothing" Please refer to the Human Health Risk Assessment on the project website – option to be addressed, it is essential to be www.kendallbayremediation.com.au. made aware of the potential health risks both from exposure to the surrounding air and water contaminants.
69. Ongoing Management of Contaminants - if and Please refer to the community liaison group (CLG) meeting #2 EPA PowerPoint presentation - Slides when the area of the Bay is remediated, how #13,14 & 15 are the long term contamination issues going to http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Kendall-Bay-Remediation- be managed and who will be responsible for the Project_CLG-Meeting-2_EPA-Presentation.pdf management of those contaminants?
70. Migration of Contaminants - how will the Specific details regarding the method to be utilised for the remediation works and ongoing environmental movement of other contaminants in the Bay and monitoring of potential impacts during and following the completion of the works is still to be confirmed. elsewhere be controlled after the areas However, on-going monitoring for a specified period is considered necessary following the completion of identified for remediation are clean? the remediation works and will occur. The length of time on-going monitoring will continue for will depend on the impact being monitored and the duration over which consistent acceptable results are obtained.
71. Community Liaison Group - it is suggested that Noted. the meetings of the group should be aligned with the action plan for managing the endorsed option (once that is finalised).
72. Newsletter - there is a clear need for the Noted. The aerial map has since been corrected. Newsletter to be 100% accurate as the last Newsletter seems to show the RMS site in Hilly Street and not 140 Tennyson Road.
26 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
73. Why can’t the “contaminated soil/sand” be taken The EPA refers to a guidance provided in the Contaminated Sites Guidance for the NSW Site Auditor away by barge, therefore not impacting on Scheme. That guidance identifies the preferred soil management strategy as being ‘on-site treatment of surrounding residents with smell, traffic issues the soil so that the contaminant is either destroyed or the associated hazard is reduced to an acceptable with trucks accessing & noise? level’. A guidance that is in accord with the Commonwealth Government National Environment Protection Measures (NEPM).
With reference to this, the EPA have stated publicly that they are unlikely to agree to the transport of untreated sediments from Kendall Bay.
Jemena may only work within the guidelines as set by regulatory authorities, such as the EPA.
74. If the area is so badly contaminated why aren't Please refer to the community liaison group (CLG) meeting #2 EPA PowerPoint presentation – Slides there danger signs displayed? #11 & 12. http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Kendall-Bay-Remediation- Project_CLG-Meeting-2_EPA-Presentation.pdf
Other signs established before were vandalised. Council is to place more signs in the area.
75. Children's sand and play toys are kept onsite The EPA does not have the authority to remove toys in the area. There will be new signs put up by near the area by local residents, and used by Council to inform people. local children, children regularly bathe in the water and play in the sand, if there is such a problem why have they been left & not taken away so not to discourage playing in the sand or why are there no notices about the dangers?
76. Tidal disturbance over the years hasn't moved No. Please refer to the community liaison group (CLG) meeting #2 EPA PowerPoint presentation – Slide the offending sand/soil away? #6 http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Kendall-Bay-Remediation- Project_CLG-Meeting-2_EPA-Presentation.pdf
77. If only 2 percent of the problem is being treated Please refer to the community liaison group (CLG) meeting #2 EPA PowerPoint presentation – Slides #2 what about the other 98 percent left? What is & #7 the point of all this for such a small amount of http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Kendall-Bay-Remediation- improvement? Project_CLG-Meeting-2_EPA-Presentation.pdf
27 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
78. Concerns this has been a ploy to finally have a Jemena has no commercial interest in the area. Moreover, it is likely that following the completion of the marina? remediation of the bay, the engineered cap will require very specific controls, including its inability to bear any significant weight, in order to ensure its ongoing integrity.
79. If the River Quays site becomes the processing Jemena proposes to sell the site to a suitable developer, following the completion of the Kendall Bay site in the future, what is the future plan for this Remediation Project. site when it’s done?
80. What guarantees can the EPA/Jemena/Health After the remediation, children will be able to play in the beach without subject to undue risk. offer that the Bay will be “fixed” after the Please refer to the CLG Meeting #2 EPA PowerPoint presentation - Slide #13. remediation, ie to the extent that they can recommend children can swim in the bay and http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Kendall-Bay-Remediation- play on the beaches? If they can’t what’s the Project_CLG-Meeting-2_EPA-Presentation.pdf point of going through this expensive and disruptive exercise?
81. What is the proposed long term intention of Jemena proposes to sell the site to a suitable developer, following the completion of the Kendall Bay Jemena vis-a-vis the River Quays site after the Remediation Project. remediation is complete?
82. What is likely to happen to the mangroves The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will assess the ecological function of the mangroves as well under this new proposal? as evaluate various remediation approaches. A final decision in this regard will be made once all specialist studies have been completed and reviewed.
83. What route will the trucks take? The truck routes have not yet been determined. This will be assessed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement.
84. What will happen after sludge is removed from It is proposed that following the removal of impacted sediments from Kendall Bay, an engineered cap will the Bay; will the “holes” be filled or left so that be placed on top the areas dredged. Following that, a sand layer will be in-filled in order to protect the Areas A and B will be deeper? cap as well as return the riverbed to its current levels.
Issues and Responses Log – uploaded 11 December 2013
85. 29/09/13 Thank you for your enquiry. Responses to each of your questions are provided as follows; We are residents of Breakfast Point & Why only remediate 2% of the bay and what particular interest does Jemena see in this particular area? concerned about the proposed part remediation of the bay. My query is why only remediate 2% The need to undertake the remediation of Kendall Bay is a result of the NSW Environmental Protection of the bay; surely this will disturb any toxic Authority (EPA) declaring an area within 200 metres of the land based boundary of the former AGL substances & just move these elsewhere within Mortlake gasworks as being potentially contaminated (an area of the bay was declared to be a the bay. What particular interest does Jemena “remediation site” in 2004). This declaration resulted in a series of assessments being undertaken of the see in this particular area? Why not just leave sediments within Kendall Bay, which led to the conclusion that parts of the bay are considered to be 28 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response the entire bay untouched as per the experience contaminated above local background levels (indicative of the greater Sydney Harbour area) and pose a at Homebush Bay. potential risk to users of these parts of the bay (should exposure occur over an extended period of time) and the related aquatic environment.
When the AGL Group was split up in late 2006, Jemena inherited the Group’s obligations with the NSW EPA to remediate the site. Jemena is therefore undertaking all remediation work of the identified areas in compliance with the Declaration issued by the NSW EPA. The identified areas, requiring remediation (referred to by yourself as 2% of the bay) are the result of certain activities associated with the former gasworks which occurred near the shoreline in the south western corner of Kendall Bay and at former wharves where historic discharges occurred – these concentrations decreasing with distance from the shoreline. The remediation areas have been delineated as a result of numerous environmental investigations and detailed risk assessments involving the NSW EPA, the Department of Health and a number of technical experts and were subsequently agreed to by those government departments in 2007. The remediation areas have been confirmed as part of additional studies during 2012/13. The most recent studies estimate that sediments across a small proportion of the Declared Area of Kendall Bay are contaminated at concentrations above local background levels and at concentrations that pose a potential risk to frequent users of the Bay and/or the aquatic environment. Results have shown that the sediments across most of the Declared Area do not pose an unacceptable ecological or human health risk apart from the areas identified as requiring remediation, as agreed with the NSW EPA. The remainder of the declared area is considered to be representative of the Sydney Harbour area. Therefore, it is not likely that any area remediated as part of this project will be re-contaminated above background levels indicative of the greater Sydney Harbour area. Will (remediation of the bay) disturb any toxic substances & just move these elsewhere within the bay? Jemena propose to remediate sediments, within the identified areas in order to ensure the remediated areas provide long-term protection to human health and the environment, use a remediation strategy that is technically feasible and environmentally justifiable, and meets regulatory requirements and minimises impact on the local community. The proposed remediation strategy will use a combination of technologies, which will ensure that the potential for any movement of contamination during the works is appropriately mitigated. These will include the implementation of specific monitoring and barrier technologies during the remediation works. Why not just leave the entire bay untouched as per the experience at Homebush Bay? As discussed above, Jemena is carrying out all remediation work in line with the declaration issued by the NSW EPA as well as the subsequent Voluntary Remediation Agreement (VRA) entered into by AGL Ltd in 2005. While the declaration remains in place Jemena is required to proceed with the remediation in compliance with the NSW EPA requirements and associated binding legal obligations.
29 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
86. 19/10/2013 Thank you again for your email. Hello - I am a resident of Hilly Street Mortlake We acknowledge the importance of Hilly Street in relation to the project, and have made sure to include and a member of the CLG which is meeting with it in our catchment area. Jemena on Wednesday evening next. Because of the size of the catchment area, the distribution of the October newsletter was done over two We are aware that Jemena has distributed a days, Saturday and Sunday. newsletter dated October 2013 by hand to letterboxes in the area but in talking to many We have been in contact with our distributor and GPS tracking indicates that the October newsletter was neighbours, none of these appear to have distributed to Hilly Street on Sunday. I note that we received your email enquiry on the Saturday. reached this end of Hilly Street. Can you advise If this is not the case, please don’t hesitate to contact us on via phone on 1800 266 901, or via email on if this is just an oversight or an intended action [email protected]. as we are by far the most affected group in Mortlake by far from Jemena’s proposed utilisation of River Quays. I’m sure all of the residents of this end of Hilly St would appreciate being kept abreast of events by Jemena and look forward to receiving this newsletter and others as they are available.
87. 22/10/2013 – telephone call Thanked caller for feedback, provided details of the project website, regular updates and upcoming consultation opportunities. Telephone call from a local resident who has resided in the area for 43 years. Wished to register feedback as follows: • There has been a long history of industrial use along the foreshore • Significant polluting uses • Long term residents recognise this – but recent arrivals may not be as aware • Questions the need to remediate, given pollution has always been there • However, if remediation is required, supports the use of Cabarita Park – due to Cabarita Park being near a wide main road appropriate for truck movements. This is in contrast to the road leading up from River Quays (which passes homes, business and schools).
30 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
88. 23/10/2013 Thank you for your feedback and for notifying us of your demonstration this weekend. Please see attached press release. Jemena would be interested in meeting with MMBRAG to discuss any concerns you may have about the project Mortlake residents are not impressed by your preemptive actions. Mortlake and Majors Bay Resident Action Group (MMBRAG).
89. 08/11/2013 Thank you for your email and your feedback. Your email was forwarded to Jemena for their consideration and response, which is provided below. I was at the meeting last Monday night at Greenlees Bowling Club in relation to the Jemena has indicated that an initial study of the mangroves in the southern Kendall Bay area has been proposed remediation of Kendall Bay. completed, during which time they were found to be in a disturbed state. Further studies of these mangroves are to occur, as required by the State Significant Development (SSD) Application. Jemena My apartment overlooks the Bay and is situated will, based on information obtained in previous and future studies, review the possibility of conducting directly in front of the largest remediation remediation around the mangroves. The information obtained from future studies will go on public proposed site. exhibition as part of the SSD Application, and there will be further opportunity to provide specific Apart from the fact I am horrified of the effects feedback as part of that process. that this remediation is going to have on my Your question and the above response will be uploaded to the website in a register of Issues and apartment and lifestyle, I was doubly horrified at Responses, alongside other feedback received as part of the consultation process. John Coffey’s adamant comment that the mangroves will be destroyed and taken out. Thank you for sharing your concerns. Mangroves are a protected species and if you [NB: An updated answer is provided at question 102.] care to browse the internet you will find all sorts of reasons why they are so necessary to the environment and the ecology of the waters and the life they sustain. A single person can be fined quite heavily for destroying mangroves and I have seen rangers come down quickly when it has been reported that young boys are in the mangroves breaking branches to build lean-to’s amongst them. I implore you to do your homework on the alternate remedies available to sluice around these mangroves and not desecrate them. It is a system that has been done before. It is all very well John Coffey saying they will be replanted but it will take years and years and 31 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response there will be no benefit to us in our lifetime living in our apartment.
90. 12/11/2013 Jemena has completed extensive investigation surveys in and around the Sydney and greater NSW area to identify a location suitable, not just for access from Kendall Bay but also to complete the treatment I am a local resident and note with concern your process. The property at Tennyson Road has been identified as one of the only suitable locations for intention to utilise the Tennyson Road property these processes, in addition to Cabarita Park. These investigations were first initiated in 2009. This for the purpose of remediation. This option report will be made available to the public as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. clearly requires the remediation to be based on some form of floating platform and therefore Jemena will be completing specialist studies as part of the EIS that will investigate the potential social barge transfer to the treatment /road transport and environmental impacts which may arise as a result of the remediation of Kendall Bay. point. I have reviewed options further up river and there are several which are far more suitable even to the extent that other waste products are being processed with existing riverside docking facilities. I can only assume that cost associated with the longer transport period is the only issue effecting viability? However, that should not be the primary consideration when compared to a high density urban option such as Tennyson Rd. The massive truck movements of bulk, heavy materials in both directions is unsafe and potentially damaging to residents and accommodation. Please explain why these clearly much more appropriate options are not being considered?
91. 25/11/2013 Jemena has completed extensive investigation surveys in and around the Sydney and greater NSW area to identify a location suitable, not just for access from Kendall Bay but also to complete the treatment Do you have information as to why Jemena process. The property at Tennyson Road has been identified as one of the only suitable locations for cannot locate the contamination processing these processes, in addition to Cabarita Park. These investigations were first initiated in 2009. This factory in another area outside the proposed report will be made available to the public as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. sites? Jemena has exercised its right to purchase the property located at 140 Tennyson Road, Mortlake, given Is Jemena proceeding to exercise the option to the successful outcomes from the technical feasibility investigations. Specialised investigations are still purchase at River Quays? to be conducted to fully understand and provide mitigation methods for social and environmental impacts Also reasons for delay by EPA and Jemena? that may occur in the surrounding communities as a result of the proposed works. With regard to the delay in completing the sediment remediation works, please refer to the PowerPoint presentation given by the EPA on the 21st November 2013 which details this point further. The
32 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Why is it of state significance when the River presentation is available here: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/wp- Quays site is outside the Breakfast Point area? content/uploads/2013/12/Kendall-Bay-Remediation-Project_CLG-Meeting-2_EPA-Presentation.pdf. Thanks The matter of state significance is at the discretion of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. The Kendall Bay Remediation Project originally needed to comply with the requirements of Part 3A, however as a result of various legislative amendments the project was transitioned to a State Significant Development (SSD) in terms of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This process was gazetted in April 2013.
92. 28/11/2013 1) The remediation of Kendall Bay, through the use of a ‘coffer dam’ is dependent on gaining access through Cabarita Park. The option of Cabarita Park was initially identified as the only suitable 1) Why has Jemena moved away from the access option available (140 Tennyson Rd Mortlake was not available at this time) for the idea of a coffer dam in Kendall Bay and remediation works to be completed. In order to utilise Cabarita Park, it would have been necessary remediating on site within the confines of to reclassify a portion of the park to permit the necessary works. In December 2012 the Canada Bay Kendall Bay? What are the impediments? Council declined Jemena’s planning application, in this regard. 2) Is there any process available whereby the contaminated spoil can be treated on site 2) According to the owners and operators at Wentworth Point, access to this location for treatment and returned to the bay? Why was and/or transport is not feasible due to a number of development applications that are likely to be Wentworth Point not considered suitable to acted upon in 2014 -2015. This includes residential development and the construction of a footbridge remediate the contaminated soil from with public transport connections. Kendall Bay? Can Jemena release its assessment of this site? Jemena’s external consultants are currently finalising a site access options report, which discusses 3) Can Jemena/EPA confirm that the current Jemena’s continued search for alternative sites, commencing in 2009. This report will be made intention is that for every cubic metre of available as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. spoil removed from the Bay an equivalent 3) It is an environmental requirement that the bathometric levels of the bay are not altered following the amount of clean fill will have to be returned completion of the remediation works. Therefore, all sediment removed from the Bay for treatment to the bay? will be replaced by both an engineered cap as well as clean fill. Subsequently it is not possible to 4) If we assume more than 11,000 cubic undertake a like for like comparison of material removed to replacement fill. metres of contaminated material will be removed from the bay, how much cement 4) The exact volume of clay and cement stabilising material is still to be confirmed and will be and other materials will need to be used to investigated further during the upcoming specialist studies including the finalisation of the inert it and make it fit to transport to land Remediation Action Plan (RAP). fill? 5) The exact truck that will be utilised for this project and the volumes that can be carried by those 5) How much material constitutes a truck trucks is still to be confirmed and will be further investigated during the upcoming specialist studies. load? It should be noted that there are a number of truck configurations and sizes that can be utilised. 6) If the EPA considers that Kendall Bay Following the EIS, the most optimal truck configuration will be proposed based on various project, represents an unacceptable health risk environmental and social considerations. what action is being taken to prevent access to the beach and the mangrove 6) With regard to concerns regarding the current access to the beach and mangrove area, please refer area why has this not been done earlier? to the PowerPoint presentation given by the EPA on the 21st November 2013, which details this point
33 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response 7) What options are being considered to further. The presentation is available here: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/wp- prevent the removal of the mangroves in content/uploads/2013/12/Kendall-Bay-Remediation-Project_CLG-Meeting-2_EPA-Presentation.pdf. Kendall Bay? 8) Why does Jemena think that establishing a 7) The option of removing the mangroves, or whether Jemena may identify a method that would allow waste processing facility at 140 Tennyson the sediments to be removed without displacement of the mangroves, is still to be further Road should be considered a project of investigated and will be done so as part of the upcoming specialist studies forming part of the State Significance? Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 9) If it is decided to proceed with the Mortlake 8) The matter of state significance is at the discretion of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. option what social dividend will the The Kendall Bay Remediation Project originally needed to comply with the requirements of Part 3A, Mortlake residents receive in return for however as a result of various legislative amendments, the project was transitioned to a State putting up with the disruption and bearing Significant Development (SSD) in terms of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. the loss of their neighbourhood amenity for This process was gazetted in April 2013. up to 3 years? 9) Jemena considers that these works will be completed within 12-18 months. As part of the specialist studies, Jemena will investigate methods to ensure as minimal as possible disruption to the surrounding community. It is unlikely that any neighbourhood amenity will be affected to an extent where it may not be used.
93. 30/11/2013 Thank you for your email. Your feedback has been noted. I vehemently oppose 140 Tennyson Rd Mortlake being used for this remediation work and will do all that I can to see that this doesn't go ahead.
94. 30/11/2013 Jemena has completed extensive investigation in and around the Sydney and greater NSW area to identify a location suitable, not just for access from Kendall Bay and also to complete the treatment Sirs, I am a local resident. Please explain to me process. The property at Tennyson Road Mortlake has been identified as one of the only suitable why sites further west on the river, with existing locations for these processes. Investigations into alternative Sydney Harbour sites were initiated in docking facilities and already being used for 2009. waste management, are not being used? I am assuming the material will need to be barged to To date, Jemena has tested only the technical feasibility of completing the works from the Tennyson the Tennyson Rd site and so it’s only additional Road property, however specific methodologies and processes that may be utilised to gain access distance and time therefore cost preventing the between Kendall Bay and Tennyson have not yet been finalised. To date, all feasibility studies have use of these far more suitable sites? been based on a pipeline that suctions impacted sediments from the remediation areas and pumps them to a treatment facility (to be developed) at Tennyson Road. Please also confirm you are aware of the significant, vertical excavations as part of the Jemena will be completing specialist studies as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that current building works on the immediate east will investigate the potential social and environmental impacts on the surrounding communities. This will side of Tennyson Rd. These must not be a safe include the identification of neighbouring developments. It should also be noted that there is not base for the huge tonnage load planned? proposed to be any digging works occurring at the site of the treatment facility.
34 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response I add my weight to the massive effect on the local population which is sharply increasing into high density living at present.
95. 02/12/2013 Thank you for your email. Hello, Your feedback has been noted and will be uploaded to the website – www.kendallbayremediation.com.au – in the integrated Issues and Responses log. Your feedback has Can you please advise where I can lodge my also been provided to Jemena for their consideration. opposition to the Kendall Bay sediments potentially being remediated at 140 Tennyson We would be pleased to receive any further comments from you at any time. Road site.
96. 02/12/2013 Jemena has undertaken extensive research into the potential availability of alternative sites within the Sydney Harbour area, to use as a staging area for the remediation of Kendall Bay. These studies were 1. It is suggested that Wentworth Point is very initiated in 2009. To date the only sites that have been determined as technically viable include Cabarita suitable for this work, better equipped for truck Park as well as 140 Tennyson Rd. As a result of various planning constraints relating to Cabarita Park, movements and is surrounded by heavy Jemena’s current preferred option is 140 Tennyson Rd. The environmental feasibility of this site will be industry already. I think there was already a fully assessed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which will be initiated early 2014. question earlier asking why Jemena did not have this as an option but I could not find an With respect to Wentworth Point: answer. Someone suggested it was because the EPA would not allow the material to be 1) According to the owners and operators at Wentworth Point, access to this location for treatment barged out of the immediate “area”. Is this and/or transport of sediment is not feasible due to a number of development applications that are correct? And if so why was it okay to barge likely to be acted upon in 2014-2015. This includes residential development and the construction of a material from the Platypus site? footbridge with public transport connections. 2. Whose decision is it as to whether this project Additionally, the EPA has publicly indicated that it is unlikely to permit the transport of untreated comes under the State Significant process or sediments from the site to any other location, either by barge or by road. not? Is it the Minister, the EPA or who? 2) The matter of state significance is at the discretion of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. Thanks The Kendall Bay Remediation Project was originally required to meet the requirements of Part 3A, however as a result of various legislative updated and subsequent transitional arrangements the project was transitioned to a State Significant Development (SSD) under Clause 6 of Schedule 6A to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This was gazetted in April 2013.
97. 02/12/2013 Thank you for your letter dated 1 December 2013. Jemena is very conscious of the concerns of MMBRAG that have been raised in the letter, and is appreciative of the opportunity to provide a Email response to these concerns. MORTLAKE & MAJORS BAY RESIDENT As you have highlighted a number of issues, some of which require a detailed response, we intend to ACTION GROUP respond more comprehensively in the coming weeks. All responses will be forwarded to you, and will
35 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Dear Ian also be posted on the Kendall Bay project website (www.kendallbayremediation.com.au), so that they are also available to the broader community. As set out in the attached letter, the MMBRAG members respectfully request that Jemena In the interim, Jemena would like to confirm that any decision to purchase 140 Tennyson Rd (the considers deferring the purchase of the River Property) as a potential staging area for the remediation of Kendall Bay will be undertaken after careful Quays site while further studies are undertaken consideration of the various due diligence assessments currently being finalised. The potential purchase of the Kendall Bay remediation options. of the property will be based on the view that its use in the remediation of Kendall Bay is technically feasible. However, a further detailed environmental assessment would be required by means of an Kind Regards Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before the Property can be used as part of the remediation of [Name] Kendall Bay. Attached Letter This EIS process will address many of the environmental and social impacts identified in your letter, including noise, dust, odour, traffic impacts, truck movements, the use of water and logistical Dear Ian requirements. Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you, The Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 requires that the EIS be made publicly available, Tyrone Singleton and Susan Rudland last week. with an opportunity for local residents to make comments on it, before planning and other environmental We found the meeting useful and constructive. approvals may be granted by the relevant consent authorities and the Environment Protection Authority. It is currently estimated that the EIS will be initiated in early 2014. MMBRAG is concerned however that the proposal to use 140 Tennyson Road to In addition to the statutory requirement to make the EIS publicly available, Jemena have commenced an remediate the contaminated spoil from Kendall extensive stakeholder engagement process, through which Jemena have, and will continue to, make Bay will impose a significant burden on Mortlake relevant environmental studies and other information available. As you are aware, this process includes and nearby residents and we urge Jemena to public meetings and the Community Liaison Group, where residents have an opportunity to ask explore all possible options before it decides to questions directly to Jemena, and on the project’s website. exercise the option to purchase 140 Tennyson Road. Jemena is eager to continue constructive communication with the local community, including the MMBRAG members, now and throughout the EIS process. This is to ensure all concerns are considered Our concerns include as part of these works and specific detailed answers that are currently being sought may be determined. 1. the process planned for Mortlake seems on a Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss these matters further. much larger scale and more intrusive than the original plans to remediate on site in Kendall Regards Bay; Ian Israelsohn 2. the potential environmental impact of General Manager Policy and External Affairs installing the proposed pipeline on the seabed, and the risks associated with pumping the contaminated sludge over one kilometre in distance; 3. the environmental impact of returning large quantities of water to the river following dewatering;
36 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response 4. the logistical requirements for bringing on to the Mortlake site large quantities of materials to inert the contaminated sediment; 5. the logistical /transport requirements to remove the contaminated sediments and replace it with equivalent quantities of clean fill; 6. the excessive heavy vehicle movements that will be required to achieve points 4 & 5 on what is essentially narrow urban streets that are already stretched by construction traffic; 7. the potential health and social impact on residents and businesses on the planned transport routes; 8. the need to rezone the River Quays site to allow it to be used for heavy industrial processing, and Jemena's apparent desire the achieve State Significant Project status to bypass local planning permissions; 9. the excessive noise likely to be created by heavy vehicles loading and unloading at the site; 10. the potential impact on housing prices of having a toxic waste processing plant adjacent to existing residential buildings; 11. the potential risk of noise, dust and odours escaping from the site; 12. Finally we are concerned that Jemena does not intend release detailed plans outlining how the site might operate in processing waste until after it has acquired the site.
98. 04/12/2013 Thank you for your email. I am a resident of Hilly St, Mortlake. Your feedback has been noted and will be uploaded to the website – www.kendallbayremediation.com.au – in the integrated Issues and Responses log. Your feedback has I understand that Jemena is considering buying also been provided to Jemena for their consideration. the River Quays site at Mortlake to use as a 37 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response processing facility for the toxic material removed We would be pleased to receive any further comments from you at any time. from Kendall Bay.
Be assured that I and many other local residents will oppose this with all possible vigour. You will not have an easy path. If Breakfast Point/Cabarita want to offload their problems, then don’t expect Mortlake to be the bunny!! You have been warned!!
99. 09/12/2013 Timing of Works To Whom it May Concern, Please refer to the PowerPoint presentation given by the EPA on the 21st November 2013 which details this point further. The presentation is available here: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/wp- I am a resident of the Northern end of Hilly content/uploads/2013/12/Kendall-Bay-Remediation-Project_CLG-Meeting-2_EPA-Presentation.pdf. Street and have been a local resident of Concord and Mortlake since birth. Given this Jemena would like to thank you for all points raised. Moreover we can confirm that all concerns will be history with the suburb I have an understanding assessed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will investigate the potential social of the historical context in the issue of and environmental impacts on the surrounding communities. This will include the potential for impacts to attempting to remediate Kendall Bay and feel traffic on the local community, dust and odour, noise ecology and any other concern raised by the local the current solution places the community at community. undue risk without promise of a suitable outcome. During the EIS process Jemena will continue to engage with all stakeholders ensuring that open and informative communication exists. All specialist studies, including the final EIS will be made available to There appears to be many issues that remain all stakeholders for review and comment. unproven and open from the Jemena end of the equation. I believe that Jemena are bound to full disclosure and resolution to the open discussion points before committing to any long term solution. Key amongst my personal concerns are: Timing of works It has been incumbent on Jemena to remediate Kendall Bay since their departure from site which must be approaching 15 years or more. Why has the remediation of the Bay taken so long to begin and come at a time where the site itself cannot be used to undertake the proposed works?
38 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Local Road Impacts As a long term local resident I am aware that truck activity has been present on the Mortlake peninsular well before I was borne and will continue until the last of the redundant commercial sites are develop into residential. What has changed in this time is the population density and make-up. The local community is now much younger than when I was born into it and with the development of your old site the density has exploded. This change in population brings with it responsibility on road users to utilise consideration and caution. How will Jemena control truck traffic to minimise impact and risk incumbent in road movement of waste and other material to the satisfaction of residents? Pollution Impacts The local roads already suffer impacts from construction vehicles and the lax dust control measures applied. How will dust be controlled on the site and on trucks in and out of the site? Given the technical difficulty of dredging and the high likelihood of pipework leaks and spillage what safeguards have been agreed to protect local wildlife and water quality? Treatment Options As with any risky product or activity there are bound to be options for risk avoidance and successful remediation. A product known by all in construction is most commonly left in place and contained rather than removed and destroyed. Why has a containment strategy not been considered or ruled out? A personal experience with soil remediation at a site next door to ours was not pleasant and there is anecdotal evidence that the process 39 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response caused significant illness for several residents of our apartment complex at the time. What guarantees are in place to ensure that the incineration of the contaminants will not cause direct health issues for nearby residents, particularly younger or immunised compromised residents? Will Jemena be offering any health monitoring to local residents during the works? Treatment Locations I understand that there are several options for treatment in terms of location of the plant and equipment if a containment strategy is sufficiently dis-proven. Given the population density surrounding the proposed treatment site, why have other locations been ruled out? Your prompt replies to the above are appreciated, many thanks.
100. 0 9/12/2013 Thank you for your email. Good Afternoon, All newsletters are available to download on the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/. Your newsletter was dropped into my mailbox on the Edgewood Estate to-day, thank you. Please don’t hesitate to be in contact at any time. Would be pleased email Newsletter Issue 5 as an attachment so that I can email to FRIENDS OF CABARITA PARK AND WHARF distribution list.
101. 0 9/12/2013 – telephone call Thank you for your call. I’m calling because I am unable to access the The website is currently being updated with new documentation and links to new pages. The community community survey that is supposed to be on the survey will be included on the website when this rebuild is completed, this afternoon. Kendall Bay Remediation website. I received a newsletter yesterday which stated that the community survey would be available to view and download but unfortunately I cannot locate it anywhere on the site. Can you let me know
40 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response where I can find a copy? I’m not sure if I’m looking in the right place. Thank you.
102. 10/12/2013 What are your plans for the mangroves? Dear Sirs, The option of removing the mangroves, or whether Jemena may identify a method that would allow the sediments to be removed without displacement of the mangroves, is still to be further investigated and We seem to be lurching from one option to will be done so as part of the upcoming specialist studies. another with regard to remediating Kendall Bay. I attended the rally at River Quays on Saturday How does barging compare with what you are planning to do? with 75 or so local residents who were there to protest using this site for cleaning up Kendall The EPA has expressed its intention to refuse any application by Jemena to transport untreated material, Bay. I attended your briefing at Massey Park as either by barge, or by road. The pumping of the impacted sediments is considered less risky due to there well and remain a strong advocate for using being greater control over the materials and containment of the pipeline. If the EPA provides any advice barges. contrary to this, Jemena will actively engage the Water Harbour Trust [sic] with regard to this as an option. I also attended a full day at Platypus site in Neutral Bay and was most impressed with how that remediation was handled- community on side- project on budget and on time. I understand from the folks there that Jemena hasn’t even visited the site to learn how to accomplish all three. That did surprise me. I suppose our next battle will be in regard to the mangroves near Cabarita Park. We know that that area can be remediated without ripping out the mature mangroves that will never grow back in many of our lifetimes. And they are helping in the remediation. My questions are these: What are your plans for the mangroves? How does barging compare with what you are planning to do? - noting that at Massey Park your CEO stated it would not cost more. Barging was quite successful at Platypus- why not consult with the Water Harbour Trust [sic] who said they would be quite happy to speak with you?
41 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
103. 10/12/2013 Timing of Works To Whom it May Concern, Please refer to the PowerPoint presentation given by the EPA on the 21st November 2013 which details this point further. The presentation is available here: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/wp- As the owners of a residential property at the content/uploads/2013/12/Kendall-Bay-Remediation-Project_CLG-Meeting-2_EPA-Presentation.pdf. Northern end of Hilly Street we would like to echo the views of one of our owners with regard Jemena would like to thank you for all points raised. Moreover we can confirm that all concerns will be to the issue of attempting to remediate Kendall assessed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will investigate the potential social Bay and feel the current solution places the and environmental impacts on the surrounding communities. This will include the potential for impacts to community at undue risk without promise of a traffic on the local community, dust and odour, noise ecology and any other concern raised by the local suitable outcome. community. We believe that Jemena are bound to full During the EIS process, Jemena will continue to engage with all stakeholders ensuring that open and disclosure and resolution to the open discussion informative communication exists. All specialist studies, including the final EIS will be made available to points before committing to any long term all stakeholders for review and comment. solution. Key amongst all of our concerns are:
Timing of works It has been incumbent on Jemena to remediate Kendall Bay since their departure from site which must be approaching 15 years or more. Why has the remediation of the Bay taken so long to begin and come at a time where the site itself cannot be used to undertake the proposed works? Local Road Impacts As local residents we are aware that truck activity will continue until the last of the redundant commercial sites are develop into residential. What has changed in this time is the population density and make-up. The local community density has recently exploded. This change in population brings with it responsibility on road users to utilise consideration and caution. How will Jemena control truck traffic to minimise impact and risk incumbent in road movement of waste and other material to the satisfaction of residents? Pollution Impacts
42 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response The local roads already suffer impacts from construction vehicles and the lax dust control measures applied. How will dust be controlled on the site and on trucks in and out of the site? Given the technical difficulty of dredging and the high likelihood of pipework leaks and spillage what safeguards have been agreed to protect local wildlife and water quality? Treatment Options As with any risky product or activity there are bound to be options for risk avoidance and successful remediation. A product known by all in construction is most commonly left in place and contained rather than removed and destroyed. Why has a containment strategy not been considered or ruled out? Our personal experience with soil remediation at a site next door to ours was not pleasant and there is anecdotal evidence that the process caused significant illness for several residents of our apartment complex at the time. What guarantees are in place to ensure that the incineration of the contaminants will not cause direct health issues for nearby residents, particularly younger or immunised compromised residents? Will Jemena be offering any health monitoring to local residents during the works? Treatment Locations I understand that there are several options for treatment in terms of location of the plant and equipment if a containment strategy is sufficiently dis-proven. Given the population density surrounding the proposed treatment site, why have other locations been ruled out? Your prompt replies to the above are appreciated.
43 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
104. 12/12/2013 Jemena has, as of 16th December 2013, exercised its option to purchase the property located at 140 Tennyson Road, Mortlake. In view of the massive community opposition to the River Quays site, does Jemena intend to Jemena will be completing specialist studies as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that exercise or extend the option on or before 16 will investigate the potential social and environmental impacts on the surrounding communities. This will December? include a review of the potential social and environmental impacts, and corresponding mitigation methods that may result from the proposed remediation works. The current opposition is likely to grow as roads such as Tennyson Road become congested with trucks retained by Jemena. The discontent with Jemena as an allegedly good corporate citizen will not be good for Jemena's business and will likely spread beyond the immediate geographic area.
105. 0 7/01/2014 Thank you for your interest in the Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation project. Please ignore my email – I have received more We acknowledge that you have withdrawn your previous email and we would welcome further feedback information on this and take every word back. on the remediation project if a particular part of the project becomes of interest to you. Wishing you all the best. Best wishes.
06/01/2014 Hi There Pls state in plain terms who benefits fm lengthy and costly clean up of a bay where no one swims or fishes or even wants to and only ferries go past. When local residents are requesting you to stop and you keep pushing and pushing via dictatorial newsletters shoved into our letter boxes it is clear an organisation must be going to benefit financially or in some other way. Please be transparent with the public. Are you looking for csg? Are looking for govt funding?
44 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response This is a big spend and we are not clear why you are forcing this on the local community. If we wanted the bay cleaned we would rally together as a community for it. Thank you and wait to hear
106. 0 8/01/2014 The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will identify and assess all potential impacts that may arise from the works associated with the remediation works. This will include the assessment of all potential Will odour and dust from the remediation odour and air quality related impacts as well as any mitigation measures which may be required. All process have any impact on the health of potential impacts will be assessed in terms of the Remediation Action Plan (RAP), which is currently nearby residents? I am considering the being developed. purchase of a business and property in the area but I am asthmatic and wish to know if there will Odour and air impacts arising from the works will be managed within all local government and EPA be any risk to my health if I choose to purchase guidelines and legislative threshold limits. Such limits are particularly set to ensure that no impact to and operate the business while the remediation human health occurs. Continuous monitoring will occur during the remediation works to ensure that is taking place. Jemena complies to the these standards.
107. 0 9/01/2014 Thank you for your email. Your feedback has been noted. Having received your latest newsletter and The EPA gave a presentation at the second meeting of the Community Liaison Group held on 21st being a resident at Breakfast Point, we are November 2013, which relates to the issues you raise. The presentation is available here: bewildered why this exercise is still being http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Kendall-Bay-Remediation- pursued. It appears to be a complete waste of Project_CLG-Meeting-2_EPA-Presentation.pdf. money for something that nature will eventually take care of and will make the bay a bigger Jemena would like to thank you for the points you raise. We can confirm that all concerns will be mess if the remediation work is carried out and assessed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will investigate the potential social will take even longer to repair itself. Apart from and environmental impacts on the surrounding communities. This will include the potential for impacts the disturbance, machinery noise and smell the relating to traffic, dust and odour, noise, ecology and any other concerns raised by the local community. spawning grounds for the fish will be destroyed During the EIS process, Jemena will continue to engage with all stakeholders ensuring that open and delaying process even longer. If it’s that serious informative communication exists. All specialist studies, including the final EIS, will be made available to it should have been done before the stakeholders for review and comment. development commenced, as it was not, then it can’t be that bad.
108. 0 9/01/2014 Jemena is currently in the process of undertaking specialist studies as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to investigate potential social and environmental impacts on the surrounding I would like to know how the proposed community. This will include a review of traffic in and around Tennyson Road. The study will include a Tennyson Rd location will impact traffic into the ‘baseline’ review of the current traffic of the area, as well as a review of potential traffic impacts as a
45 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response north side of Tennyson Rd. Have a road and result of the proposed works at Tennyson Road. Following finalisation, the report will be publically traffic study been done yet? available on the Kendall Bay remediation website www.kendallbayremediation.com.au Already there are bottle necks in traffic during peak hours along near the Punt on Hilly St and surrounding Tennyson. Has a formal impact analysis been performed as well on the commercial businesses along Tennyson Rd?
109. 19/ 01/2014 Thank you for your email. I am a Hilly Street resident and would like you to Environmental Resources Management (ERM) is a provider of environmental, health, safety, risk, and confirm that Environmental Resource social consulting services. ERM has been appointed to manage the land use planning process of the Management is a completely independent body Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project. with absolutely no connections to Jemena. Please let me know what process was used in The selection of ERM was through a tender process, whereby ERM were assessed as the most selecting these consultants. appropriate firm based on previous experience and the quality of their tender submission. Although Jemena has engaged ERM to complete the EIS works, all works, results and recommendations provided by ERM are independent. In many instances specialist scientists undertaking the work are members of various professional bodies, which require that all work is completed to the highest professional and ethical standards. All work completed as part of the EIS will be made available to the public for review and comment. Finally the EIS will be reviewed and assessed independently by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DPI), who will make the final decision regarding all necessary planning approvals for the proposed remediation works.
46 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Thank you for your interest in the Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation project. 110. 0 5/02/2014 In response to your queries: I, like so many in our lovely suburb of Mortlake, 1) Yes, the responses provided on the Issues and Responses log are the official position of Jemena am concerned by the processes in play to Limited remediate the sediment in Kendall Bay utilising 2) The following approvals are required, prior to the commencement of any remediation works: the 140 Tennyson Road site. (i). State Significant Development (SSD): Jemena has submitted the necessary application for To that position I have the following questions: the remediation works to be classified as SSD. Previously the remediation works were considered as a Part 3A application, however in April 2013 the works were transitioned to an 1. Are the responses on the Issues and SSD, in line with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s (DPI) requirements to Response Log the official position of the transition all Part 3A projects to comply with the amended Environmental Planning and Jemena organisation? Assessment Act 1979. The initial SSD declaration did not include 140 Tennyson Rd, subsequently Jemena has requested that Tennyson Rd be included as part of the SSD. 2. What are specific approvals that must be (ii). Environmental Impact Statement: The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required as granted by the NSW State Government and the part of the planning process under Part 4 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment City of Canada Bay Council before any Act 1979. Part 4 of the Act applies to all State Significant Developments (SSD). proposed remediation may begin? (iii). Remediation Action Plan (RAP): The EPA is required to review and approve Jemena’s RAP. 3. To what extent does the community opinions The RAP is a document that broadly describes the remediation method. against the proposal of the Kendall Bay (iv). Other approvals: In addition to the above there are various other approvals that will be sediment remediation utilising the 140 required, pertaining to water quality management, services etc. These will be finalised as part Tennyson Road site factor into any Jemena of the remediation design work. decision? 3) Jemena is committed to engaging with the community to understand their concerns. This has been done in many ways, including the establishment of the Community Liaison Group (CLG), the 4. Who will make the decision within the Community Information and Feedback Sessions (CIFS), and the website. All issues raised are Jemena organisation to proceed or not to carefully considered and will form part of the assessments undertaken as part of the EIS. The EIS proceed with the Kendall Bay sediment will provide a comprehensive assessment of the environmental and social acceptability of the remediation utilising the 140 Tennyson Road proposed remediation approach, including the use of 140 Tennyson Rd. This will be based on an site? objective, independent assessment of all potential impacts, including any community concerns. The 5. Under what specific circumstances and DPI, in their decision making, will consider all community concerns as well as the EIS. Jemena will conditions will Jemena not proceed with the abide by the outcomes of the EIS and subsequently any decisions undertaken by the DPI. Kendall Bay sediment remediation utilising the 4) The Department of Planning and Infrastructure make the final decision as to whether Jemena will be 140 Tennyson Road site? granted the necessary approvals in terms of the EIS as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Notwithstanding this it should be noted that the Jemena has a legal obligation 6. In reference to the last slide of the EPA to remediate the Bay in terms of a Voluntary Remediation Agreement with the NSW EPA. presentation to the CLG meeting 2, dated 21 5) As indicated above Jemena will abide by the outcomes of the EIS and subsequently any decisions November, 2013 entitled "Why was the undertaken by the DPI remediation not done sooner?" and with 6) AGL (now Jemena) were guided by the EPA requirements for remediation. Therefore, further query particular reference to point 2 of that slide which with regard to the timing of remediation works and sediment investigations should be addressed to states "Towards the end of the site remediation the EPA directly. work, the EPA and AGL turned to the issue of sediment contamination. The information on which to assess the sediments and determine 47 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response the scope of any remediation was not available at that time." Why did the EPA and AGL/Jemena wait until the end of the gasworks site remediation to commence any work on the assessment of the sediments and determine the scope of any sediment remediation?
111. 12/02/2014 12/02/2014 – Response from Consultation Team I was somewhat disappointed that while your Mr Macklin has been selectively inviting people in Thank you for your email earlier today. I understand that Jemena will respond to your questions below Kendall Bay and Breakfast Point to your next directly. community meeting it did not occur to him that the residents of Mortlake who will be directly However, I will provide the following clarification now on the key question you have raised regarding th impacted by your Tennyson Road "solution" notification and advertising for the upcoming community meeting on the 25 of February. It’s critical that th might have some interest. all consultation activities are broadly advertised across different mediums. For the meeting on the 25 February, this includes: I have been regularly monitoring the mmbrag ▪ An email to members of the Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project Community Liaison email account and have received no direct Group correspondence and certainly have nor seen ▪ Email invitations to community members who have provided the consultation team with contact any newsletters or other correspondence. details during previous consultation activities ▪ A letter invitation to the Mayor, Councillors, Director of Planning and Manager of Health, Building Perhaps you can enlighten me how you intend and Environment at Canada Bay Council, and local State and Federal Members of Parliament to notify the residents of Mortlake about your ▪ Two newspaper advertisements providing details of the Community Information and Feedback community meeting? Session in the Inner West Courier – appearing Tuesday 11 February and Tuesday 18 February What information will be available apart from (circulation – 79,110; readership - 100,000 ) some vague reference to a planned EIS report? ▪ An advertisement in the Burwood Scene magazine scheduled for Wednesday 19 February (circulation – 35,000; readership: 50,000) 48 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response What focus will the meeting give to the 8,000- ▪ An advertisement on the Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project website 10,000 truck movements this solution will (www.kendallbayremediation.com.au) involve? ▪ A community newsletter to be delivered on Wednesday 19 February to 4,300 local residents. This includes Mortlake residents. I am still awaiting a response to the questions I raised in my letter of 29 November relating to: A further email invitation is scheduled to be sent out to community groups and Mortlake businesses 1. The process by which you evaluated the so today, which will complete our advertisement activities. called alternative sites- I have seen advice from RMS that there had been no requests from I would be pleased to discuss further at any time, or consider further ideas you may suggest about Jemena in relation to the Wentworth Point site effective ways to communicate across the community. We are keen to ensure information is communicated broadly. 2. an evaluation of the River Quays and Kendall Bay processing options 19/02/2014 – Response from Jemena
3. The results of the most recent testing of the Thanks for your note of last week. We have now had a chance to review your questions so please find Kendall Bay sediment below our responses to all issues raised. (Susan has already responded to the question about the promotion of the community meeting).
1. What information will be available apart from some vague reference to a planned EIS report?
The meeting is part of our continual engagement with the public. While we are still in the early stages of the EIS process, the meeting will provide those attending with a status update on the EIS, and also provide info on the Remediation Action Plan (RAP) - which details how Jemena proposes to conduct the remediation.
2. What focus will the meeting give to the 8,000-10,000 truck movements this solution will involve?
The traffic impact study associated with the EIS has not yet been completed. However, based on the RAP, it is estimated that the truck movements will be significantly less that your indicated amount above. Jemena will be in a position to discuss these numbers at the meeting.
3. The process by which you evaluated the so called alternative sites- I have seen advice from RMS that there had been no requests from Jemena in relation to the Wentworth Point site
I have seen the correspondence between RMS and John Sidoti, which indicates that RMS had not been approached by Jemena with respect to the potential availability of Wentworth Point. While this is technically correct, RMS have been approached (on several occasions) by the consulting firm APP, who have been acting as Jemena’s agent on this matter. APP were the consultants that Jemena appointed to undertake a review of all potential alternative sites for gaining access to the site as well as the treatment of contaminated sediments. We have approached RMS to clarify this matter.
49 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response The responses that APP received were consistent with those laid out in the RMS correspondence with Mr Sidoti.
4. An evaluation of the River Quays and Kendall Bay processing options
Further understanding of how this was evaluated can be found in the Access Options Report that is now publicly available on the Kendall Bay website: www.kendallbayremediation.com.au. All assessments undertaken as part of the technical due diligence focused on the assessment of various remediation methods. All technical information will be included as part the RAP, which we are busy finalising. The RAP, once submitted to the EPA will be posted on the Kendall bay Website.
5. The results of the most recent testing of the Kendall Bay sediment
Details regarding this will be made available following the finalisation of the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA). We are currently reviewing this report with the specialist consultant. Once we have submitted the report to the EPA, we will post a copy on the Kendall Bay website. Generally speaking, however, results from the most recent sediment sampling event are very similar to that found in previous events.
I am happy to discuss the above matters or any other matter further should you wish. I know that Susan is also trying to set up another meeting between Jemena and MMBRAG in the next few weeks.
24/02/14 Thank you for your email. 112. Hello, In response to your queries: 1. The entire works process is expected to take approximately 12 months. Three months are I have two questions about the Kendall Bay allocated at the beginning of the project for the set-up of the site and operations requirements. Six remediation project months is allocated to the actual remediation works and a further 3 months to decommission the site and remove all operational infrastructure. 1. How long will the remediation process take, 2. Jemena aims to undertake remediation works with minimal impact to the surrounding community. once the planning/consultation is complete and An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is currently being undertaken as part of the planning the work actually commences? process to identify and assess any potential impacts to the environment as well as the surrounding community. The EIS will also identify suitable mitigation measures in order to minimise any 2. If the proposal at 140 Tennyson road goes potential impacts. A traffic study and an assessment of potential odours emitted as part of these ahead, what will this mean for residents of works are included within the EIS. Tennyson Road and Hilly St? Lots of heavy vehicle traffic? bad smells? Notwithstanding the above, Jemena will be required to manage all odour impacts to the extent that they are not offensive or a nuisance to communities. In order to ensure compliance to this all odour will be Thanks mitigated to the extent that the surrounding community will not be able to smell them.
50 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Current traffic calculations, based on the currently proposed remediation approach, indicate that Tennyson Rd is likely to experience approximately 2 additional truck movements per hour. It is estimated that the project will generate an additional 5000 truck movements over the life of the project.
The EIS will assess all potential impacts associated with the above additional traffic movements. 25/02/2014 – question lodged at CIFS Thank you for your query. 113. Is the Cabarita site still an option if locals reject Following Canada Bay Council’s decision not to approve Jemena’s application to reclassify a portion of the Tennyson Road option? As the park was the Cabarita Park and the subsequent identification (availability) of 140 Tennyson Rd as a possible original choice. alternative site, Jemena is of the opinion that Cabarita Park is no longer considered a viable option. Subsequently the 140 Tennyson Rd is currently Jemena’s preferred option for use as a staging area for the remediation of Kendall Bay. The use of 140 Tennyson Rd is however subject to the outcome of an EIS. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) make the final decision as to whether Jemena will be granted the necessary approvals in terms of the EIS as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 03/03/2014 114. Thank you for your email. I am still not persuaded that Jemena has done enough to consider other sites for remediation Jemena understands the concerns you have with regard to the search for alternative sites for use as part such as Wentworth Point. These are sites that of the Kendall Bay remediation project. A four-year long study that APP Corporation (engaged by will reduce CO2 emissions, dangerous and toxic Jemena) completed, reviewing an extensive range of alternative sites, has been uploaded to the Kendall truck movements, and noise, to say the least. Bay remediation website, under Key Documents. Jemena ought to be aware that the risks associated with remediation will be exacerbated Specifically, with regard to your query on Wentworth Point, the owners of the site, Roads and Maritime as the Hilly St development Project also Services (RMS), have confirmed, in a letter to State MP John Sidoti dated 20 Dec 2013, that Wentworth commences in approximately the same time Point will not be available for use for these works. RMS have their own plans for development of that site period. and have confirmed that ‘there is no vacant land waterside at the Burroway Road parcel that is not to be redeveloped within 12 months. Hence, any use of the Burroway parcel at Wentworth Point for work I understand that the State member, Mr Sidoti, related to Kendall Bay would delay the start of the Wentworth Point Urban Activation Plan and the is prepared to assist Jemena in in obtaining an delivery of additional housing and open space, as well as a new school and maritime facilities.’ alternative site with little cost difference to Jemena. This should be followed up as a Additionally the RMS has also stated in relation to the area in the vicinity of Hill Road that the ‘RMS has prudent and reasonable option. As far as I am considered whether dredged material could be unloaded from a barge moored on the river next to the aware, this has not been done and no valid Hill Road development within the Wentworth Point site, where some lots are not to be developed for a reason has been given. few years. However, this option would compromise the existing public foreshore path. Furthermore, the Hill Road site is adjacent to highly environmentally sensitive wetlands.’ The law is crystal clear. Where other reasonable options are available and such Jemena understands the local community concerns with regard to potential impacts on traffic as a result options are not properly considered in light of of the remediation works, particularly in conjunction with residential developments occurring in nearby the gravity of the potential risk of harm, Jemena streets. As part of the Environmental impact Assessment (EIS), Jemena is currently completing a traffic is exposing itself to legal liability. impact study, along with several other specialist studies related to the Remediation of Kendall Bay,
51 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response including the area around Tennyson Road Mortlake. All studies forming part of the EIS will be made available to the public for review and comment.
With reference to the traffic impact study, it will take into account the combined impacts of trucks relating to the remediation works as well as those related to the development works. Once the results of these studies are completed, measures to mitigate any potential impacts related to traffic will be reviewed and appropriately recommended, if appropriate. It may be noted, however, that Jemena has no plans at this stage to utilise Hilly St as part of the truck route for these works.
The investigation and the recommended mitigation measures will form part of the EIS that will be submitted to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) for review. In this regard it should be emphasised that Jemena’s purchase of 140 Tennyson Rd was undertaken following the completion a technical due diligence assessment. You should be aware that although Jemena purchased the property at 140 Tennyson Rd and considers its use during the remediation works as being technically feasible, such use is subject to the outcome of the EIS and the final approval by the DP&I.
Jemena has and will continue to actively engage the local community with regard to these works, and we have investigated the suggestions put forward by the local community. We will also ensure that all relevant material is made available for members of the public to view. As always, we welcome suggestions from the local community on potential methods to meet Jemena’s regulatory obligation and look forward to continued engagement with the local community to achieve this.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any further queries on the above. 04/03/2014 Thank you for your email. 115. Hi- I am very concerned reading about the Jemena understands the local community concerns with regard to potential impacts on traffic as a result potential 20 trucks that will be accessing of the remediation works, particularly in conjunction with residential developments occurring in nearby Tennyson Rd every day. Please note that this is streets. . As part of the Environmental impact Assessment (EIS), Jemena is currently completing a a community residential area with small traffic impact study, along with several other specialist studies related to the Remediation of Kendall Bay, businesses, nurseries, apartments, and including the area around Tennyson Road Mortlake. All your concerns will be provided to the various relatively narrow streets. I am concerned about specialists to include as part of their respective specialist assessments the disturbances to this neighbourhood from a noise, pollution, traffic, and safety perspective. All studies forming part of the EIS will be made available to the public for review and comment. Please consider an alternative- I do not want to have a very uncomfortable conversation with Included within these studies will be recommendations for mitigation measures. These measures will be you and my lawyers if something was to happen utilised to mitigate against any potential noise, pollution, traffic and safety impacts that may arise from safety wise in future. the remediation works proposed. The investigation and the recommended mitigation measures will form part of the EIS that will be submitted to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) for review make the final decision as to whether Jemena will be granted the necessary approvals.
52 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response 10/03/2014 Thank you for your email. 116. Hello – Can you tell me please what is the The proposed process for sediment movement is as follows: ultimate destination of the treated waste from Kendall Bay, that is the waste to be treated at • Hydraulic dredging of sediment and the pumping of slurry material to Tennyson Road the River Quays site? I refer to the waste that • Upon arrival at Tennyson Road the slurry material will be dewatered, separating the water from will be removed by truck from the River Quays the sediment material site – also approximately how many cubic • The water will be treated before being pumped back into Parramatta River metres of waste is there expected to be? • The remaining solidified sediment will be treated with a cement mixture to stabilise the Finally how many cubic metres of replacement contaminants within the sediments material is to be made available to refill the • Following stabilisation the sediment/ cement mixture will be transported from Tennyson Road to remediated areas of Kendall Bay and how is it an authorised waste disposal facility. planned to be placed in Kendall Bay. Rough approximations will suffice. Jemena does not, at this stage in the process, have exact or confirmed volumes of sediment removal nor material to be used for re-instatement during the remediation process in Kendall Bay. It has been estimated that an approximate volume ranging between 11,000 – 15,000 m3 of slurry (that is, sediment and water) will be removed from the Kendall Bay.
As discussed above, once this slurry material arrives at the Tennyson Road treatment facility, all the water will be removed in a de-watering process. As water will make up a large proportion of the slurry material, this will reduce the overall volume significantly.
The estimates for the volume of material departing the Tennyson Road treatment facility will not be known until the final design stages of the process. As noted above, the exact volume of sediment departing site will be dependent on, among other factors, the volume of water removed from the slurry mixture, the weight of the remaining solidified sediment material and the volume and percentage weight of the cement mixture used to treat the sediments.
Also to be confirmed in the final design stage of the works will be the amount of material required to cap the excavated areas. This will also likely not be able to be a direct measurement made against the volume of material removed from the site. Instead it will be dependent on, though not limited to, the design of the engineered cap, and the density and the porosity of the material to be used for re- instatement.
Furthermore, the landfill, which will be used for the final disposal of the treated sediment will only be confirmed once Jemena has engaged a preferred contractor..
53 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response 11/03/2014 Thank you for your email. 117. I write to you to voice my strong opposition to Jemena understands the concerns you have with regard to the proposed works to be conducted in such the use of 140 Tennyson Rd for the remediation a near vicinity to your residence Jemena aims to undertake all remediation works with minimal impact to of Kendall Bay. I surge you not to consider the surrounding community. However, before the site can be utilised as a staging area for the using this site as a matter of urgency. remediation works all potential environmental and social impacts need to be fully assessed. All your concerns raised will be passed to the various specialists for consideration and inclusion in their The reasons that I strongly oppose this site are: respective specialist studies. • This site is directly next to the riverside footpath that I walk my baby along twice a As part of the State Significant Development (SSD) Application that Jemena has submitted to the NSW day. It will be dangerous for us both in Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must also terms of gaining access to this footpath be completed. The EIS will assess any potential impacts to the environment as well as the surrounding due to the large amount of trucks going in community. The EIS will also identify suitable mitigation measures in order to minimise any potential and out of the site. Of course it is impacts. Among others, a traffic study and an assessment of potential odours emitted as part of these dangerous for all that use this footpath works are included within the EIS. This document is currently being prepared and is likely to be available and make use of this entry/exit point. My for public exhibition and comment mid 2014. husband and I also like to jog along this path. Included within all studies will be recommendations for mitigation measures. These measures will be • This site is 280m from our home. There is utilised to mitigate against any potential noise, pollution, traffic and safety impacts that may arise from nowhere we can walk, cycle or drive that the remediation works proposed. The investigations and the recommended mitigation measures will form will not be affected by the increased traffic part of the EIS that will be submitted to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) for that this remediation site will cause. It will review. If the DP&I have any queries or hesitations about the investigation or recommended mitigation be very dangerous for my 1 year old son measures they will expect Jemena address this until they are satisfied the works meet their criteria. especially since the footpaths of Tennyson Road and Hilly Street are already inadequate for a pram – with tree roots and holes and many other unsafe obstacles. As it is we are already forced to walk on the road at times. We see many other residents who are also unable to use the paths and have to use sections of the road to walk along. Palace Lane that we use everyday doesn’t even have a footpath at the moment it is reasonably quiet to walk along but this will change if you start using this site. I do not think you can justify the increased traffic and not provide local residents with a safe place to walk. • Being in such proximity to our home I am also concerned about noise, and 54 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response odours/air toxicity. Babies, young children, the elderly and pregnant women will be particularly sensitive to anything you release into the air and any accidentally leaks. It is absolutely vital that our health is not compromised in any way. I think it is much safer to leave the bay undisturbed than to risk creating a bigger problem that will directly affect the health of local residents. • I am a small business owner and work from home. This will affect me further because my clients and suppliers will be adversely affected by the increased traffic when they visit my office. And in addition if there is noise and/or air pollution I will never escape it because I am here every day and every night. • I am very concerned about pollution to the bay – if there is a pipe leak or any kind of unforeseen accident then you will put the bay and surrounds, and perhaps the whole Parramatta River and Sydney Harbour at risk of pollution. I don’t think this is a risk that is worth taking. Why stir it up now after all these years? • Finally, the pollution in Kendall Bay was created as a result of the actions of those at the former AGL Mortlake Gasworks site which is where the Breakfast Point Development site now is. If remediation was going to be done it should have been done on that site prior to allowing the areas to be developed. That opportunity was missed so therefore unless you can find a suitable arrangement to remediate the site from within Breakfast Point or from on the water, then it is not fair to place it on our doorstep.
55 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response In addition to these points I think that this ‘remediation' is pointless tokenism, from what I have been led to believe there is far more toxic sediment in the bay and surrounding areas than you are actually going to be cleaning up. (More than double) - I realise you have a contract to do the clean up and apparently its 'non- negotiable' but what a gross waste of money?; - It’s either clean or its dirty but being ‘a bit less dirty’ is actually the same as being dirty. If you were to carry out this work – at the end of it all - would it actually change my family’s potential use of the bay? Could we change our lifestyle from currently not fishing in the waters to suddenly being able to eat our catch from Kendall Bay? Could we change from not letting my son play on the beach and waters edge to letting him play there whenever he wants? If the new level of ‘risk’ is that much lower/& better for our health than it currently is please make a guarantee to the local residents about what actual benefits we will receive?
Please consider these points, I am deeply concerned about having a toxic dump within 300m of my home. 11/04/2014 118. Just touching base regarding the remediation Thank you for your email. work proposed at Kendall Bay. An ecological assessment is being undertaken as part of the environmental impact statement (EIS). When we contacted you last year we were in Until the finalisation of the assessment there is no confirmation that the mangroves will need to be the process of gaining approval from the NSW removed as part of the remediation of the bay, despite their disturbed state. In this regard Jemena is Department of Primary Industries, Fisheries to also investigating the possibility of remediating the area without the need to remove the mangroves collect mangrove seeds from behind Concord Hospital, propagate them until approx. 15-20 However, should removal be required, new mangroves will be replanted following the remediation work cms high then transplant them at an approved in consultation with relevant stakeholders. Therefore there could be a potential opportunity for the Yaralla location along the Parramatta River. This Sea Scout Group to become involved at that time and we would welcome this. approval has been received and we are about Jemena is committed to holding community events in order to provide information to the local community to commence a trial planting. on a regular basis regarding the progress of the works to date. The last Community and Information I understand that there are a number of Feedback Session was held on 25th February 2014. Information from this meeting may be found mangroves at Kendall Bay which will have to be at:http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-information-feedback-sessions/ removed due to contamination. Our Venturer
56 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Unit is keen to continue this work and are happy to partner with Urbis and Jemena in trying to establish mangroves at the site once remediation has been completed. I am undertaking the current project as part of my Queen Scout Environment Award and am engaging the other members of the Venturer Unit to help so they can continue the work. Thank you for considering this offer.
31/07/2014 119. Jemena has undertaken extensive research into the potential availability of alternative sites within the Have Jemena considered the option of Sydney Harbour area, to use as a staging area for the remediation of Kendall Bay. These studies were remediating sediment at the Tennyson Road initiated in 2009. To date the only sites that have been determined as technically viable include Cabarita staging site and then barging the inert/stabilised Park as well as 140 Tennyson Rd. As a result of various planning constraints relating to Cabarita Park, materials up the Parramatta River to be landed Jemena’s current preferred option is 140 Tennyson Rd. Results of this investigation can be found under at another location before trucking to landfill? Key Documents on the Kendall Bay remediation website. Jemena used this investigation to also look at the identified locations as potential barging locations, however there were no suitable locations identified where treated sediment could be barged to safely and then trucked from there. 29/07/2014 CIFS drop-in 120. The final design of the dewatering plant and the water treatment plant will be confirmed by the How does the Water Treatment Plant work and successful contractor during a construct and design phase. A preliminary design assessment has been how is the water separated and returned? conducted to ensure that the process is feasible and suitable to achieve Jemena’s objective in remediating Kendall Bay. This has been summarised below.
The preliminary dewatering design involves an initial screening out of oversized particles, followed by a de-sanding/ de-silting process through a centrifuge. The centrifuge will separate sediment and sand from water. Sand, sediment and ‘oversize’ particles will be treated with a chemical stabilising agent to prepare it for transport to an authorised waste disposal facility. The water is expected to go through a chemical treatment process to adjust the pH and cause any remaining suspended solids in the liquid to settle out. Settled material will be filtered out and water passed through a granular activated carbon (GAC) filter. This process removes any contaminants from the water. Treated water will be analysed on a regular basis and then released into Parramatta River at a constant rate.
57 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response 29/07/2014 CIFS drop-in 121. The former owner of 140 Tennyson Road approached Jemena in early 2013 about selling the property. When did the Tennyson Road site become Jemena had previously approached the former owner of this property during investigations regarding the available? access options that may be used by Jemena for the purpose of the treatment of impacted sediments prior to transport to an authorised waste transport facility.
29/07/2014 CIFS drop-in 122. Following the completion of the Kendall Bay remediation works, the Tennyson Road property is likely to How will the site at Tennyson Road be used be sold. after project completion?
29/07/2014 CIFS drop-in 123. Review of the available options for remediating the sediments surrounding the mangroves has been What are the options for remediating areas investigated and further investigation has been deemed warranted. Further advice from mangrove close to the mangroves and when will this specialists is currently being sought to assess available options. The exact time frame for this remediation work occur? investigation and assessment has not yet been determined. 29/07/2014 CIFS drop-in 124. Project works are expected to begin in late 2015. When will the project works will commence?
29/07/2014 CIFS meeting 125. The proposed hours of operation are: What are the hours of work (including Saturdays)? Will the clarification of Saturday Mon-Fri 7am – 5 pm hours affect traffic movements? Sat 7am – 2 pm No works will be conducted on Sundays or public holidays. Works will only occur outside of these hours in the event of an emergency. 29/07/2014 CIFS meeting 126. Asbestos is known to exist on the staging site within the building currently present in the form of cement What will happen if asbestos is found? sheeting. At this stage no plans are in place to demolish or renovate the building in such a way that would disturb this cement sheeting. An asbestos management plan will be developed prior to the construction phase to establish the staging site to Jemena’s requirements to ensure that no disturbance of this asbestos occurs. Another asbestos management plan is likely to be developed to consider debris pulled from the seabed within Kendall Bay. If any asbestos is identified this will be dealt with in accordance with relevant OHS regulations and policies.
58 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response 29/07/2014 CIFS meeting 127. Jemena conducted an investigation over the course of 4 years to try and identify alternative sites where Why is the location of the Tennyson Road site sediment treatment could occur. There were a number of limiting factors, including availability of the site, (narrow streets etc.) considered suitable being able to obtain the necessary authority or council approvals, barge and vehicular access, size/ compared to alternate sites? engineering/ logistics of the site and access rights over the site. The property at 140 Tennyson Road was the only property that met all these criteria. The only other site that was had the potential to be a staging site was Cabarita Park, however, Council approval would have been required. The preferred Tennyson Road access route has been deemed feasible based on an assessment of road width and that two vehicles are able to comfortably use the road in opposing directions even when there are cars parked on the side of the road. 29/07/2014 CIFS meeting 128. How was the staging site determined and have Jemena has undertaken extensive research into the potential availability of alternative sites within the authorities confirmed that there are no Sydney Harbour area, to use as a staging area for the remediation of Kendall Bay. These studies were alternative sites to barge the treated sediment initiated in 2009. To date the only sites that have been determined as technically viable include Cabarita to? Park as well as 140 Tennyson Rd. As a result of various planning constraints relating to Cabarita Park, Jemena’s current preferred option is 140 Tennyson Rd. Results of this investigation can be found under Key Documents on the Kendall Bay remediation website. Jemena used this investigation to also look at the identified locations as potential barging locations, however there were no suitable locations identified where treated sediment could be barged to safely and then trucked from there. 29/07/2014 CIFS meeting 129. Jemena has undertaken extensive research into the potential availability of alternative sites within the Is there an option for barging treated sediment Sydney Harbour area, to use as a staging area for the remediation of Kendall Bay. These studies were to other locations before using road transport? initiated in 2009. To date the only sites that have been determined as technically viable include Cabarita Park as well as 140 Tennyson Rd. As a result of various planning constraints relating to Cabarita Park, Jemena’s current preferred option is 140 Tennyson Rd. Results of this investigation can be found under Key Documents on the Kendall Bay remediation website. Jemena used this investigation to also look at the identified locations as potential barging locations, however there were no suitable locations identified where treated sediment could be barged to safely and then trucked from there. 29/07/2014 CIFS meeting 130. The appearance of Kendall Bay, post remediation works, is unlikely to be very different to what you see What will be the appearance of the bay post- now. Currently an occasional sheen, that is not associated with marine vehicles, may be observed within remediation? Kendall Bay particularly in the vicinity of Remediation Area B. Jemena aims to remove such aesthetic issues and ensure the bay is clean from contaminants associated with the former Mortlake Gasworks. The only other visual difference may be associated with the mangroves. Should they require removal, Jemena will replant mangrove seedlings to assist the mangrove stand to re-establish.
59 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response 29/07/2014 CIFS meeting 131. This is to be confirmed following the design and construct phase to be undertaken by the successful How many pumps will there be and are they contractor, however preliminary designs indicate only one pump may be required for this project. This external? pump is likely to be located approximately half way along the floating pipeline between Remediation Area A and the staging site.
29/07/2014 CIFS meeting 132. There is likely to be some noise generated by the works being conducted. The noise would be What will generate noise? Was noise assessed comparable to general construction noise. Noise modelling has been undertaken as part of the at quiet or noisy times and will noise exceed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and has been done for all stages of the project; site criteria levels during existing noisy periods establishment, project works, and site dis-establishment. Baseline noise monitoring was conducted over (such as when helicopters are overhead)? an extended period of time to capture the current noise levels in the area and over a range of situations (for example daytime, night time, etc). Site specific noise criteria have been developed based on the existing noise levels identified in the area. Modelled results show that noise will not exceed criteria levels and will be limited to the operational hours of the project. 29/07/2014 CIFS meeting 133. Is the predicted 10 – 15 dB noise increase Due to the scale on which noise is measured, numerically, 10-15dB is not double the baseline noise double the current noise level? level. However an increase of 10dB is perceived by the human ear as being twice as loud as a baseline noise level. An increase of 15dB is considered to be equivalent to approximately three times as loud as a baseline noise level. It may also be noted that differences of ~2dB are considered imperceptible to the human ear and only at ~5dB difference is the noise considered significant enough to be noticed.
29/07/2014 CIFS meeting 134. Traffic modelling completed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has considered future Has traffic modelling allowed for future development in the Mortlake and Breakfast Point areas. It has been modelled that the overall impact development in the area? from future developments in the area will contribute 98% of the additional vehicles movements in the area, compared to approximately 2% additional vehicle movements associated with the Kendall Bay Remediation Project.
29/07/2014 CIFS meeting 135. Jemena intends to complete these works without using attachments to the sea wall. The sea wall is privately owned. Has discussion taken place about expenses and placing attachments on the sea wall?
29/07/2014 CIFS meeting 136. During the course of project works, a silt curtain will be erected to minimise the flow of sediments from Will contaminants in the rest of the bay continue within the works area to that from outside the works area. The same principle will be in effect to prevent to come in with tides and usage of the river? sediments from outside the works area entering the works area as well. However, the silt curtains will have no impact on the natural tidal motions within the Bay. Following the completion of project works, natural tidal movements will continue, however the impacts over which Jemena has responsibility will no longer be a cause for concern in Kendall Bay.
60 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response 29/07/2014 CIFS meeting 137. Silt curtains are floating barriers that are specifically designed to contain and control the dispersion of How does the silt curtain work and how will its floating turbidity or silt in a water body. The exact construction of the silt curtain around the Remediation posts be driven into the sediment? Areas in Kendall Bay will be confirmed by the successful contractor however there are 2 suggested methods that may be used to install the silt curtain posts. The first method involves pile driving the posts into the sea bed. There will be some noise associated with these works, however it will likely be over a period of approximately 1-2 days and will not be continuous over the operational hours of the day. The second option to install or place the silt curtain posts would be to use weighted anchors. This is a less noisy option however the stability of the anchors to remain in place would need to be assessed. 17/08/2014 Response to Technical Workshop 138. Thank you for your email. Just to clarify my position with respect to a few points raised by myself at the CLG meeting on The points you have raised are valid and reflect many of the comments raised during the CLG meeting 12/8/2014. with respect to mangroves. Previous investigations that have been undertaken in the beach and mangroves area south of Kendall (1) I firmly believe that the priority should be on Bay have reported significant and widespread contamination by gasworks waste. Jemena is committed ensuring that the remediation should cover all hot spots that have been identified irrespective to ensuring that the mangroves are managed effectively whilst also ensuring the sediments in which the of the presence of the mangroves. You should mangroves reside are remediated. perhaps clarify if test results indicate that the Jemena is committed to investigating potential options for retaining the mangrove stand. A specialist with sediments in the immediate vicinity of the an academic understanding on mangroves is currently being engaged to allow Jemena to further mangroves contain some of the highest levels understand if there are any techniques that have been used successfully elsewhere, that may be of contamination which I would expect to be the developed here to allow this option to be successful. The mangrove specialist will also be helpful to case. understand further the issue of mangrove encroachment on foreshore areas.
(2) I have no issues with trialling a method of Jemena acknowledges the mangroves current role of collecting rubbish coming in from the bay and the preserving the existing mangrove stand nearby stormwater drain. Jemena will certainly consider having discussions with the Canada Bay providing any method proposed to be adopted Council regarding options for rubbish collection for the duration of the project. Once we have a confirmed is confirmed to have removed all of the polluted mangrove management methodology, Jemena will certainly consider discussions with the Breakfast material. It would need to be accepted that any Point Community Association regarding on-going waste management in the project area and protection such trial would only test the engineering of sea wall from potential impacts related to exposure. method of removal and not provide any Thank you again for your email. Jemena appreciates the time you’ve taken to pen your thoughts to us guarantees of long term survival of the regarding this matter we welcome any future comments you may have as the project progresses. mangroves. It is also understandable that there would be the desire to only use tried and tested methods in any final work program and there appears to be no evidence that any suitable procedure currently exists.
(3) For those looking down on the canopy of the mangroves it is certainly valid to suggest that the canopy conceals the build-up of rubbish that 61 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response occurs around the base of the mangroves. For those looking at the base of the mangroves it is equally valid to suggest that the mangroves do trap a lot of rubbish and sediment that would otherwise be washed away or be more easily cleaned. From having participated in a number of Clean-up Australia Days in the area the mangroves certainly have the capacity to trap most types of flotsam and jetsam. Expert opinion may confirm that the mangroves are very effective at trapping material, and that mangrove colonisation of the harbour foreshores has significantly accelerated with the increased sedimentation and runoff associated with changes in land use since European settlement.
(4) If the mangroves are removed to ensure effective clean-up of the bay, I would suggest a possible solution to the rubbish coming down the adjacent storm water drain would be to install an engineered rubbish trap out of site under the footbridge. The B.P. Community Association currently undertakes a routine clean out of the pit at the Admiralty Drive end of this storm water drain but clean out of this new trap might fall under the responsibility of the MSB Environmental Division. If installed perhaps the responsibility for the clean out would need to be established in advance.
(5) The ecologist representing Friends of Cabarita Park did suggest the removal of the Mangroves from Kendall Bay would add to the overall reduction of mangroves that has occurred in the area. This supposed reduction in mangrove area would not appear to be supported by reference to historical records. These would imply a significant increase in mangrove areas over time. I did indicate a review of the 1943 air photo records for the
62 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response harbour foreshores would better quantify the. change in the distribution of mangroves. The 1943 air photos of Kendall Bay are attached. These indicate the presence of a sandy beach around the Kendall Bay foreshore similar to that which exists in the non-mangrove area in the south-east corner of the bay. There may be a view from the less vocal members of the community that restoring the area to this apparent original ecology might be desirable.
Perhaps at some time there needs to be a wider study undertaken by Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority to establish the loss of harbour foreshore to mangrove encroachment and whether it should be permitted to continue unchecked.
(6) At the present time the current stand of mangroves do perform a function of significantly reducing the wave/wash action on the adjacent sea wall. Any changes resulting from the remediation that have a long term impact on the stability of the sea wall would need to be assessed and appropriate protection measures implemented.
(7) Certainly the comments of your ecologist of the lack of fauna in the mangroves would appear to match my general non-expert observations. At the present time it would appear that the area immediately behind the mangroves now houses the family of foxes which have been displaced from the old power house site and this is perhaps not desirable for any native fauna that might exist.
63 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response 10/09/14 Email 139. Dear Sir/Madam Thank you for your email. We appreciate your feedback and have forwarded it to Jemena. We will also include your feedback in It’s come to my notice that the so-called the issues and responses log, which can be found on the website www.kendallbayremediation.com.au. Breakfast Point Liaison Group are planning to lodge a submission that the clean-up be carried We would be pleased to hear from you again with further feedback or questions. out without the removal of the mangroves. I
have participated each year in cleaning up this area of all the litter that gets washed down the drains and quite a lot of the litter including bottles and plastic waste gets trapped under the roots of the mangroves.
I believe that it would be virtually impossible to effect a proper clean-up of the toxic wastes and litter in this area without removing the mangroves. Moreover I understand that this area was originally a sandy beach without any mangroves so to return it to its original condition would not even involve the planting of new mangrove trees.
I also note that a good proportion of the current mangroves appear to be in poor condition or even dead perhaps due to their position above the usual water line due to the build up of dry sand or soil. If the current mangroves were to be replaced that’s OK but certainly any proper clean-up must involve removal of the existing trees.
27/10/14 Phone call 140. I am looking at purchasing a property in Thank you for your call. Breakfast Point overlooking Kendall Bay. I'm The sediment will be dredged and transported via a pipeline to the remediation site at 140 Tennyson interested to know where the remediation will be Road where it will be treated. After treatment the sediment will be transported to a disposal site and the taking place and what the timing is. treated water will be re-entered into the River. Remediation is expected to take place in late 2015, subject to approval from the Department of Planning. Currently the Environmental Impact Statement and associated technical studies are being prepared.
64 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response 3/11/14 Email Thank you for your email. Your feedback has been forwarded to Jemena and will be included in the 141. I really can’t see what’s the point to talking with Issues and Responses Log, which is updated regularly on the website you people about the Kendall Bay project. www.kendallbayremediation.com.au. You’re a company which wants to do the job so that you make some money. I would guess that The remediation is required by the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (NSW EPA) to address no executives of Jemena live in Mortlake, so health and environmental risks posed by contamination. AGL signed a Voluntary Remediation they don’t care about toxic waste being Agreement with the NSW EPA in 2005. When the AGL Group was split up in late 2006, Jemena processed in Mortlake. inherited the Group’s obligations with the NSW EPA.
We (the residents of Mortlake) don’t want In response to your concern about remediation activities in Mortlake, Jemena has assessed over 46 Breakfast Point’s dirty work done in our different sites to access the remediation areas in Kendall Bay since 2009. This has included all backyard. waterfront properties between Camellia and Sydney Harbour Bridge, and Cabarita Park. For more information on the assessment of sites, please visit the website for a copy of the Access Options Report If the government had any sense of fair play, at http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/. they would have either (1) made sure that the remediation was done before Breakfast Pt was Jemena’s preferred access option was Cabarita Park, but due to strong opposition from the community developed, or (2) told Rose Corp to do the work and Council, Jemena continued assessing other options. The 140 Tennyson Road site is now the in the open space down there on Kendall Bay. preferred option for treatment of sediment. All potential impacts will be managed and mitigated to ensure But no, we don’t want to upset the dear folk of compliance with all state and local government requirements and minimal disturbance to the surrounding Breakfast Point, because they would give Rose community. Corp trouble, and the Liberal Party doesn’t want any of its corporate cronies to get upset. Your feedback is important and will be documented in the Issues and Responses Log on the website.
Anyway, I suspect that Jemena doesn’t give a stuff about the residents of Mortlake, so it’ll all roll on …………………………………. Why you guys bother with all this community consultation palaver, I really don’t know. 142. 10/11/14 Email Final Response: We noted in the October Newsletter that Jemena had still not received the Environmental Further to my email earlier this afternoon, we have checked with Jemena and they have still not received Assessment Requirements (EAR). the updated EARs.
We understand from the Local Member (Mr It is possible that John Sidoti may have been referring to the Director General’s Requirements (DGRs) John Sidoti) that the EAR has been released. which were issued in the past, but which will be superseded by the updated EARs once issued.
Could you please advise if Jemena has Once the EARs are issued we will be sending an update. received the EAR and, if so, when. Kind regards,
65 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response If not, please advise so that immediate follow-up can be undertaken. Holding response: With thanks. Thank you for your email.
We are checking this information with Jemena and will let you know once we have a response.
Kind regards,
143. 22/12/14 Community Information Market Final Response: Have noise levels been assessed for Hunters Further to our email in January, we have now received the following update from the project team regarding Wharf? acoustics assessment in the vicinity of Hunters Wharf.
ERM is currently finalising all technical studies in preparation for lodgement of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) later this year. Noise logging has been undertaken at eight locations for this project, including one logging location near Hunters Wharf, to measure pre-project noise levels. The measured existing ‘ambient and background’ noise levels (pre-project noise) were used to develop criteria for each of the 42 sensitive receptors considered in the ERM acoustics study. The 2014 noise modelling assessed potential impacts across the study area, including those at the Hunters Wharf area and at each of the acoustics study ‘sensitive receptors’. The modelling allowed project related noise levels to be predicted, these values were then compared to the criteria established from the logging data. Other key features of this work include:
- The acoustics study ‘sensitive receptors’ were selected by assessing proximity to project activities, and therefore measurements presented in the report will be representative of worst-case noise levels. - Noise levels were predicted (via 3D noise modelling) for a range of assessment scenarios and compared to criteria to determine any exceedances. - Noise management measures and monitoring options for implementation on site are being designed in relation to the predicted exceedances.
Please be advised that all of the technical studies, including the acoustics study, will go on public exhibition along with the Environmental Impact Statement, and will also be uploaded to the project website once finalised.
You may also be interested to review preliminary findings from the acoustics studies undertaken in 2012, 2013, and updated in 2014. These were presented at a Community Liaison Group meeting in July last year. The presentation is available on the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison-group/.
66 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response I have also included a link to the information boards displayed at the Community Information and Feedback Session in July 2014. I understand you attended the session, but here is the link to the information for your further easy reference: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/wp- content/uploads/2013/12/Kendall-Bay-Boards-AUG-2014.pdf.
I hope the information above is useful. If you have any further queries please don’t hesitate to be in touch on the below details.
Best wishes
Holding response:
I hope you had a nice holiday break.
We spoke with you at the Concord Farmer’s Market in December last year, and you requested some more information on the acoustic assessments for the Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project. I understand that you are specifically interested in finding out about noise levels near your property at 57 Peninsula Drive in Hunters Wharf (Breakfast Point).
We have just come back from the Christmas break and wanted to touch base to let you know that we have referred your query to Jemena.
We understand that acoustic assessments were done in 2012 and 2013, and we are looking into the exact locations of these assessments.
We’ll be in touch once we have more information for you.
In the meantime, please feel free to contact us via phone or email.
Kind regards
144. 14/01/15 Letter Final response: We refer to the proposed remediation project; in Further to my below email, please find attached Jemena’s response to your recent letter dated 14 particular the Remediation Action Plan (RAP) January 2015. prepared by SKM and dated 6 June 2014. Dynamic Property Services are the managers You will also find attached my cover letter. for the Breakfast Point Community Association (BPCA). On behalf of the BPCA we ask that
67 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Jemena address some matters within the RAP. Please be advised that we have also posted this response to you, so you should receive a hard copy These are outlined below. soon.
1. One of the stated objectives of the RAP is Please don’t hesitate to be in contact further. the removal of the EPA's Remediation Order (RO) over Kendall Bay. The proposed Best wishes, remediation is to "reduce the risk to human health and the environment as far as Holding response sent: practicable." Jemena will of course agree that the proposed remediation does not constitute Thank you for your letter, Subject: Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project, dated 14 January 2015, the complete remediation of Kendall Bay which we received today. because other "hot spots" where excessive levels of contaminants are present will not be I wanted to get in touch with you directly to let you know that we have forwarded your letter to the project removed. These areas do not constitute a risk team at Jemena for their consideration. to human health simple because they remain submerged at all times. Can Jemena please The points raised in your letter are important and we will be in touch with you again once a response is explain how the proposed remediation justifies provided by Jemena. removal of the RO? Can Jemena advise whether this proposal has the support of NSW In the meantime please feel free to be in touch with us via phone or email: EPA? 1800 266 901 2. In section 7.5 of the RAP, the stability of the existing seawalls is discussed. Since the [email protected] seawalls are assets that belong to the BPCA, the BPCA has a vested interest to ensure both Kind regards its short and long term stability. The discussion and assumptions made in the RAP rely heavily on geotechnical advice provided by JK Geotechnics (31 August 2012). The BPCA asks
that a copy of this report be provided to them. In section 7.5.2 of the RAP it is noted that
additional geotechnical testing and reporting will be required. This includes determining the thickness of the supposed rock fill that supports the seawalls. This is to be carried out using DCP tests.
Has this been undertaken? If so, can a copy of the report be made available to the BPCA? By way of comment, what happens if the proposed DCP tests refuse in the rock fill i.e. do not
68 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response penetrate the rock fill? The final point of section 7.5.2 is "Monitoring the stability of the seawalls and adjusting remediation methods accordingly." The BPCA agree that the monitoring is absolutely necessary. The statement implies that if unacceptable movement takes place, an alternative method to the proposed dredging will be implemented. What is this alternative method? This also leads to another question, who will decide what are acceptable movements? The BPCA insists that it is involved in any decisions regarding what are considered to be acceptable movements.
3. Section 10.2.4 (second point) notes "Erect temporary barricades and prevent any heavy loads (i.e. trucks) from being near the crest of the seawalls while remediation work is occurring in the area." The BPCA has not been consulted on this matter and in principle is opposed to the erection of these fences on its property.
4. Section 10.8.2 addresses monitoring after the completion of the remediation. In this section the RAP notes that "the performance of the remediated area in Kendall Bay would be monitored at 3 monthly intervals for the first 12 months after completion of the site works." This section goes on to state that "no further monitoring would be undertaken after this 12 month period if:
• The river water quality is consistent with background levels in the Parramatta River.
• There is no physical evidence of the cap being compromised, and
69 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response • The NSW EPA agrees to the cessation of the monitoring."
The BPCA whole heartedly agrees post construction monitoring must take place, however, the 12 month period is considered to be totally inadequate. A period of 10 years is considered to be appropriate. The BPCA note that the background levels in the water are to be set from a sample to be collected adjacent to Cabarita Point. In the opinion of the BPCA this is unacceptable because the proposed location is likely to be significantly influenced by disturbance caused by the river traffic and would result in unacceptably high background levels being adopted. The sampling point should be away from significant river traffic. The BPCA notes that soil sampling on the soil cap is to "check for signs of contaminant migration through the cap." The report prepared for the unsuccessful marina proposal noted that the prevailing currents in Kendall Bay would result in the ongoing deposition of PAHs in the mangroves. The RAP does not consider this scenario in its discussions. This is a reason why the proposed monitoring is considered inadequate.
5. Section 10.9 refers to ongoing management following remediation. The BPCA strongly supports the establishment of a long term Environment Management Plan (EMP) for Kendall Bay following the completion of the proposed remediation.
Have the NSW EPA and RMS accepted the need for and agreed to abide by such an EMP? The BPCA strongly suggests that there should be community input into the preparation of the
70 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response EMP. Can Jemena confirm this will be the case?
The BPCA look forward to a timely and comprehensive response to the points raised above. The above should not be considered to be a comprehensive review of the RAP. The BPCA may consider further information and clarification of the RAP in the future. Could you please ensure a copy of this letter is distributed to all members of the Community Liaison Group?
Yours Sincerely
145. 22/01/15 Email Final response: Please advise the estimated total cost of Following my email on the 22 of January, Jemena have provided a response to your query: Kendall Bay remediation. The total estimated cost of the remediation is not available at this time. Costs may be estimated as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment to be lodged later this year for assessment. Costs will be finally determined subject to the remediation methodology and tenders agreed post- the EIS process and necessary planning approvals.
Your query and Jemena’s response will be added to the issues and responses log on the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
We’d be pleased to receive further feedback from you at any time.
Best wishes
Holding Response:
Thank you for your email.
We have forwarded your enquiry to Jemena for their response.
Please be advised that your enquiry will be recorded in the Issues and Responses log on the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
71 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Please don’t hesitate to be in touch if you have any further questions or feedback.
Kind regards
146. 12/03/2015 Email Final response:
To all concerned Thank you for your email below outlining your concerns about the mangroves in Kendall Bay. Apologies for the delay in responding, we’ve just received the following response to your email from Jemena: I would like to add my voice to the residents who oppose the removal of the mangroves in Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment Kendall Bay as part of the remediation process. study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact I believe to do so would be an ecological sin. Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds We need the mangroves to sustain and shelter on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014. the birdlife as well as maintaining the little remaining natural beauty of the bay. The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the Cheers Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand.
The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top.
A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- liaison-group/.
Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others). 72 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted along with this response, in the register of Issues and Responses on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards 147. 12/03/15 Email with attached letter Final response: Dear Sir, Thank you for your letter. We note the contents and appreciate your support for Jemena’s approach to the remediation of Kendall Bay. RE: Kendall Bay Remediation Please continue to stay updated on our progress at www.kendallbayremediation.com.au My wife & I have lived in a property known as Admiralty Apartments for the past 11 years. Our Regards property is situated on the edge of the waterfront walkway, overlooking Kendall Bay adjacent to the small pedestrian bridge.
We have kept up to date with the painfully slow progress of remediating the bay of the toxic and visual pollution caused by the former owners of the gas works.
We note the Jemena preferred option for cleaning up bay Area A is the removal of the
73 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response mangroves & contaminated sediment. We both support this option.
It is noted that not all owners / residents share this view and appear to be pushing for a number of less efficient methods of removing potentially only part of the contamination for visual & ecological reasons, at the risk of leaving some of the really bad contamination in bay Area A.
Our view is very simple in that our community has only one opportunity for Jemena to undertake the remediation for the benefit of current & future generations. In our opinion we feel that the longer-term benefits of proper remediation more than offset any relative short term loss of the mangroves and any associated temporary loss of fauna & flora.
Over the past 11 years we have noticed the regrowth of mangroves on the eastern edge of the bay and based on that observation feel confident that with an appropriate program of replanting, that over time the mangroves and the associated fauna & flora will be restored.
Yours faithfully
148. 13/03/2015 Email Final response:
We would like to OBJECT strongly to the Thanks for your email in March outlining your objection to the removal of mangroves. REMOVAL of MANGROVES from Kendall Bay Apologies for the delay in responding to your feedback, we’ve just received a response to your email Regards from Jemena, which I’ve provided below for your reference.
Response from Jemena:
Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact
74 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014.
The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand.
The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top.
A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- liaison-group/.
Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others).
It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
75 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted in the Issues and Responses Log on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards 149. 14/03/15 Email Final response:
Dear Sirs, Thank you for your email on the 14th of March which outlines your concerns about the mangroves.
I am writing this email to register my disgust and Apologies for the delay in responding to your email. We’ve just received a response from Jemena, very strong objections to possible removal of which I have provided for you below. the mangroves in Kendall Bay in order to carry out so-called remediation! Response from Jemena:
Surely, even the suggestion that you would Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment remove any of the mangroves is some sort of study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact sick joke! I also cannot believe that anyone at Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds the EPA would countenance such a move! I on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014. was under the impression that the EPA was about protecting our environment and pollution. The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while If that is the case, then you must be aware of adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the the extraordinary benefits of mangroves! They Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from are an amazing tree. designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, Some of the benefits of mangroves are as and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes follows (and this is just a tiny number): the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand.
1. They act as filters The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal 2. The act as buffers and protect shorelines and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top. against coastal erosion from the sea and in estuaries (in our case I am sure they absorb A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: some of the waves/ripples from the Rivercat http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/. Ferries and the seawall!!!! 3. They absorb pollutants The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation 4. They filter and absorb heavy metals given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- liaison-group/. 76 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response 5. They are breeding grounds and nurseries for marine organisms Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the 6. They are crucial to stabilising the slightest most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves ecological imbalance and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
If you allow removal, or even partial removal, of Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment the mangroves then it makes a complete study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies mockery of everything that the EPA supposedly undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among stands for! others).
If you are unaware of the benefits of mangroves It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April and you work with the EPA then perhaps you 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of need to work in another field! In fact, I believe Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition we should have more mangroves along the for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a Parramatta River. submission during this period.
Obviously, the stand of mangroves that All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further currently live in Kendall Bay are unaffected by considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for the pollution and look like they are doing exactly community feedback through a public hearing process. what they are supposed to do!! Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted in the Issues and This whole project is beginning to sound like a Responses Log on the project website. nightmare and I can't help but think it would be better left undisturbed! It would appear there The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue will be far more damage done in attempting to provide project updates and information as the project progresses. remediation as opposed to what is there now! Please don’t hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards 150. 14/03/15 Email Final response:
Hello Sir/ Madam, Thanks for your email outlining your concerns about the mangroves (received 14th March).
I am a resident of Breakfast Point, and wish to Apologies for the delay in responding to your email. We have just received a response from Jemena, express my concerns and resistance to the any which I’ve provided below for your reference. plan to remove the mangroves. Response from Jemena: The mangroves are an important part of the ecosystem, that I believe adds to the quality of Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact 77 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response life of all and is vital home for plants, insects Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds and animals that dwell there. on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014.
Removal of mangroves will: Destroy the The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while aesthetics of the foreshore, expose the shore to adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the dumping ground to floating rubbish, and Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from increase the risk of damage to the sea wall. designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, I will vote in the upcoming NSW elections for a and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes candidate who will support and protect the the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand. mangroves from destruction. The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top. Regards A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- liaison-group/.
Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others).
It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted in the Issues and Responses Log on the project website.
78 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards 151. 14/03/15 Email Final response:
Hello Sir/ Madam, Thanks for your email on the 14th of March. We’ve just received a response from Jemena to your concerns, which I’ve also just sent to your husband via email. Along with my husband Theo, whom I believe has emailed you already, I would like to express I’ve provided the response from Jemena below. my opposition to the planned removal of the mangroves. Response from Jemena:
I read about the plan in the latest Breakfast Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment Point Newsletter and thought it was very study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact unfortunate. However, it was only after seeing a Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds ring tailed possum in the mangroves last on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014. evening that I felt compelled to actually take action. I felt very sad that he would no longer The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while have a habitat to live in and expressed this to adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the my husband. Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Along with my husband, I will vote in the Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, upcoming NSW elections for a candidate who and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes will support and protect the mangroves from the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand. destruction. The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal Regards and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top.
A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- liaison-group/.
79 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others). It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted in the Issues and Responses Log on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards 152. 16/03/15 Email Final response:
I wish to express my concern at the proposal to Thank you for your email on the 16th outlining your concerns about the removal of mangroves. remove the mangroves from Kendall Bay, as part of the Kendall Bay Remediation. Apologies for the delay in responding to your email. We have just received a response from Jemena to your email and I have provided this below for your reference. This concern is based on the following:- Response from Jemena: 1. Loss of visual appeal. The greenery of the mangroves will be replaced by the much less Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment visually pleasing exposed mudflats up to the study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014. 80 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response sea wall. It will also make debris washed into the bay much more obvious The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the 2. Loss of the mangroves. This would be in Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from direct conflict with Canada Bay’s Council designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Mangrove Preservation Policy. As well as the Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, visual, and environmental impact of the removal and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes of the mangroves, it would remove the storm the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand. surge calming effect of the mangrove roots, and expose the potentially vulnerable sea wall to The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal damaging waves Replanted mangroves are and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top. very slow growing, and will take decades to grow back A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/. 3. Damage to the sea wall. Removal of the mangroves will greatly increase the probability The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation of storm damage to the existing sea wall. The given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- sea wall is the responsibility of the Breakfast liaison-group/. Point Community, and it would be completely unjust, to expose the Community to the cost of Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the this much greater risk of damage repair, so that most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves those responsible for the contamination, can and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works. save money on remediation. Any damage could also block the access to the heavily used Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment Cabarita Wharf for months during sea wall study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies repair. undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others). It is my understanding that the vast majority of the contamination can be removed with little It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April damage to the mangroves, and I urge you to 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of take this approach Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted in the Issues and Responses Log on the project website.
81 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901. Kind regards 153. 17/03/15 Email Final response: We live in the Verandahs units, which are Thank you for your email and participation at the CLG the other evening also. overlooking the mangroves and Kendall Bay. We are most concerned that the mangroves are I have passed on your feedback to Jemena for their consideration. I understand they are also providing to be removed, and we are totally behind Rod to the EPA as per your request. Jeffries in his submission to Jemena. We must look outside the square in coming up with It will also be added to the Issues and Response register maintained on the project website. acceptable solutions to the retention of the old and substantial mangroves, most of which are Please don’t hesitate to be in touch at any time. quite close to the retaining wall, and removal may cause damage to the wall. On a recent inspection, in the area of the oldest and largest mangroves, there is quite a build-up of sand along the wall, which again will be an issue if contaminated soil is be removed to a depth of 1m adjacent to the wall. Please pass on our concerns to the regulatory authority.
154. 18/03/15 Email with attached paper Final response: I am looking for your support. Following your email on the 20th of March, we forwarded your feedback about the mangroves and Rod’s report to Jemena for their consideration. I’ve provided Jemena’s response to your email below (in italics). I would like to bring to your attention the attached paper by Rod Jeffery in regard to the Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment Mangroves in Kendall Bay study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds I believe that the Mangroves are very important on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014. and should not be removed during the clean-up process. The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the What is your position in regard to this? Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, 82 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand.
The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top.
A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- liaison-group/.
Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others).
It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted with this response, in the register of Issues and Responses on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
83 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Kind regards
Holding response:
Thank you for your email regarding the mangroves and for forwarding the paper prepared by Rod. The paper was tabled by Rod at the Community Liaison Group Meeting last Wednesday.
We’ve forwarded your email to Jemena for their response. Your email will also be added to the Issues and Responses Log on the website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key- documents/.
You may also be interested to see the preliminary findings from the Mangroves Options Assessment (see CLG#8 Presentation), now uploaded to the project website: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison-group/.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me again.
Kind regards
155. 18/03/15 Email Final response: To whom it may concern Thank you again for your email (received on the 18th of March) outlining your concerns about the mangroves. We forwarded your email to Jemena and I've provided their response below. I have serious issues with the removal of mangroves at Kendall Bay. Response from Jemena:
How can removing nature’s filtration device be Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment seen as part of a remediation plan. study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds Surely a remediation plan to remove sediment on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014. cannot in turn cause damage (with no remediation) to the natural environment and the The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while fauna and flora that live there, adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from Those mangroves also assist on filtering storm designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental water and support wave impact onto the Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, Seawall. How can impacting all of this be seen and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes as effective remediation. the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand.
84 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Please consider alternatives that have been The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier - or "cap" - to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal extensively investigated and reported including and contain contaminants. Clean fill that provided by the Community Liaison Group. (sand) will then be placed on top.
Please be advised that my objection will also be A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: forwarded to all sitting and challenging State http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/. MPs along with the Premier, Leader of the Opposition and Mayor. The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: Your response outlining how alternatives are http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison- being investigated as viable options is also group/. appreciated. Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others).
It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted with this response, in the register of Issues and Responses on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don't hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
85 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Kind regards
Holding response:
Thank you for your email outlining your concerns about the mangroves.
You email has been forwarded to Jemena for their response. Your email will also be added to the Issues and Responses Log on the website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key- documents/.
You may also be interested to see the preliminary findings from the Mangroves Options Assessment (see CLG#8 Presentation), now uploaded to the project website: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison- group/.
Please feel free to contact me in the future with any further questions or feedback.
Best wishes 18/03/15 Email Final response: 156. Dear Sir/Madam Thank you again for your below email, dated 18th of March, regarding the mangroves in Kendall Bay.
I understand that Rod Jeffery who lives on the Further to my response on the 20th of March, your email was provided to Jemena for their consideration. foreshore of Kendall Bay on the top floor of Jemena's response to your email is provided below. “Admiralty” has submitted a proposition for retention of the mangroves in the clean-up of Jemena's response: Kendall Bay. Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment Surely however, the key issue is MAXIMUM study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact REMOVAL OF THE CONTAMINANTS and if Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds that means removal and replacement or on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014. otherwise of the mangroves, then that should be done as soon as possible as this whole issue is The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while dragging on and on. adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental There is reference in his document to numerous reasons to retain the mangroves including Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, amenity benefits, wave damage to the sea wall, and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand. ecological protection of the habitat etc etc.
However, all of this is questionable because the area is unusable at present and visually 86 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response unappealing with the infestation of lantana and The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal other noxious vegetation. Potential wave and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top. damage to the sea wall may not be a big issue because much of the area appears to be above A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: the high water mark. Ecological protection of the http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/. habitat is also questionable as I’m not aware of much bird or other life except perhaps rats and The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation feral cats and from my experience and that of given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- others in the “Clean Up Australia Day”, the liaison-group/. mangrove roots tend to trap all sorts of plastic bags and other refuse exiting from the drain or Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the washing in on the tides. I have also heard that most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves this species of mangrove is not particularly and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works. worth saving in comparison with alternatives. Finally to suggest that the mangroves have Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment “heritage importance” is really over the top as I study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies understand there is a picture taken some years undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among ago that shows no mangroves in this area at all. others).
Therefore in your deliberations on whether to It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April remove or retain the mangroves, be assured 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. that there are residents of “Admiralty”, “Kendall Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a Inlet and the surrounding area that would be minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission happy to see the mangroves go, if it results in a during this period. proper clean-up of the toxic contaminants and other refuse and the unwanted vegetation that All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further is foreign to that area. considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process. Yours truly Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted with this response, in the register of Issues and Responses on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards
Holding response:
87 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
Thank you for your email about the mangroves and remediation.
Your feedback has been forwarded to Jemena for their consideration and response. Your email will also be added to the Issues and Responses Log on the website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
You may also be interested to see the preliminary findings from the Mangroves Options Assessment (see CLG#8 Presentation), now uploaded to the project website: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison-group/.
Please feel free to be in contact with any further feedback or questions.
Kind regards 157. 19/03/15 Email Final response: I wish to advise my support for the retention of Thank you again for your email on the 20th of March (copied below) regarding the mangroves in Kendall the Kendall Bay mangroves as set out in the Bay. Further to my email back to you on the 20th of March, we forwarded your email to Jemena for their report of the Community Liaison Group (CLG). consideration, and they have provided a response, which I’ve copied below for your reference in italics. The group’s paper contains cogent argument, supported by scientific evidence for the Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment retention of the mangroves which has my study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact support. Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014. I find it difficult to understand how Jemena could propose the removal as the “preferred option”, The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while effectively ignoring the importance of the adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the mangroves to the ecology of the area. Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental The community supports the proposal for Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, retention as contained in the CLG paper and it and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes is suggested that Jemena look at other options the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand. to arrive at a solution which the community can support. It is the community which has to live The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal with this issue long term, and the community’s and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top. needs and wishes should be respected. A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
88 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- liaison-group/.
Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others).
It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted with this response, in the register of Issues and Responses on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards
Holding response:
Thank you for your email about the mangroves. We have forwarded your email to Jemena for their response.
Your email will also be added to the Issues and Responses Log on the website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/. 89 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
You may also be interested to see the preliminary findings from the Mangroves Options Assessment (see CLG#8 Presentation), now uploaded to the project website: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison-group/.
Please don’t hesitate to be in contact in future if you have any further questions or comments. Best wishes 158. 19/03/15 Email Final response: Cleaning up the Bay by destroying something Thanks again for your email regarding the mangroves. Following my email to you (copied below) on the valuable like our last remnants of mangrove is 20th of March, we forwarded your feedback to Jemena, and they have provided a response, which I’ve utter nonsense and pure vandalism. I walk past copied below (in italics). it every day and enjoy looking at it - the last piece of the original bay ecosystem left - and Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment you don't think it’s a big deal to destroy it! study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact Please think again. Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014.
The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand.
The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top.
A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- liaison-group/.
Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
90 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others).
It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted with this response, in the register of Issues and Responses on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards
Holding response:
Thank you for your email.
Your email has been forwarded to Jemena for their consideration and response.
Your email will also be added to the Issues and Responses Log on the website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
You may also be interested to see the preliminary findings from the Mangroves Options Assessment (see CLG#8 Presentation), now uploaded to the project website: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison-group/.
Please feel free to be in contact with any further feedback or if you have any questions.
91 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Kind regards
159. 19/03/15 Email Final response: Dear Jemena, Thanks again for your email (dated 19th March) regarding the mangroves. We forwarded your email to Jemena for their consideration, and we have received a response. I've provided Jemena's response I have read the documents prepared by Rod below for your reference. Jeffery and Dr Mark Skinner and I concur with all of their findings. Please take their findings Response from Jemena: and suggestions seriously and find a better way of dealing with the problem. Yours faithfully Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014.
The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand.
The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier - or "cap" - to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top.
A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison- group/.
Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
92 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others).
It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted with this response, in the register of Issues and Responses on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don't hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards
Holding response:
Thank you for your email regarding the findings prepared by Rod Jeffrey and Mark Skinner. We've forwarded your email to Jemena for their response.
Your email will also be added to the Issues and Responses Log on the website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
You may also be interested to see the preliminary findings from the Mangroves Options Assessment (see CLG#8 Presentation), now uploaded to the project website: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison- group/.
93 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response These issues will be further discussed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and there's a further opportunity to make public submissions as part of that process.
If you have any further feedback or questions please feel free to contact us again.
Best wishes 160. 21/03/15 Email Final response: We are very concerned about our mangroves Further to my email on the 23rd of March, we forwarded your feedback regarding the mangroves to and will do whatever we can to prevent you Jemena and they've provided a response. Their response is copied below for your reference. Thanks from taking the easy and cheap option to again for your email. remove them Jemena response:
Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014.
The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand.
The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top.
A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- liaison-group/.
Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
94 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others).
It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted with this response, in the register of Issues and Responses on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards
Holding response:
Thank you for your email outlining your concern about the mangroves. We've forwarded your email to Jemena for their response.
As with all feedback we receive, your email will be added to the Issues and Responses Log on the website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
You may also be interested to see the preliminary findings from the Mangroves Options Assessment (see CLG#8 Presentation), now uploaded to the project website: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison-group/.
These issues will be further discussed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and there's a further opportunity to make public submissions as part of that process.
95 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response If you have any further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again.
Best wishes
161. 21/03/15 Email Final response: Good afternoon, Thanks again for your email, which we received on the 21st of March. We forwarded your email to Jemena and they’ve provided a response. I’ve copied the response below (in italics) for your reference. I would like to formally register my opposition to any form of removal of the existing mangroves Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment in Kendall Bay. The functionality and study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact appearance of the mangrove area is extremely Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds valuable in various ways and the amount of on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014. potential benefit is far outweighed by the risk and appearance of the site with them gone. The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the Kind Regards Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand.
The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top.
A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- liaison-group/.
Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others).
96 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted with this response, in the register of Issues and Responses on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards
Holding response:
Thank you for your email about the mangroves.
We have forwarded your email to Jemena for their consideration and response.
Please be advised your email will also be added to the Issues and Responses Log on the website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
You may also be interested to see the preliminary findings from the Mangroves Options Assessment (see CLG#8 Presentation), now uploaded to the project website: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison-group/.
These issues will be further discussed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and there's a further opportunity to make public submissions as part of that process.
If you have any further concerns or questions please feel free to be in touch again at the details below.
Best wishes
97 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
162. 27/03/15 Email Final response: We are long term residents of Breakfast Point Thanks again for your email (received 27th of March), outlining your concerns about the mangroves in and are greatly concerned about the detrimental Kendall Bay. Since my email back to you on the 27th of March we've received a response from Jemena effect of the proposed Jemena remediation to your feedback. Please find Jemena's response copied below. plan. Response from Jemena: In particular we are concerned with the result of removing the existing mangroves. We urge that Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment Jemena extend its consultation period to fully study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact consider the issues raised by the Community Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds Liaison Group. on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014.
The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand.
The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier - or "cap" - to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top.
A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison- group/.
Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others). 98 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted with this response, in the register of Issues and Responses on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don't hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards
Holding response:
Thank you for your email outlining your concerns about the mangroves.
We've forwarded your email to Jemena for their information and response.
Please be advised your email will also be added to the Issues and Responses Log on the website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
You may also be interested to see the preliminary findings from the Mangroves Options Assessment (see CLG#8 Presentation), now uploaded to the project website:
http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison-group/.
These issues will be further discussed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and there's a further opportunity to make public submissions as part of that process.
99 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response If you have any further feedback, please feel free to be in touch with us again at the details below.
Best wishes
163. 27/03/15 Email Final response: Having now read Rod Jeffrey's paper on the Thank you again for your email and feedback about the mangroves (dated 27th March and copied option of not removing the mangroves in below). Following my email back on the 27th of March, Jemena have provided a response to your email, Kendall Bay I wish to advise that I am strongly which I've copied below for your reference. against any option of cleaning up Kendall Bay that involves removal of any mangroves. Response form Jemena:
Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014.
The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand.
The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier - or "cap" - to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top.
A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison- group/.
Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
100 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others).
It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted with this response, in the register of Issues and Responses on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don't hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards
Holding response:
Thank you for your email and feedback about the mangroves.
We have forwarded your email to Jemena, for their consideration and response.
Your email will be also be added to the Issues and Responses Log on the website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
You may also be interested to see the preliminary findings from the Mangroves Options Assessment (see CLG#8 Presentation), now uploaded to the project website:
http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison-group/.
101 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response These issues will be further discussed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and there's a further opportunity to make public submissions as part of that process.
If you have any further concerns please don't hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards
164. 29/03/15 Email Final response: Your persistence in continuing to wreck the Thanks again for your email on Sunday regarding the mangroves. We forwarded your email to Jemena whole of Kendal Bay is unbelievable. Not only and they’ve provided a response, which I’ve copied below for your reference (in italics). do you want to create more pollution but to remove the Mangroves is totally unnecessary. Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment This is an area where the fish have their study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact breeding grounds and by removing them will Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds destroy their birth right forever. Over time I’m on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014. sure Mother Nature will eventually clean the bay in her own time without the interference of man. The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand.
The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top.
A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- liaison-group/.
Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies 102 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others).
It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted with this response, in the register of Issues and Responses on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards
Holding response:
Thank you for your email outlining your concerns about the mangroves in Kendall Bay. I’ve forwarded your email to Jemena for their consideration and response.
Your email will also be added to the Issues and Responses Log, which is updated on the project website, at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
You may also be interested to see the preliminary findings from the Mangroves Options Assessment (see CLG#8 Presentation), now uploaded to the project website: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison-group/.
These issues will be further discussed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and there's a further opportunity to make public submissions as part of that process.
103 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response If you have any further concerns or any questions about the project please feel free to be in contact again.
165. 29/03/15 Email Final response: I have read the Minutes and the paper Thanks for your email – and your further feedback on the mangroves and movements of contaminants in presented by Rod Jeffries regarding the the bay. Just to note that the discussion in the CLG did not cover the concerns you raise, and have retention of the Mangroves. raised previously, regarding the potential movement of contaminants in the bay. Hence the comment you have referred to was only a brief reference. The CLG discussion focussed more particularly on While I can appreciate that Jemena and the other aspects regarding the options assessment for the mangroves. I am happy to discuss if a more EPA see the removal of the Mangroves as a detailed outline of the discussion would be helpful – I know it can be difficult sometimes getting a sense major aspect in cleaning up the Bay, I would of the meeting when reading from the summary notes, if you have not been there yourself. maintain that this is only a minor aspect when you look at the bigger picture of the As previously discussed at the CLG, the requirement to remediate was determined by the EPA, and contamination of the Bay as a whole. Jemena are required to abide by that decision.
There seems to be a determination to do the I will forward your email to Graham Funch and Jeff Williams at Jemena for their information and remediation work as a priority, when in fact the consideration. contamination has been in the Bay for a very long time. Probably from when AGL used the site for the production of gas.
The consent authority when approving the residential development around Kendall Bay was obviously not concerned at the potential impact of the contaminants on people who would reside in close proximity to the Bay. Should there have been any concern for the long term health of residents, there should not have been consent granted to the residential development.
In the circumstances, the need for a quick resolution of the matter is obviously not well founded.
It appears that the further examination of ways to keep the Mangroves will not have a major
104 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response impact on the wellbeing of residents in the immediate proximity of the Bay.
This would also allow a proper examination of the migration of contaminants from the Bay to be addressed.
The Minutes address the question of mobility of contaminants in a very short response in that - "The cap is important to reduce the mobility of contaminants." That does not address the general question of the movement of those contaminants from the Bay which are likely to end up at the southern end of the Bay. This should also be addressed in assessing the best way of managing the retention of the Mangroves.
I hope that this brief outline will be considered in the further examination of the way ahead and the possible retention of the Mangroves which add considerably to the green vista of the Bay.
166. 31/03/15 Email Final response: I have been a resident of the Cabarita/Mortlake Thank you for your email outlining your concerns about the mangroves in Kendall Bay. Also, thank you area for over 30 years and wish to add my for providing a reference to the October 2012 UNSW Engineering Quarterly Newsletter. objection to the proposed removal of the mangroves as part of the remediation of Kendall We’ve forwarded your email to Jemena for their consideration, including the quarterly newsletter. A Bay. I have read the document by Mr Jeffery response from Jemena regarding the mangroves is provided below for your reference. and having a chemical engineering degree, I can understand its basic points. Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact At the meeting held last year at the Massey Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds Park Golf Club, the representative of the EPA on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014. advised that contact with the polluted area would need to be made for an inordinate The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while amount of time before any chance of a health adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the risk could occur. The document by Mr Jeffery Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from also noted that no action has yet occurred on designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, 105 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response remediation even though the pollution has been and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes known for over 20 years. the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand.
I note that in an article contained in the The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal Quarterly of UNSW Engineering of October and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top. 2012, that research is being carried out by the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: on 'An efficient and inexpensive method of http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/. cleaning up polluted sediments and estuaries'. I suggest that contact be made with the university The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation to obtain an update on progress on this given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- research. liaison-group/.
Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others).
It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted with this response, in the register of Issues and Responses on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
106 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
167. 01/04/15 Email Final response: I received your latest Kendall Bay update It's good to receive your feedback. I will forward this to Jemena for their consideration. yesterday. Thanks for the ongoing communication. You may also wish to view the presentation of preliminary findings on the mangroves options assessment by Cardno, uploaded to the website. I note that there is continued reference to three options concerning the mangroves. I Their presentation identified the third option as preferred due to concerns that remediation would not fully understand the need for remediation and that remove the contaminants if the mangroves remained in situ. On that basis, remediation would not meet the preferred option relates to the removal of the requirements of the EPA, as outlined in the Remediation Action Plan. the mangroves. It of course has an added benefit of cost and time, always a plus for These documents are available now on the website, if you would like more information. proponents. Further updates are being uploaded to the website today, as outlined in the newsletter. I understand Time surely is not an issue as the remediation there were some technical hitches on this earlier today, but these should be resolved and the information has been discussed for decades. fully displayed by tomorrow. Our IT people are resolving now.
Your newsletter refers to the presentation by an In the meantime, I hope you have an enjoyable Easter and long weekend. individual member of CLG and alternative remediation methods. My reading of "Rod’s proposal” is different to others. It is simply a proposal for a trial of the method proposed by Rod. Something that can be done while other investigations are carried out and if carried out quickly not impact on time.
True it requires some little engineering innovation and is a little leading edge but surely it is worth more than cursory examination. It just may be able to achieve what most impacted residents want: retention of mature mangroves and the bay remediated.
Thank you for reading this and enjoy Easter.
168. 02/04/15 Email Final response: Good morning. I live in Breakfast Point and am Thank you for your email and feedback regarding the mangroves. I’ve provided below a response from pleased that Jemina is going to remediate the Jemena to your concerns, including links to further information about the different options considered. bay. I am very concerned however at the latest
107 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response news I have heard - that is that the mangroves We will add your email to the Issues and Responses Log, which is available on the website in the ‘Key are going to be removed. Surely this is a very Documents’ tab. drastic step that need not happen if other options are properly explored and considered. I Response from Jemena: appreciate that removing them is likely the cheapest and easiest option but given the Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment issues that have been dealt with to date, surely study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact we are beyond cheap and cheerful for such Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds important river-cleansing flora, as well as the on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014. aesthetic value of them. They would take many years to regrow to their current size; assuming The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while of course that new mangroves are planted post- adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the remediation. I think these mangroves might be Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from the closest ones to the city in the Parramatta designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental River - is this the case? Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes I am not an expert on mangroves, but there the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand. must be another way to deal with them other than removal. Others in Australia or elsewhere The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal must have solved this type of problem. As I and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top. understand it the trees perform a filtering/cleansing function in the river so why do A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: they need to be interfered with at all? http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
I want to express in the strongest terms that this The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation is not an option I support. given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- liaison-group/.
Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among others).
It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment in April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a
108 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted with this response, in the register of Issues and Responses on the project website.
The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses.
Please don’t hesitate to contact the Urbis Consultation Team on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
169. 08/04/15 Email Final response: Hello Thank you for your email on the 8th of April and for your feedback about mangroves options 2 and 3.
I am writing in regard to the Kendall Bay We’ve forwarded your suggestions to Jemena for their further consideration. We will also note your remediation project, more specifically to comment and this response in the Issues and Response Log, updated regularly on the project website at communicate my concerns about the latest http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/. The Issues and Response Log forms part of option to remove the mangroves in the area the documentation to be lodged with the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS is intended to known as Remediation area A. be submitted in mid-2015 and we will provide people with an update closer to that time. There is a further period for community submissions during the 30 day Public Exhibition Phase of the EIS – when The Canada Bay area is well known for its all of the technical studies submitted with the EIS will also be publicly available. mangrove stands which have established or re- established themselves despite the odds and In the meantime, you may be interested in some of the further information provided by Jemena below. are frequently associated with recovering water health and increasingly knowledgeable land Information about the Mangroves Options Assessment from Jemena: management. Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact I viewed the documents on the web site Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds including the 331 page report issued by SGK. on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014. This report seemed suitably comprehensive in a regard to the history of the site, current The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while conditions and the remediation methods adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the (dredging, excavation etc) however given that Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from Option 3 was presented as the favoured option, designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental it did not address the pros and cons of removing Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by specialist SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, 109 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response the mangroves in detail. Currently mangrove and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes removal is promoted by Jemena as the the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand. preferred option but it requires a leap of faith from residents where currently there is little to The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal assure us that mangrove replanting and on- and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top. going management is a priority. It seems to me the next step should include the potential for A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: trialling mangrove studies in the area, not only http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/. for predicting the chances of success in re- establishing the mangroves, but to study and The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation uncover techniques that would actually increase given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- the chances of success. This would make liaison-group/. option 3 a more responsible option. Given the previous proposal to use part of Cabarita Park Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, was found to be the to access the area, I think stakeholders need most suitable option. Option 3 requires a rehabilitation plan, including the replanting of the mangroves more confidence that the remediation will be and ongoing monitoring and management, following remediation works. managed in a way that preserves the existing visible flora and fauna, as well as controlling the Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment sediment contamination. study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Other technical studies undertaken for the EIS include air quality, marine ecology, traffic, and an acoustic analysis (among I understand that a paper was tabled by a others). BAPCA representative at the CLG meeting that sought to explore the options in more detail, in It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) in favour of maintaining the mangroves wherever April 2015. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of possible. Preserving the existing mangroves or Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition engaging studies to optimise and assure the for a minimum of 30 days. Members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a long-term success of future plantings surely is submission during this period. worthy of Jemena’s consideration as the most responsible course of action from here. I am in All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DPE. It is likely that the EIS will be further support of the broad objectives of the BAPCA considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for paper and hope that Jemena respond positively community feedback through a public hearing process. to appeals to further studies to preserve the mangroves. Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be noted in the Issues and Responses Log on the project website. Thank you and regards. The project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and community newsletters will continue to provide project updates and information as the project progresses. We have also included your details in the stakeholder database to receive further information and updates as they are available.
Please don’t hesitate to contact us on email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
110 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Kind regards
170. 09/04/15 Email Final response: Hello Thank you for your email.
When is the remediation expected to start and The remediation works are expected to take 18 months in total, including 6 months of set-up and 6 how long will it take to complete? months of decommissioning. Subject to planning approvals, remediation could be expected to start in early 2016. Kind Regards Jemena plans to submit the formal remediation application, including an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) in mid-2015.
Once the EIS is lodged, it is expected that the application will go on Public Exhibition in the second half of 2015. There is an opportunity to review and comment on the project application, EIS and technical studies during the 30 day Public Exhibition period. All submissions are considered by the Department during assessment of the application.
It is also anticipated the application may be referred to the Planning Assessment Commission. The Commission may hold a public hearing or meeting at that stage to hear further community feedback and views.
Thank you again for your interest in the project. Your questions and this response will be added to the Issues and Responses Log available at the project website at http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/. We have also added you to the stakeholder database to receive further information and updates as they become available.
Please don’t hesitate to be in touch if you have any further questions or feedback. You can contact us on the details below.
Kind regards 15/04/15 Email Final response: 171. I would favour Option 3 – I have had experience Thanks for your email and your feedback on the proposed options for remediating the mangroves. It is of re-establishing mangroves, in Homebush Bay interesting to hear about the work at Haslam’s Creek, and we have forwarded your email to Jemena for at Haslam's creek, following clearing for utilities their further review and consideration. installations. The mangroves were fully re- established within 10 years.
111 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Option 3 will ensure all contaminants and weed Your feedback will also be included in the updated Issues and Responses Log on the project website - at infestations captured by the mangroves in the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/. The Issues and Response Kendall bay are completely removed. Regards Log documents questions and suggestions received from community members throughout the process.
Jemena has provided further information below regarding the Options Assessment Study – you may be familiar with this detail having viewed the CLG notes and presentation, but I have included it below for your further information and interest.
Information about the mangroves options assessment study provided by Jemena:
Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014.
The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand. The RAP requires a membrane- type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top. A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
The preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are outlined in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community- liaison-group/.
The 3 options considered included: ▪ Option 1 - the “do nothing” approach. This option involves leaving the mangroves as they are. This option does not meet the human health objectives of remediation, as outlined in the RAP. ▪ Option 2 – replacement of contaminated sediment with clean fill while maintaining the mangroves “in situ”. This method has not been tried elsewhere. It is unclear if this would allow for the necessary removal of all contaminated sediments. This method also prevents the laying of a ‘cap’ on the seafloor, which is required to fulfil the human health objectives outlined in the RAP. ▪ Option 3 – relates to removal of the mangroves to allow remediation to occur. This option includes a rehabilitation plan including replanting the mangroves on clean sediment and ongoing post remediation monitoring and management.
112 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Option 3 was recommended as the most suitable option in order to meet the requirements for remediation.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment mid year. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. All members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email. We have added you to the stakeholder database to receive updates as the project progresses. You can also find further information at the project website http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/ and through regular community newsletters.
You may also be interested to know that Jemena’s project team are now based at 140 Tennyson Road. They are available to meet and discuss further during business hours – if you would like to arrange a meeting, please don’t hesitate to be in touch via email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards 172. 15/04/15 Email Final response: Hello Thank you for your email and feedback regarding the options for remediation in the mangroves area. We have forwarded your email to Jemena for their review and consideration, and your comments We strongly support the proposition that a and this response will also be included in the updated Issues and Responses Log on the website, TRIAL METHOD TO SAVE MANGROVES as alongside other community feedback received since the project commenced. outlined in Rod Jeffrey’s Newsletter No: 1 to be reasonably considered, by all parties Jemena has provided the following further information below about the mangroves options assessment addressed, as an option as this stage of study, which was prepared by Cardno this year. You may have also read about this in the community proceedings before the Project commences in newsletter last month (available at http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/). 2016. Please let me know if you have any further feedback or any questions about the information provided. The request is not an unreasonable one and in the long term to have the mangroves Information about the Mangroves Options Assessment from Jemena: maintained, would be an improvement to the Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact
113 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response immediate community. Unfortunately, there are Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds so few of them left in the area on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014.
Kind regards The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves stand. The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top.
A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
Preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison- group/.
The 3 options considered included: ▪ Option 1 - the “do nothing” approach. This option involves leaving the mangroves as they are. This option does not meet the human health objectives of remediation, as outlined in the RAP. ▪ Option 2 – replacement of contaminated sediment with clean fill while maintaining the mangroves “in situ”. This method has not been tried elsewhere. It is unclear if this would allow for the necessary removal of all contaminated sediments. This method also prevents the laying of a ‘cap’ on the seafloor, which is required to fulfil the human health objectives outlined in the RAP. ▪ Option 3 – relates to removal of the mangroves to allow remediation to occur. This option includes a rehabilitation plan including replanting the mangroves on clean sediment and ongoing post remediation monitoring and management.
Option 3 was recommended as the most suitable option in order to meet the requirements for remediation.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment mid year. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. All members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period. 114 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thanks again for your email. Your feedback is important and helps to inform the work of the project team as they finalise the technical assessments and the EIS for lodgement.
You may be interested to know that Jemena’s project team are now based at 140 Tennyson Road. They are available to meet and discuss further during business hours – if you would like to arrange a meeting, please don’t hesitate to be in touch via email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards 173. 15/04/15 Email Final response: Dear sir, Thank you for your email about the mangroves in Kendall Bay. Your feedback is important, and will be included in the Issues and Responses Log available at http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key- With regards to the paragraph below.... documents/.
[Reference to paragraph from 01/04/15 Project Jemena has provided the following information and clarification in response to your questions. I’ve Update email: Aerial photos of Kendall Bay copied this below for your reference. show that in 1943, the area where the mangroves are now, was previously a sandy What is the point of the above paragraph? Are you saying that mangroves don't belong there and never beach. This historical view can be accessed via grew there? Are you suggesting that we wait 70 years and they will grow back again like they did before? the following link: www.maps.six.nsw.gov.au.Enter “Kendall Bay” The paragraph that you refer to in the April 2015 Project Update email provides a reference to an in the search box and then select the ‘Base historical view of Kendall Bay in 1943. The April email update also referred to the Mangroves Options Maps’ tab in the top right hand corner for Assessment Study prepared by Cardno Ecology Lab, looking at three options to assess how remediation imagery from 1943. Move the side bar in the could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health. ‘Base Maps’ box to view the 1943 image.] Option 3, which involves removing the mangroves to allow for remediation to occur, requires a rehabilitation plan including the replanting of the mangroves and ongoing monitoring and management, I was born in 1964 in Cabarita and now live in following remediation works. The preliminary findings from the assessment were outlined by Cardno at Kendall Inlet. the last Community Liaison Group meeting in March 2015. You may be interested to view this presentation: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison-group/. I spent many hours on the river and in Cabarita Park and spend most days every school If the contamination in the mangrove trees is so bad, why is it still open to public use? Why is it not holidays in and around the Marina in Cabarita fenced off? Park, as my friend a son of the Sanders Brothers. The regulation of the Bay is managed by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). Canada Bay Council has also posted signs around Kendall Bay which warn people of the contamination. You may wish to contact the EPA and Council for further information in response to your questions. 115 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response I do not remember that section of Kendall Bay being a sandy beach. A report by SKM prepared in 2014 (the Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment Report) provides further information about contamination in the areas proposed for remediation, Areas A and B. In my recollection, it was a tidal flat covered in a This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves now stand. The HHERA black sludge. is available on the Project Website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key- documents/. I am not convinced that this black and white aerial photo, which was taken at high tide When 2% of the contaminated area in Kendall Bay has been 'remediated', surely with the passing of time shows it to be a sandy beach either. more contaminants will wash ashore in the future?
This section of France Bay also looks like sandy A Remediation Action Plan has been prepared which outlines a proposed remediation approach to meet beach. the requirements of the EPA. The plan proposes that a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – will be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants once Areas A and B have been It wasn't sandy in the 1970s when I played remediated. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top of the cap. You can read more about the RAP on there. the project website here: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
I have no doubt that the only reason there are Thank you again for your email. Your feedback is important and will be documented with this response no mangroves in Kendall Bay in the 1943 photo in the Issues and Responses Log on the project website. The Issues and Response Register will form is because they had all been chopped down. part of the documentation lodged with the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS and associated technical studies will be available for view during the Public Exhibition period, and the What is the point of the above paragraph? community is invited to make further submissions during this period.
• Are you saying that mangroves don't In the meantime, further information and updates will be provided on the project website belong there and never grew there? http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/, in email updates to stakeholders and community newsletters. We would also be pleased to discuss or provide further information at any time, on email • Are you suggesting that we wait 70 [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901. years and they will grow back again like they did before? Kind regards
Have a look elsewhere on that 1943 photo.
The area which is now Massey Park Golf Course would have been covered in mangrove trees in the 1920s, but they had all been removed by 1943 also, as mangroves were deemed 'unsanitary' in those days. Later it was acknowledged how important they are for a healthy river system.
116 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Other areas further upstream either have human intervention or they have mangroves.
This part of the river, east of Concord Hospital, now has a very healthy mangrove forest....a haven for birds and fish.
Sometime after 1943, a retaining wall was built in the Dulux carpark on the edge of Kendall Bay, adjacent to Cabarita Park. In the 1970s, the high tide would slap up against it. The wall is still there today, but the passing of time has led to the current beach on which the mangroves grow. The highest of high tides is now several metres out from that wall, which is now in between the mangroves and the walking path.
Each passing Rivercat washes up more sand onto that beach, just as it does on the beach in Cabarita park, which is now considerably bigger than it is in this photo.
Two questions:
If the contamination in the mangrove trees is so bad, why is it still open to public use?
Why is it not fenced off?
When 2% of the contaminated area in Kendall Bay has been 'remediated', surely with the passing of time more contaminants will wash ashore in the future?
16/04/15 Email Final response: 174. A TRIAL OF POSSIBLE METHOD TO SAVE Thanks for your email regarding the options for remediating the mangroves area. Your feedback has THE MANGROVES IS ESSENTIAL !!!! been forwarded to Jemena for their consideration. It will also be included in the updated Issues and Responses Log on the website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-
117 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response As remediation is expected to start in 2016, I documents/. The Issues and Response Log documents questions and suggestions received from believe there is still sufficient time for a trial. community members throughout the project.
I wish to most strongly object to the full removal Jemena has provided further information below regarding the Mangroves Options Assessment Study, of mangroves in Kendall Bay. Although there which may be of interest to you. You may have also read about this in the community newsletter last were no mangroves there in 1942, there is no month (available at http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/) guarantee given the current climate and pollution that these mangroves would Please let me know if you have any further feedback or questions about the information provided. regenerate as they did then...... and even if they did, it would not happen in my lifetime. I am Information about the Mangroves Options Assessment from Jemena: concerned about loss of biodiversity, foreshore erosion (added to by the hydrofoil wash) and Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment have always believed mangroves were study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact essential for a healthy marine environment. Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014. I understand there is another option available, a trial method, which may not work but this has The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while not been given due consideration. The total adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the removal is the option preferred by Jemena & Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from EPA as it is easier to carry out & supposedly designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental cheaper to do, than trial the other option ( Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, and where mangroves would not be removed) confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves stand. The RAP requires a membrane-type There seems to be non agreement on the barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill various costs involved so let’s give Option 2 a (sand) will then be placed on top. go and do the trial! A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
Preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison- group/.
The 3 options considered included: ▪ Option 1 – the “do nothing” approach. This option involves leaving the mangroves as they are. This option does not meet the human health objectives of remediation, as outlined in the RAP. ▪ Option 2 – replacement of contaminated sediment with clean fill while maintaining the mangroves “in situ”. This method has not been tried elsewhere. It is unclear if this would allow for the necessary removal of all contaminated sediments. This method also prevents the laying of a ‘cap’ on the seafloor, which is required to fulfil the human health objectives outlined in the RAP. 118 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response ▪ Option 3 – relates to removal of the mangroves to allow remediation to occur. This option includes a rehabilitation plan including replanting the mangroves on clean sediment and ongoing post remediation monitoring and management.
Option 3 was recommended as the most suitable option in order to meet the requirements for remediation.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment mid year. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. All members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period. All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email.
Jemena’s project team are now based at 140 Tennyson Road and are available to meet and discuss further during business hours. If you would like to arrange a meeting, please don’t hesitate to be in touch via email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards 175. 16/04/15 Email Final response: Hi, Thanks for your email regarding the options for remediating the mangroves area. Your feedback has been forwarded to Jemena for their consideration. It will also be included in the updated Issues and My opinion re mangroves. Responses Log on the website at the following link:http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key- documents/.The Issues and Response Log documents questions and suggestions received from Get rid of them, clean the bay and return to community members throughout the project. sandy beached area. Thanks Jemena has provided further information below regarding the Mangroves Options Assessment Study, which may be of interest to you. You may have also read about this in the community newsletter last month (available at http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/)
Please let me know if you have any further feedback or questions about the information provided.
Information about the Mangroves Options Assessment from Jemena:
119 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014.
The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves stand. The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier - or "cap" - to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top.
A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
Preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison- group/.
The 3 options considered included:
Option 1 - the "do nothing" approach. This option involves leaving the mangroves as they are. This option does not meet the human health objectives of remediation, as outlined in the RAP.
Option 2 - replacement of contaminated sediment with clean fill while maintaining the mangroves "in situ". This method has not been tried elsewhere. It is unclear if this would allow for the necessary removal of all contaminated sediments. This method also prevents the laying of a 'cap' on the seafloor, which is required to fulfil the human health objectives outlined in the RAP.
Option 3 - relates to removal of the mangroves to allow remediation to occur. This option includes a rehabilitation plan including replanting the mangroves on clean sediment and ongoing post remediation monitoring and management.
Option 3 was recommended as the most suitable option in order to meet the requirements for remediation.
120 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment mid year. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. All members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thank you again for your email.
Jemena's project team are now based at 140 Tennyson Road and are available to meet and discuss further during business hours. If you would like to arrange a meeting, please don't hesitate to be in touch via email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards 176. 17/04/15 Email Final response: As residents of Breakfast Point we strongly Thank you for your email outlining your support for a trial of option 2, to retain the mangroves in Kendall support a trial for option 2 to maintain the Bay during remediation. Your feedback is important and has been provided to the Jemena project team mangroves in Kendall Bay. Taking the easy for their consideration. and cheap option to remove the mangroves at the outset is short sighted at best and at worst a Your feedback has also been included in the Issues and Response Log available on the project website permanent biodiversity loss. I believe there is at http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/. The Issues and Response Log time to conduct this trial and we should lend our documents community feedback and suggestions received since the project commenced. support to a responsible environmental action. We are tired of environmental solutions that For your interest, the project website also includes a range of other information, community newsletters advantage the contractor but disadvantage the and feedback, and is regularly updated on an ongoing basis. community. Jemena have provided further information below regarding the mangroves options assessment study prepared by Cardno this year. The mangroves options have been discussed at recent Community Liaison Group Meetings (presentations and notes are available at http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison-group/). You may have also read about this in the community newsletter last month (available at http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/)
Information about the Mangroves Options Assessment from Jemena:
121 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Jemena recently commissioned Cardno Ecology Lab to undertake a mangroves options assessment study. This study forms part of a series of technical assessments prepared for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). It also builds on an earlier review of mangrove ecology undertaken by ERM in May 2014.
The most recent study looked at three options to assess how remediation could be undertaken while adhering to the requirements of the EPA and the NSW Department of Health, which are set out in the Remediation Action Plan (RAP). The EPA requires that remediation removes contamination from designated parts of the Bay, to reduce risks to human health. The Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA) prepared by SKM (2014), builds on previous health assessments, and confirms that contamination is at unacceptable levels in Remediation Areas A and B. This includes the southern-end of Kendall Bay, the area where the mangroves stand. The RAP requires a membrane-type barrier – or “cap” – to be laid across the sea floor to provide a seal and contain contaminants. Clean fill (sand) will then be placed on top.
A copy of the RAP and the HHERA may be found at the project website at the following link: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
Preliminary findings from the mangroves options assessment study are available in a presentation given to the CLG in March 2015: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/community-liaison- group/.
The 3 options considered included: ▪ Option 1 – the “do nothing” approach. This option involves leaving the mangroves as they are. This option does not meet the human health objectives of remediation, as outlined in the RAP. ▪ Option 2 – replacement of contaminated sediment with clean fill while maintaining the mangroves “in situ”. This method has not been tried elsewhere. It is unclear if this would allow for the necessary removal of all contaminated sediments. This method also prevents the laying of a ‘cap’ on the seafloor, which is required to fulfil the human health objectives outlined in the RAP. ▪ Option 3 – relates to removal of the mangroves to allow remediation to occur. This option includes a rehabilitation plan including replanting the mangroves on clean sediment and ongoing post remediation monitoring and management.
Option 3 was recommended as the most suitable option in order to meet the requirements for remediation.
Jemena is currently finalising a range of technical studies, including the mangroves options assessment study, in preparation for lodging the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It is anticipated that the EIS will be lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment mid-year. The EIS will be reviewed by government agencies, including the EPA and Ministry of Health. Following this review, the EIS and all 122 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response accompanying studies will be placed on Public Exhibition for a minimum of 30 days. All members of the public are encouraged to review the EIS and make a submission during this period.
All submissions will be reviewed and considered by the DP&E. It is likely that the EIS will be further considered by a Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), which offers a further opportunity for community feedback through a public hearing process.
Thanks again for your email. Your feedback is important and helps to inform the work of the project team.
Jemena have recently opened a site office at 140 Tennyson Road, and are available to meet and discuss further during business hours. If you would like to arrange a meeting, please don’t hesitate to be in touch via email [email protected] or phone 1800 266 901.
Kind regards
177. 20/0415 Email Holding response: My partner and I are Journalism students from Thank you for your email and for your call this afternoon. UWS who are interested in reporting about the Kendall Bay Remediation. We live in the local As I said over the phone this afternoon, I’ve forwarded your email to Jemena for their consideration area and wanted to ask if we could conduct a regarding the opportunity to meet for an interview. brief interview with you on the issue? Could I ask how you’d like to use the interview, so that I can communicate that back to Jemena as well? Is there any available material or media releases on the issue. In the meantime, you might be interested to look at the project website which contains a lot of information about the project, including frequently asked questions, technical reports and summaries Thank you from a range of community consultation activities. The website is: www.kendallbayremediation.com.au.
As I said today, please don’t hesitate to be in contact again if you have any further questions about the Project.
Kind regards
178. 20/04/15 Letter [contacted to arrange a meeting] As the managing agent of DP 270347 Breakfast Point Community Association, we write on
123 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response behalf of the Executive Committee concerning the Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project.
Thank you for forwarding Jemena’s letter dated 29 January 2015. The Community Association Executive Committee (CA EC) believes some of the responses provided do not fully address the issues raised in our earlier letter. The CA EC seeks further information. Jemena should be aware Breakfast Point is a community of over 3000 people of diverse expertise and talent including contamination and geotechnical matters. Therefore, answers like “… advice will be sought from the experts..." do not impress the CA EC. Jemena should also be aware that the CA EC wishes to engage with Jemena in a constructive manner and hopes that the relationship is mutual.
In point 2 of our earlier letter we referred to the stability of the existing seawall and on the geotechnical advice relied upon during preparation of the RAP. We asked that a copy of the geotechnical report prepared by J&K Geotechnics be provided to the CA EC. Again, we ask that a cop of this report be provided so our experts can evaluate the advice. The CA is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the seawall and as such should be in a position to satisfy itself that the advice provided is sound.
In regards to the proposed DCP testing, our experts consider it "likely" that refusal will occur in the rock fill. Therefore, the CA EC suggests that Jemena should be deferring to their consultants now because an alternative means of assessment will probably be required.
From the response given in point 5, it is apparent"...if unacceptable movement (in the sea wall) takes place..." there is no alternative 124 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response method of removing the sediment. One of the requirements of a RAP is that contingency plans are identified. The absence of a contingency plan is considered a significant omission. The CA EC will strongly object to DA approval given to the project unless an alternative method has been documented. Jemena responds that "In the unlikely event that any movement is detected during the course of the work." With respect, how can it be stated that movements are "unlikely" when the seawall foundations conditions have not been evaluated?
In point 6 of the Jemena letter it is noted that "Advice will be sought from specialist marine/structural engineers with regard to the limits of acceptable movement." The CA EC has no objection to this approach but asks that Jemena acknowledged that it will be done in consultation with the CA EC and its advisors.
In point 7 of the Jemena letter it is noted that if temporary fencing is required, it will be erected on RMS property. It should be noted that all the RMS land is below the seawall and at high tide would be inundated.
In points 8 and 9 of the Jemena letter the answers relate to advice by experts. Again, the CA EC endorses this approach, however, asks that acknowledgement is given that the concerns raise will be genuinely considered as well as any other concerns of the public.
The CA EC acknowledges Jemena's commitment to keeping the community informed regarding this project. However, the future health of Kendall Bay is of concern to the whole community and as such we ask that Jemena acknowledge that the community will be give the opportunity to no just comment on the 125 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response contents of the Environment Management Plan, but have a direct input into its preparation.
The CA EC looks forward to a timely and comprehensive response to the matters raised above.
Yours Sincerely
179. 29/04/15 - Email Final response: I am writing to you as suggested by Rod Jeffery Thanks for your email and further feedback regarding the options for remediation of the area including in one of his ‘newsletters’ about the retention of the mangroves. I will forward this to Jemena for their further consideration and response. the mangroves in Kendall Bay. I will also document your comments in the Issues and Response Log. This is regularly updated and My view hasn’t changed from the one that I provided on the consultation website for people’s broader interest and consideration. We do not include expressed at the last CLG meeting after identifying details of correspondents in the register, but seek to profile all feedback and the range of listening to the presentation from Dr Brendan views raised by community members. Alderson from Cardno Ecology Labs, and Rod’s i.e. I do not think we should be in anyway Thanks again for your continuing contributions and feedback. compromising the clean-up of Kendall Bay by using any unproven or ‘innovative’ options to Best wishes save the mangroves. Consistent with that view I also asked the question at the meeting as to whether the geocomposite membrane could be installed with the mangroves in place, and the answer was no. On the basis that this is correct, and I think that this should clearly be stated in writing by Jemena / EPA, then the retention of the mangroves in my mind significantly compromises the remediation. I would also be very confident that Rod’s / bapca’s suggestion of fencing off the area where the mangroves are located if there are still some contaminants, would not be accepted by the majority of people in Breakfast Point and Kendall Inlet.
On the basis that Rod / bapca still think a trial using ‘Option 2’ has any chance of being accepted by the EPA, I would suggest that they need to be asked to quickly and clearly outline 126 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response the methodology for the trial and how the results of the trial could be used by the EPA and other stakeholders to evaluate option 2 versus the methodology outlined in the RAP. For example:
• Is the trial to be carried out in the Bay or at another location? • Will it have a range of mangroves in terms of age, size, healthiness? • How long do the trees or a percentage of the trees in the trial have to survive? • What does bapca consider to be an acceptable level of contaminants in the remaining sediment, and how will this be prevented from getting to the surface? • How will the results of a trial be extrapolated to cover the remediation area? • How will Jemena / EPA be held accountable if they use an unproven ‘first of a kind’ method and there are issues in the future with contaminants and the mangroves die?
In my mind there are numerous variables at play and any trial will be both complex in both conception and execution, and as such it is going to be very difficult to convince any of the stakeholders to move away from the methodology defined in the RAP. Unfortunately I think any trial will probably just cause further delays to this already long drawn out process, and potentially shift the focus of all members of the CLG away from the items I consider are more important i.e. minimising the impact on residents while the remediation is undertaken, getting more details on how they plan to remediate close to the sea wall and in turn putting in place funds to cover future problems that can be attributed to the remediation, defining how they will remediate the area in front to Hunters Wharf which has large areas of 127 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response rock adjacent to the sea wall, how the area will be monitored after the remediation, etc..
We were all rightly given the opportunity to present an alternative method to save what appear to be generally unhealthy mangroves that do not support much in the way of bird or marine life, but unfortunately there doesn’t appear a high probability option that enables the mangroves to be saved while still meeting the primary objective of the remediation, so I think we should all move on and focus on ‘Option 3’.
As I stated at the meeting, these are my views, but I would be surprised if they were not shared by many others if they clearly understood all the potential impacts of doing the remediation with the mangroves in place.
Best regards
05/05/15 – Email Thanks for your email. 180. I assume what Option 3 means is a very long In previous documentation, including the FAQ sheet on the Project Website, Jemena has indicated an 18 commitment on the part of Jemena to nurture month timeframe for the remediation works. This includes 6 months of site establishment and 6 months and monitor new mangroves- About 10 years I of site decommissioning post-remediation. Could I ask, is that the 6 month time frame that you are would think referring to?
Not the 6 months mentioned in previous After the remediation works are complete Jemena will be required by the EPA to monitor contamination documents. Can we get a firm commitment from levels in the Bay. The duration of post-works monitoring will be guided by the EPA and the Site Auditor Jemena (contractual) to guarantee a reasonable for inclusion in a Management Plan for Kendall Bay. time frame? Further to this broad Management Plan, Jemena will also be required to produce a Mangrove Rehabilitation Plan as part of Option 3 (to remove and replant the mangroves). The Rehabilitation Plan will need to be agreed by the EPA, and the timeframe for monitoring the mangroves will be defined in that plan.
Please don’t hesitate to be in contact if you have any further questions.
128 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response
08/05/15 – Telephone call Thanks for your call this afternoon. 181. Called and asked the following questions. Lives I’ve forwarded you the email update which we sent out today – please see below. I’ve also added you to on Tennyson Road and some elderly the mailing list so you’ll receive future email updates, which we send out about once a month. neighbours are concerned about the timing of the project. Was surprised by the 18 month As I said over the phone just now, the remediation works will take 18 months in total – which includes 6 timeframe – not too bad. months of site set-up and 6 months of decommissioning. Works are likely to begin in early 2016, depending on the timing of the planning process. Jemena plans to submit the Project Application and Is 140 Tennyson Road the preferred option? EIS to the Department of Planning in the middle of the year.
What will they do to the site to prepare it for the In terms of truck movements, Jemena has calculated an estimate of 5,300 trucks throughout the life of works? the project. There will be approximately 2 truck movements an hour, which means, at the peak times of the project there will be one truck in and one truck out from the staging site per hour. During the set up and decommissioning of the works, truck movements are likely to reduce. What will they do with the site once works are
finished? The truck route and the size of the trucks haven’t been decided at this point. Those details will be finalised once Jemena employs a remediation contractor to carry out the works. The contractor will be a How many trucks will run? specialist engineering firm.
What type of trucks will they use? If you’re speaking to elderly neighbours you might like to take them a copy of the FAQ sheet and the latest Newsletter, which are on the project website at the following link: What will the truck route be? http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
What’s the timing of the project? Feel free to call at any time if you have any further questions.
06/08/2015 - Email Holding response: 182. Thanks for your email. We have forwarded your question to Jemena. I was approached by a local resident and I have now had a look and it seems that some of the Jemena have not been involved in any activities in the mangroves, nor are they aware of any other mangroves have been cut back in the Eastern testing or maintenance works in that area. part of the area and residents are asking if this is part of the remediation works, testing or They did observe an RMS boat recently in the area cleaning up the beach. They will make further otherwise. No-one seems to know who did this enquiries and advise anything additional next week. and it only happened this week. Do you know or could you find out if this is part of Jemena's Holding response: ongoing work. I have just received further confirmation that the cutting back you have referred to has NOT been undertaken by Jemena, RMS or Council. Thanks I have emailed Council formally to lodge a report, for their further attention and action as appropriate.
Final response:
129 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Further to our recent emails we have received a response from Canada Bay Council about the activities near the mangroves.
As you know, Jemena inquired with RMS, who said they were not aware of the works. When we contacted Council for further information they advised that they had received subsequent advice from a different part of RMS.
RMS have clarified that they engaged contractors to control weeds at this location. Activities included pruning dead mangrove branches and removing coral trees.
We’ve just sent out an email update to our stakeholder database which contains all of this information.
Please don’t hesitate to be in contact again.
183. Do not be concerned about Canada bay Thanks for your email and the background information on the status of the weed growth and the health Council’s clearing of the weeds, noxious trees of the mangroves. including lantana and pruning back of dead mangrove branches as that area was in dire It is useful to note that RMS have now confirmed they are responsible for the works in the mangroves. need of such attention. It’s clear however that the clearing has not gone far enough as the I’ve forwarded your comments to the Project Team, and they will also be included in the Issues and mangroves there are well above the high water Responses Log on the website: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/. mark and appear to be in a vey unhealthy state, no doubt exacerbated by the toxins underneath. We will be sending out a newsletter in the next couple of weeks which will outline expected timing and future steps in the remediation process. Frankly the sooner Jemena gets underway to clean up that whole area of Kendall Bay, the Please don’t hesitate to be in contact again. better. Kind regards The key issue is the contamination underneath and if the mangroves and other vegetation has to be removed to effect a proper clean-up supported by the EPA, then Jemmena should get on with it and stop dilly-dallying around due to opposition from a small number of vocal opponents led by one individual whose main goal clearly is to preserve his pristine view over the top of the mangroves from his elevated top- floor apartment.
130 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Those at ground-floor level see the issue quite differently as they are closer to the unhealthy state of many of the mangroves and all the refuse that gets caught up in their roots.
Yours truly
184. I understand that for some time there have been Thanks for your email, and for providing that background information. We will let Jemena know also. species listed on the noxious weeds register present in this area and I gather it has taken Please don’t hesitate to be in contact again. some time for Council and RMS to agree who held responsibility for their eradication. At one stage the undergrowth also provided shelter for the foxes that relocated from the old building site on the point.
I believe Council eventually located plans confirming that the area was the responsibility of RMS so would assume that the current works are related to this. Hopefully the cleanup of the area will be completed soon and will be a great improvement.
185. I am a resident of Breakfast Point and would Thank you for your email. like to know what is planned for the mangroves that line the shore in Kendall Bay Jemena have been undertaking further technical investigations and sampling in the Bay (including the sediment in the mangroves area) as part of a review of the proposed remediation methodology. This We are a group of residents who prefer the includes sampling in the Bay starting from 15 September, and continuing for the next week. mangroves to stay in situ- if not all of them then most of them. The EIS has been placed on hold while these investigations are continuing. No remediation activities, including any works in and around the mangroves, can commence until after the Environmental Impact Can you give us a time line as to when you plan Statement (EIS) has been lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment for assessment to disturb the mangroves and how much and a determination has been made. At this time, it is envisaged that the EIS may be lodged in early-to- disturbance there will be? Rumours abound! mid 2016. At that time, it will be placed on Public Exhibition for submissions and comment.
Subject to approval, remediation works are likely to commence in late 2016.
131 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response We have received some queries from members of the community about recent cutting back to the mangroves. This was not undertaken by Jemena. It was undertaken by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) contractors.
You may have already received a copy of the latest community newsletter, but you can also access it at: http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/.
We look forward to providing further updates as additional information is available.
Please don’t hesitate to be in contact again. The project team are also available to meet with people anytime at the Site Office (140 Tennyson Road, Mortlake).
186. Attention Thanks again for being in contact and providing feedback following the latest newsletter. The additional technical investigations referred to in the newsletter have been undertaken as part of a review of the I’m a resident in the “Admiralty” strata adjacent original Human Health Risk Assessment and to focus the remediation methodology that Thiess is to Kendall Bay and I and others are becoming developing. The review identified technical issues with the methodology that was originally proposed - a increasingly concerned at the delays in getting revised approach is being developed that will be implementable, meet regulatory requirements and on with the clean-up process which according to deliver a safe Bay. your latest newsletter will not commence until 2017 or 2018. I’ve also heard that Jemena will Would you be interested in a meeting with the project team to discuss further? They are happy to meet now be barging the toxic waste out of the area with people at the site office to discuss the latest on the project and the timeline for remediation. Please rather than piping it to and processing it on the let me know and I will set up a time at your convenience. site you’ve purchased beside the car ferry and that you will now not be removing the mangroves despite your previous assertion that their roots are pervasive and need to be removed in order to effect a proper clean-up of the toxins underneath.
The critical issue is the need to EFFECTIVELY clean up the polluted areas of the bay and if the most effective method requires removal of the mangroves or a good many of them then don’t let the outcries of one “Admiralty” resident and those he has influenced impact on what is needed to achieve the optimal outcome. As a ground floor apartment owner in “Admiralty” I would add that many of the mangroves in the corner of Kendall Bay are in poor health; they are a source of mosquitoes and they trap rubbish emanating from the storm water drain 132 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response as well as seaward with the winds and tides and that section of the bay would be less polluted without them, as used to be the case from photographs from years ago. I know that EPA is not sacrosanct about preservation of these mangroves as there are ample other healthy mangrove sites along the Parramatta River.
The focus should clearly be doing what is required to effect a proper clean-up and doing it sooner rather than later as we residents have now had this whole issue hanging over us upwards OF 12 YEARS!!!
Yours truly
187. Nb. Phone Call Called to discuss, left voicemails, no further response from caller. Has the clean up of the Bay been completed yet as looking at buying a property in the area.
188. Nb. Phone Call 3 Feb 2016 HOLDING RESPONSE: Some trees were removed. Was this Jemena or Hi anything to do with the Kendall Bay Remediation? Thanks for your call. As discussed, here is the website address for the Kendall Bay Remediation Project – including the contact details for RMS on the front page.
http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/
I will call Jemena this morning to see if they know anything about the tree removals you mentioned, and come back to you.
Best wishes,
189. Email 19/7/16 Holding Response sent 19/7/16 Dear Jemena team, Hi,
133 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Do you have an estimate on when the EIA will Thank you for your email. be finished and available? I have forwarded your query to Jemena and will let you know as soon as they come back with a My class would love to do a project on response. environmental remediation and we were looking at Kendall bay as a case study. In the meantime, please don’t hesitate to be in touch again.
Kind regards,
Response sent 21/7/16
Hi,
Thanks again for your email.
Jemena have advised that the EIS is planned to go on public display in the first quarter of 2017.
Please let me know if you have any further queries.
Kind regards,
190. Email sent 20/7/16 Have forwarded on to Jemena for response. Hi team, Hi,
I’m currently looking after development of an Thanks for your email. upgrade to the existing Cabarita Wharf which is adjacent to Kendall Bay and was looking at your I’ve forwarded your enquiries to Jemena regarding timing for sampling and the revised RAP and will get latest timescales for remediation works to back to you as soon as possible with a response. understand any implications/benefits this might have on our project. Would you be able to In the meantime, please don’t hesitate to contact us again. confirm whether sampling gone ahead as planned and if so are you planning on publically Kind regards, releasing the results of this at all? Your latest newsletter also refers to a revised RAP which would be issued to the EPA for review- are you able to confirm where you are with this please?
Any information or assistance would be beneficial for our project, we’ve been in touch
134 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response with the EPA regarding options and are due to return following some recommendations from them.
Thank you,
191. Received 18/08/16 Response The main reason for this e-mail is to request Thanks for your email – and the useful feedback and suggestions. I will send this through to Jemena that consideration is given to have a company now for their consideration, and come back to you when I have a response. that specialises in vapour monitoring to be present when the trials are carried on the 22nd September. The strata I live in engaged a company named Environmental Strategies to monitor the vapours coming from a sump pit in our garage to determine what vapours were present and whether the concentrations were within the human health guidelines. I appreciate that monitoring outside will be more difficult, and it will be function of the prevailing winds, distance from source etc., but if it is feasible, surely it will be a better means of providing data for modelling and ultimately a go / no go on the remediation methods than the very subjective feedback from residents, the project team and even the people with the ‘calibrated noses’.
192. Received 19/08/16 Forwarded to Jemena for Response Two observations have occurred to me:
• What account been taken of the outflow from the large pipe on the eastern side of the south beach? In heavy rain the run-off from the Park and surrounding areas cuts a substantial swathe through the sand.
• If the beach is to be extended, there will need to be access from the north-east end. The sandstone wall along the eastern side becomes
135 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response quite steep as it extends northward from the now southern entry point, after which the bank is untreated.
193. Call on 25 Aug 2016 Explained that the project is just looking at Kendall Inlet. Wanted to know if the project will extend all the Explained that AGL had a gasworks in that area and that Jemena was responsible for cleaning it up, way to Hen and Chicken Bay. having bought AGL and inheriting their liabilities.
Also asked how deep the remediation will go and explained that the methodology hasn’t been finalised yet, it’s still in the planning phase.
194. Email 15/09/16 Thanks for your email. Could you let me know the date of the The land based remediation of Breakfast Point was completed in 2002. finalization of the Jemena remediation at Breakfast Point itself. I am aware of the The remediation of sediments within Kendall Bay will begin in early 2018 (subject to project approval by sediment remediation project at adjacent the NSW DP&E) and is likely to take between 12 to 18 months to complete. Kendall Bay but I would also like to know the date of the finalisation of the land-based I hope this was the information you were looking for. remediation project.
195. Email 19/09/16 I have spoken to the Kendall Bay Remediation Team about your enquiry. [Could you indicate] whether or not post- Peter O’Dea asked me to send his regards to you and has confirmed that there is a plan for the land remediation management of a site is based remediation. The team here is not involved in that plan at all, however they are aware that there is necessary… I understand some detail about the a plan. [provided details for Jemena contact if they required further detail] remediation and the safe containment of the tarry wastes and would very much like to be accurate and confirm whether or not post – remediation management ..[passive or active], applies to this site.
196. Email 19/12/16 [Holding Response] I am assuming that Jemena has taken Thank you for your email. responsibility for the contamination in the bay by the Mortlake gas works hence why they are Apologies for the delay in responding to you, our office was closed over the Christmas period. conducting the remediation
136 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response Would this be correct? I have forwarded your response to Jemena and will be in touch as soon as we receive a response.
If so would a similar responsibility be taken if I Your questions will also be added to the Issues and Responses Log, available on the website at: was able to identify another area which the gas http://www.kendallbayremediation.com.au/key-documents/. works dumped its waste products for many decades? In the meantime, please don’t hesitate to be in touch if you have any further questions.
I live locally and can come by the site office if Kind regards, this is more convenient [Response]
The remediation areas in Kendall Bay were identified by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) following environmental investigations and detailed risk assessments. Jemena inherited the responsibility to remediate Kendall Bay as a result of various corporate transactions involving AGL.
Discussions about future remediation projects in NSW should be addressed to the NSW EPA. If the EPA has reason to believe that land is contaminated and that the contamination is significant enough to warrant regulation, the agency may declare the land to be 'significantly contaminated land'.
Kind regards,
197. Email on 6 June 2017 Thank you for your phone call and email today. 1. Previously received assurance that the only 1. I can confirm that only one mangrove and a few small shoots now sprouting around it will be removed mangrove to be removed would be the most – this is the one on its own at the north of the western side of the mangroves. northernmost big tree. Please confirm. 2. We have highlighted in the tender documents the need for the contractor to be careful with the sea 2. There was no reference to remediation / wall and it will be a major part of our tender assessment (tenders were received on 29 May). We have excavation / stabilisation at / near base of the asked that the contractor attempt to clean the surface contamination of the sea wall e.g. with a gerni or seawall which is owned / a responsibility of the gently by manual means so that the possibility of lingering smells at low tide in hot weather and any B Pt Community Association. Can you advise possibility for recontamination of the bay is eliminated. We will conduct dilapidation surveys before and how close excavation or stabilisation will come after the work and avoid any damage to the wall. We have not yet interviewed any tenderers. We will to the base of the and what protective measures liaise with the CLG, Community Association and the Strata Manager as soon as we have a method will be implemented. I note for Jemena’s record determined. If you can facilitate meetings with these groups, that would be great and we would be happy that damage to the wall is highly likely if due to attend. precautions are not taken. If the wall were damaged and needs repairs / replacement I 3. We will be doing in-situ solidification in the bay as near as practicable to the sea wall and the material expect that untreated contaminated soils exist removed from there will be in a stabilised form. However, adjacent to the sea wall and in the mangrove behind so the contaminated soil work and beach area, sand and sediments will be removed unstabilised. We have left it open in the tender to procedures and related costs would be do onsite or offsite treatment of these materials. Our preference is offsite treatment in licensed treatment significant. This issue should be highlighted to facilities to avoid the need for plant and equipment at the Jemena premises, including emission controls. 137 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log Item Feedback Response any prospective contractors otherwise a We will make sure transport on the water and on land is in tightly sealed containers. For the shoreline contractual claim is possible. work, odour controls proposed by the contractors will be assessed. Controls will include waiting for prevailing winds offshore, adjusting the rate of production, minimising exposure of the sediments to the 3. It seems that in-situ stabilisation may not open air, potentially masking agents, etc. as well as onshore monitoring to make sure levels are occur and removal for off-site treatment is a acceptable. Again, we will interrogate the tenderers about this. possibility....this assumption follows from answers to recent questions. If the later applies then a major environmental impact of foul smell is possible. Hence what smell minimisation measures are proposed .
198. Call on 22 June 2017 Response on 23 June 2017 Caller is interested in organising community Beach area is open to the public therefore clean up can be organised by the locals or any community groups clean up the rubbish from the beach groups and rubbish collected. However it is advised not to swallow anything picked up from the beach area. area. General hygiene practice is also recommended for safety which is washing hands after the clean- up.
138 Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation Project – Issues and Responses Log