LEFEVRE PENINSULA

The Hon. M. PARNELL (19:48): I move:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire and report on the relationship between industrial and residential land uses on the Lefevre Peninsula and adjacent areas, with specific reference to:

(a) the risk to health, safety and amenity of existing residents and potential new residents;

(b) the impact of new residential development on existing and potential future industry;

(c) the adequacy of existing laws, policies and guidelines;

(d) the role of the following agencies:

i. Land Management Corporation;

ii. Environment Protection Authority;

iii. Port Adelaide Enfield Council;

iv. Development Assessment Commission;

v. Development Policy Advisory Committee;

vi. other referral bodies under the Development Act; and

vii. other relevant agencies; and

(e) any other matters that the committee considers relevant.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be acquitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

This motion is for the establishment of a select committee of the Legislative Council to look into the issue of industrial and residential land uses on the Lefevre Peninsula and adjacent areas.

It would come as no surprise to members that the revelation this week that the Environment Protection Authority has recommended against housing development in the newest stage of the Newport Quays development has caused a great deal of concern in the community. In fact, what this revelation has done is to confirm many long-held concerns by people in that region in relation to airborne pollution, contaminated land, risk of fire and explosion and other concerns.

It has also reinforced what many people have thought for many years; that is, the Dock 1 location is a poor location for new housing development. The issue of residential-industrial interface has come to a head this week. Some questions have been raised in the media and elsewhere in relation to this issue, and people certainly want to know who knew about the EPA report recommending against housing in this location, when people knew and why the council was not informed, given that the primary communication from the EPA to the Development Assessment Commission was back in July.

People have questions, as I do, about the extent of the Land Management Corporation's involvement. People want to know why the EPA's advice has changed considerably over time in relation to separation distances between heavy industry and housing. Residents at Port Adelaide want to know what the current risks are and what is being done to improve the air quality in their neighbourhood. Questions have been raised, in particular on talkback radio this week, about why prospective purchasers into the Newport Quays Dock 1 development were not told about the EPA's report and the current and possible future health risks of the location of that development so close to heavy industry.

Another question is whether the developers should have been obliged to inform prospective purchasers that the assessment of the development application was actually put on hold because of these pollution concerns. However, it is not just people moving into Newport Quays. Other people are moving house; they are buying and selling properties in Port Adelaide, Birkenhead and other parts that are within the danger area for pollution that are not part of the Newport Quays development.

Importantly, we can lose sight of the question around whether we are being fair to existing industries by allowing housing to encroach on areas where they currently operate. In fact, in one of the early pollution cases that I was involved with, in relation to a foundry at Torrensville, the foundry operators went to great lengths to try to prevent the rezoning of land for housing in close proximity, because they predicted that that was where the complaints would come from. As it turned out, the land was rezoned, subdivided and houses were built, and that is exactly where the complaints came from, and the foundry eventually moved out.

This is an issue that has statewide or metropolitan-wide application, but the terms of reference are fairly narrowly focused, and I will go into some of them shortly. The Dock 1 controversy this week is really only a small part of the total problem, but it has lifted the lid on a much bigger question, and that is: how are we going to reconcile the needs of industry and the rights of residents on the Lefevre Peninsula to live in a clean environment?

In my experience, working in this jurisdiction over many years, these are some of the most common and some of the most difficult issues to resolve. I think that it is precisely this type of issue where a parliamentary select committee is best placed to get to the bottom of it. I have drafted terms of reference for this committee broadly enough so that it covers all aspects of the industrial/residential interface but, as I said, it is narrow enough so that it focuses on the Port Adelaide area.

It is also worth stating that this inquiry, as well as dealing with the rights of residents to a clean environment, would look at issues such as Adelaide Brighton Cement and its future on its current site. We know that it has a desire to expand. Is that possible? How can it do it? Should it be able to do it? Should heavy industry be responsible for its own buffer zone, or should other landholders bear the cost of meeting the EPA's separation distance guidelines?

There is a long and strong tradition of heavy industry in the Port Adelaide area. If that is to change with the influx of new residences in former industrial areas, then so too must our planning rules and processes change to accommodate that. I want to put on the record some of the contents of the documents that I have obtained recently in relation to this matter. I turn first to the report of the Environment Protection Authority dated 15 July 2010, which is addressed to the Development Assessment Commission and relates to the Dock 1 development. It is a lengthy advice of some 14 pages, but I will go to a few extracts.

The first issue I want to raise relates to Adelaide Brighton Cement, because that is the industry that has been given the most attention in terms of its proximity to the Dock 1 development. The EPA put in two separate pieces of advice in relation to Adelaide Brighton Cement, and their later advice replaced their earlier advice. It states:

Adelaide Brighton Cement (ABC) is exempt from the requirements of clause 4 and item 1 of Schedule 1 of the Environment Protection (Air Quality) Policy 1994, relating to the emission of particles from the operation of the cement kilns during certain approved situations. These circumstances (such as during power failure and maintenance procedures) are intrinsic to the process.

That means that not only do Adelaide Brighton have a licence to pollute but they have an exemption from state pollution standards. So, it is acknowledged up front that they cannot and will not—and in fact are not required to—meet the pollution standards that other industries are obliged to meet. The advice goes on:

The EPA requires weekly stack monitoring data from ABC—

that is, Adelaide Brighton Cement—

to assess compliance with the Environment Protection Act 1993, relevant regulations and conditions of its Licence and Exemption. ABC is also implementing an EPA approved Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) to ensure continuous improvements to processes on site to reduce noise and dust levels (both exhaust stack and fugitive emissions). Whilst improvements in noise and dust emissions have been made and the approved EIP will result in further improvements on site, the operation of a cement works facility is recognised as an environmentally significant activity. Potential air quality impacts may be caused by fugitive dust from unloading of limestone at the wharf, from stockpiling of raw materials and from truck movements on the site (over 400 truck movements per day). Air quality also has the potential to be impacted by emissions of odour, particulate, waste heat and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), oxides of sulphur (SOx) and carbon dioxide (CO₂) via the exhaust stacks. The risk of impact is further increased given that ABC operates seven days a week 24 hours a day.

The EPA Guidelines for Separation Distances (December 2007) recommend a separation distance of 1,000 metres between a major cement manufacturer of the scale of ABC and a sensitive land use (eg residential). However, on the basis of site-specific data (including air quality modelling of fugitive and stack emissions by Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd) the EPA recommends that a minimum separation distance of 800 metres from the southern stockpiles to sensitive uses (including residential) may be sufficient to achieve an acceptable level of amenity and health protection. However, it should be recognised that there is potential for occasional impacts beyond this distance due to abnormal particle emissions from the main kiln stack and pre-calciner stack during calibration testing, a combustible trip, kiln light up, purging and power failure. ABC has been issued with an exemption under the Environment Protection Act 1993 (as mentioned above) from the need to comply with air emission standards during such short-term events.

The advice concludes:

The proposed site of the land division is approximately 629 metres from the activity boundary on the ABC site.

In other words, the standard generally applied is one kilometre or 1,000 metres. The EPA have said, 'Well, maybe 800 metres might be enough.' Dock 1 is 629 metres away, which is well inside the separation guideline distance. Secondly, the EPA have given advice on the Incitec Pivot plant. As members would know, this is a fertiliser facility which is located very close to Dock 1. The EPA advice states:

The EPA's Guidelines for Separation Distances (December 2007) recommends a separation distance of 500 metres between a chemical storage and warehousing facility and a sensitive land use. The site of the proposed land division is approximately 250 metres from the activity boundary of Incitec Pivot, which is licensed by the EPA for chemical storage and warehousing and chemical works.

At the site, Incitec Pivot undertakes concentrated acid unloading, concentrated acid dilution, solid and liquid fertiliser storage and handling and aluminium sulphate solution manufacturing. Up to 80 chemicals, including fertiliser, are stored on site. Potential air quality impact may be caused by fugitive dust from storage and handling fertilisers, acid mist from storage tanks and fugitive alumina as dust from aluminium sulphate manufacturing.

These impacts are strongly affected by weather conditions. At the EPA's most recent site inspection, visible dust could clearly be seen at the site. Given that the separation distances between the proposed land division and Incitec Pivot is significantly less than what is recommended in the EPA's Guidelines for Separation Distances...the likelihood of offsite air quality impact on future residents of the land division is relatively high.

The advice goes on to talk about a third problem industry, that is, the storage of petrochemicals, especially fuel and bitumen. Under the heading 'Fuel storage facilities', the advice reads:

There is a number of fuel storage facilities located in the Wills Street/Elder Road vicinity at Largs Bay/Birkenhead, just north of the Adelaide Brighton cement facility. These facilities receive large shipments of petroleum products (including bitumen) via ship for storage and distribution via trucks. The EPA Guidelines for Separation Distances...recommends a separation distance of 1,500 metres between a petroleum production storage or processing works or facilities and sensitive land use, which is based on the potential for odour impacts.

Whilst all facilities have undertaken EPA facilitated improvement activities to minimise odour impacts on the community with very positive results, the separation distance stipulated in the guideline should be adhered to when considering new development in order to minimise the potential for impact on sensitive land uses. The nearest facility to the proposed land division is Shell Bitumen, which is approximately 1,190 metres from the proposed land division, which is less than what is recommended in the EPA Guidelines for Separation Distances.

There are three industries where the EPA has advised that they are too close to the proposed housing subdivision. In terms of the air quality problem, I will read just a few comments from the EPA in relation to air quality monitoring. What the EPA says is:

The EPA has been monitoring particles of the LeFevre Peninsula since December 2004. The location is approximately 1,000 metres to the west of the proposed land division. In both 2008 and 2009 the EPA site at the LeFevre Primary School recorded six exceedences of the 24 hour National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (NEPM) standard for particles 10 micrograms (PM10) or smaller. This exceeds the annual NEPM goal of five exceedences of the 24 hour standard in a year.

The NEPM standard was set with the desired environmental outcome of ambient air quality that allows for the adequate protection of human health and wellbeing. Possible health effects related to exposure to particles may include increased respiratory systems, aggravation of asthma, irritation of mucous membranes and allergic or hypersensitivity effects. The risks are highest for sensitive groups, such as the elderly and children.

Factors that influence the health effects include the duration of exposure, the mass concentration of the airborne particles and the size of those particles. Whilst monitoring indicates that there has been an improvement in particle pollution, the annual NEPM goal is still being exceeded. Any additional development in this locality has the potential to produce further dust emissions. Apart from the potential health effects, existing monitoring and modelling data suggests that the level of particulates (including cement dust) in the greater Port Adelaide centre zone could pose significant nuisance to new residents.

Apart from the general nuisance of dust settling on outdoor furniture or surfaces and clothes, some of the particulates generated in the area are caustic (e.g. oxides of potassium, calcium and sodium) with effects including etching of glass windows.

Mr President, if you had been to any of the houses near the cement works you would see that the windows are all etched. The advice goes on:

This recent monitoring confirms the EPA concerns raised in the response to the Port Waterfront Development Plan Amendment in July 2003, where the EPA expressed concern regarding the suitability of locating sensitive uses within Dock One Policy Area 28, based on the findings of the Katestone modelling discussed above.

That means that the EPA has, for the last seven years, consistently said that this is an inappropriate location for housing. So, it was no surprise to me to get this report, dated July 2010, under freedom of information, showing that the EPA's position is very similar. The report in relation to air quality concludes:

Given that separation distances between the proposed land division and EPA licensed sites are significantly less than those recommended in the EPA's Guideline for Separation Distance and the air quality monitoring at Le Fevre Peninsula indicates that the annual NEPM goal of 5 exceedences of the 24-hour standard in a year that the PM₁₀ is being exceeded, the EPA considers that potential for amenity impact and health risk is high.

This is the crux of it: the conclusion of this lengthy detailed advice from the EPA is, as follows:

The EPA has significant concerns with regard to potential environmental nuisance and health impacts on future residents of the proposed land division as it is situated within an intensive industrial area on a working port with uses such as cement manufacturing, chemical storage and warehousing, chemical works and fuel storage.

Notwithstanding some improvements that have been made, the EPA goes on to say:

…there are limits to the improvements industry can make to reduce their emissions given that some emissions are inherent from their operation. This reinforces the need to maintain those separation distances recommended in the EPA's Guideline for Separation Distancefrom sources of emissions.

The crux is this:

On this basis, the EPA does not consider the site to be suitable for residential development and is therefore unable to support the proposed land division.

If this select committee is established, the EPA is one of the agencies that I am sure the committee will want to hear from. They are often referred to as the 'independent' EPA. My concern, however, is, as I am sure it is happening now and will happen in the future, that the EPA will be leant on, that they will be urged to change their mind, to reconsider whether one kilometre down to 800 should perhaps be reduced to maybe 628 metres to accommodate this development.

Minister Holloway said in his lengthy press conference on Friday that it was up to the EPA to close industry down if they were causing problems. What the minister said was, 'Go and take it up with the EPA. Go and ask the EPA why, if it is true, they are not taking action to shut the plant down. If it is dangerous to health, then let the EPA shut that existing plant down.' The minister would well have known that that was not going to happen.

In fact, the EPA well knows that in the past, when it has taken tough action against a polluting industry, that the government has stepped in on the side of the polluter. The experience of Whyalla at OneSteel is the crowning glory of that approach. The EPA issued a tough pollution licence in order to protect residents from what were known to be harmful levels of dust emissions. OneSteel went crying to the government, saying it was all too hard and the EPA was picking on them.

The government then cancelled the EPA licence; it removed the EPA as the regulator and reinstated a brand-new licence, written by the company and the government in cahoots. I have to say that I still get angry when I think about how justice was not done in that case. The EPA put their head over the parapet to do their job and they were shot down by the government, and the minister has the nerve to say, 'Blame the EPA for not shutting down industry.' I can tell you exactly what would happen if the EPA made any attempt to restrict the operations of some of these heavy industries; so, I do not blame the EPA.

In relation to our current laws, in relation to pollution and planning and separation distances, the processes we use to assess applications, the guidelines that are followed, the standards that are set, all of these need to be reviewed, and I think this parliamentary committee is the right vehicle to at least start off that process. It makes no sense to me that the EPA has the power to ban industry moving next to housing, but has no authority over housing moving close to industry; but the net result is the same in either case. We need to revisit why it is that we do not allow the EPA to solve problems regardless of how they are created. Was it industry moving, or was it housing moving? The result is the same. We need to question whether the trigger points for the intervention of agencies such as the health department or the EPA are adequately triggered.

The EPA letter, which I obtained under freedom of information, certainly sparked off this debate. However, since obtaining that, I have obtained a couple of other submissions that were made by government agencies to exactly the same process by the Development Assessment Commission of the Dock 1 development. I have a submission from the Department of Health and I have a submission from SafeWork SA. I will just read a sentence or two from the Department of Health's submission. Basically it states:

The Department shares the concerns expressed in the submissions of the EPA and SafeWork SA regarding the application's proposal to locate medium density residential development in relatively close proximity to a number of significant existing industrial operations (particularly Incitec Pivot and Adelaide Brighton Cement).

Key concerns relate to the immediate safety of potential residents in the event of a significant industrial incident (e.g. fire or explosion at Incitec Pivot storage facility) and longer term health concerns related to potential poor air quality in the area arising from industrial emissions such as fine respirable dust generated through the operation of these facilities. On this basis, the establishment of a medium density residential area in the location and manner currently proposed is not recommended.

Mr President, if the select committee was established we would want the Department of Health to come and give evidence.

Probably the one that has frightened most people has been the submission from SafeWork SA. The SafeWork submission—and I will not read the whole thing—points out that the area being considered for development is 380 metres from Incitec Pivot at its closest point. Interestingly, the EPA, I think, have it at 250 metres; so we do need to get to the bottom of how close these facilities really are. The SafeWork SA submission states:

Incitec Pivot stores large quantities of a material containing 80 per cent ammonium nitrate. This material has the potential to mass explode (accidental contamination with other chemicals, in a fire situation, or through malicious action where other energetic materials are used to initiate such an explosion).

Although the company has developed a safety and security management plan for factory activities such an explosion still has the possibility of occurring. Under current operating conditions such an incident could involve up to 160 tonnes of ammonium nitrate exploding as a single event.

Anyone who has followed the history of terrorism in the world over the last several years would realise that quantities stored in a boot or a minivan are enough to decimate large areas—160 tonnes of ammonium nitrate going up in a single event does not bear thinking about. It continues:

The explosion would produce a peak blast wave overpressure of 14 Kpa at the closest point of the proposed building development to Incitec Pivot, and not less than 7 Kpa at the most distant point.

The quantitative risk assessment criteria of Hazardous Industry Planning Paper No.4, (Department of Planning, New South Wales: 1990)...suggests that an explosion overpressure of 6 Kpa is the appropriate cut-off level above which significant effects to people and property damage may occur.

The whole of Dock 1 is within that range. Some of it is up to twice that level of risk. It continues:

As the development site lies in an overpressure area between 7 Kpa and 14 Kpa, and the probability of such an incident cannot easily be inferred, this office is of the view that a residential development within the proposed area would create an inappropriate level of risk and is not supported.

It concludes by saying:

It is also worth noting that ammonium nitrate in a 'fire only scenario' (i.e. burns but not to the point of explosion) would produce a large volume of toxic gas, necessitating the immediate evacuation of persons within an area that would include the proposed development site.

Thousands of people would need to be evacuated if there was a fire at that plant.

The role of the Land Management Corporation is crucial, and this select committee, I think, would want to hear from them. It seems that the LMC is no longer just the land bank for government but now very much the developer as well through its contractual relations. I would like to know the nature of its contractual relations with the Newport Quays consortium and Urban Construct. What is its exposure—by that I mean our exposure as taxpayers—to financial consequences if the Dock 1 development does not go ahead, whether it is as a result of EPA, Department of Health or any other advice?

Interestingly, in some of the media debate on this issue, Bryan Dawe weighed in. He is known to people as a television regular. He is an old Birkenhead boy who grew up a stone's throw from Adelaide Brighton Cement. He said on radio yesterday, 'It seems to me they've got to stop the development and start again'. This is the bit I like. He said, 'Get everybody's hands up on the table where we can see them.' I think that is at the heart of what a parliamentary select committee can do.

In conclusion, times have changed and community expectations have changed, but are current assessment and approval regimes meeting today's needs? I do not think they are. We have a responsibility to current residents. We have a responsibility to new residents in Port Adelaide and surrounding areas to ensure that they live in an environment that does not harm their health. We also have a responsibility to provide a level of certainty to current industries so they know if they can operate and expand or whether their days are numbered.

So the question posed by this motion is: will this parliament stand up for the people of Port Adelaide and for the businesses of Port Adelaide? Will we provide a forum for these issues to be explored and for recommendations for change to come forward? I commend the motion to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.