MEGATIP  SUBMISSION

From: Dennis Argall

Date: 4 October 2009 12:05:34 PM AEDT

To: Council's Generic Mailbox <council@shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au>

Subject: DA 09/2077 - proposed regional mega-tip at Tomerong 

I oppose this development proposal.  

The history of this site is of informal quarrying being eventually licensed, that license being sold, then the land being sold via the Indigenous Land Corporation to a local Aboriginal community in 1999. (Like other landowners in this country, Aboriginal landowners have no rights over minerals in the ground). Since then, the quarrying has been transferred again to another operator and the new operator, 50-50 with the former operator, who appears to retain interest in the mining license [?], has formed a company for this proposed development of a tip. 

 There was no community consultation prior to the making of the development application, although the project has been under discussion with Shoalhaven City Council since 2006. The current quarry operator was present at Council's briefing meeting for residents on 1 October, but the longer term interest, the other 50% shareholder, with wide interests in waste north and south, was not present, has not been seen in the community.

 There is a problem of available waste sites through the region as existing tips fill. There is likely to be local opposition to new tips in most places but there are far wider than local reasons to oppose this development. The proposed development in my opinion is quite inconsistent with the South Coast Regional Strategy and in particular the sustainability criteria in Annex 1.

 http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/southcoast/p/southcoast_regionalstrategy.pdf

 The making of one specific development application is an inappropriate mechanism for government - state and local - to deal with the wider infrastructure issue of provision of waste sites. 

 I raise these issues:

 A: ON THE LAND ITSELF

[1] The first need and the primary concern of the Aboriginal landholder is for remediation of the quarry. There is no evidence of consideration of other approaches to remediation. 

 [2] There is no evidence of substantial consultation with and consideration of the needs of the Aboriginal landowners. There is no evidence of significant employment of Aborigines associated with the present quarry project.

 [3] in a high wind environment such as this is, living close to the tip, on the Aboriginal land, will be unhealthy.

 [4] The Aboriginal landowners wish, I understand, to develop housing and in consultation with Shoalhaven City Council wish to develop sporting and cultural facilities of use for the wider community in the Jervis Bay-St Georges Basin area. All of this vision is placed at risk. 

[5] Aquaculture industry has already been commenced on the Aboriginal land, by landowners in joint venture with non-Aboriginal partners. This is at risk.  

B: LOCALLY

 [6] There is a concept of trapping waste in clay basins without knowing if these will work; if unsatisfactory, then supposedly these will be lined with membranes. None of this entrapment planning seems likely to be as long lasting as heavy metal or other toxics which would be trapped in such basins.  

[7] I understand that there is a desire not just to fill the quarry but to heap waste above it, above the former ground level, consistent with a notion of 'local hilly terrain'. The geological stability of waste trapped in clay basins built above the natural land, in a region of often heavy rain over long periods seems very risky indeed. At a minimum the water table in basins trapping waste will rise to levels which reduce or eliminate their value as barriers. More seriously, rising water tables in such unstable circumstances risk slips and landslides. 

 [8] This occurs close to waterways which enter St Georges Basin in Erowal Bay, a shallow corner of the basin. The sensitivity of this area has already led to the stopping of developing of the Heritage Estates near the boundary of Booderee National Park. The issues of protection of St Georges Bay in consideration in that case should apply here. 

[9] There is no road infrastructure to support the traffic proposed; there are rural residential areas adversely impacted.

 [10] Land for such waste disposal needs to be found well away from prime coastal assets, away from high rainfall, etc. 

 [11] This is all contrary to the principles in the South Coast Regional Strategy.

 C: MORE WIDELY

 [12] A serious problem exists, which government should address swiftly, in that the environmental assessment of projects like this tends to be far too narrow, looking within the site. There is a need to take into account the whole cost, environmentally and as regards infrastructure options and energy efficiency. A megatip for a wide region only makes sense if you have free roads and abundant cheap fuel. THE CONSUMER IS LIKELY TO BE ASKED TO PAY, IN YEARS TO COME, for shipment of waste over distances which will be increasingly ridiculous given costs associated. 

[13] The South Coast Regional Strategy says:

"Councils will be encouraged to promote waste avoidance and resource recovery in demolition and building work... " [p 31] 

 [14] In terms of plans to ship waste from the Illawarra and beyond:

- there is no date for the highway bypassing Berry

- road traffic through Nowra is already heavily congested.

... though this is not an argument for more road expenditure, there will be major fuel availability and price considerations well within the time envelope of this project. More sensible to put in rail links to west of the divide (Dumbarton and beyond Nowra south).  

[15] The same kinds of issues arose recently in the question of increased road truck traffic from coal mines down Mount Ousley to the Port Kembla coal terminal, where the main environmental concerns were in relation to the ears of folk living near the road, not taking into consideration the broad ecological and finite resource issues, or long term major accident risks from much heavier traffic.

 [16] Boiling Frog Syndrome: http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/frog.htm

D: TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY VERSUS HUMAN MANAGEMENT

 [17] There is a tendency of practitioners in engineering fields to look only to the technical issues. The following is a metaphorical comparison....I have past career background in nuclear safeguards and non-proliferation policy. My personal view is that the nuclear energy technology is feasible; what is not just doubtful but definitely a negative factor is the absence of capacity of human society to manage such things for periods of time beyond known lengths of rule of any empire in history. This comparison is relevant to this more humble scale project, which proposed ways of doing things that may or may not work and which depend on vast infrastructure needs that the DA does not address. Moreover, we are dealing not with relatively small numbers of relatively high skilled and paid physicists, engineers and technicians running nuclear plants but with very large numbers of generally low paid and low trained people operating trucks, machines and systems which have inherent significant risks and uncertainties of design and maintenance. Where is the record of tips built above natural ground in high rainfall environments? Where are the figures on anticipated road accidents, with 30,000 truck movements? Where are the plans for risk management of the site and problem solving when things go wrong? Where is the projection of costs; will government or consumers bear the cost of remediation if such a project goes wrong? James Hardie became involved in falsehoods and sustaining of product confidence, maintaining inherently unsafe products; the costs arise over a long time and multiply as you try to make something inherently silly work. DA09/2077 has inherent dangers of the same psychological kind for those who address it, the seduction of a big idea and the need then later to deal with consequences. 

 [18] This place is in the heart of the part of NSW that attracts the largest number of NSW tourists. 

[19] Be very wary of assertions that this will create employment and have economic benefit. When Bob Hawke organised the first big government-business summit in April 1983, the transport industry issued a release saying their sector amounted to 30% of the economy. One cheeky Senator issued a counter-statement: yes that's right, he said, and transport could be 80% of the economy if we had to ship everything via Perth.

 [20] At a time when energy policy is emphasising better resource management and greater local generation, it is ludicrous to consider a waste project based on shipping waste huge distances and ludicrous to ship it to an area of such sensitivity as this, on Aboriginal land, with multiple other uses possible and under consideration, adjacent to sensitive environment, capable of polluting sensitive waterways. It may meet the corporate ambitions of proponents, especially if they can shove on later costs to others.... but is entirely contrary to the public interest.

 Dennis Argall