Channel Deepening CEO: misreported or misinformed?
Port of Melbourne Corporation CEO Stephen Bradford, was reported in Port Phillip Leader (February 10, 2009) as saying:
“The contaminated material that was required to be moved by the large dredging vessels has all been removed. It has been in that designated material ground since late October. By the environmental management plan we then have to wait a minimum of 140 days after which point we will cap the material.”
Despite this, a large dredge was photographed operating in the Yarra on Feb 14, 2009; and the dredge schedule published on the Channel Project website (link below) indicates dredging of contaminated Yarra material would continue until Feb 18, 2009.
Cornelis Zanen dredging near Westgate Bridge, Feb 2009
Has the CEO been misquoted or misinformed? In either event, we’re left wondering about the “140 days” required to allow contaminated sediments dumped in the Bay to consolidate before capping can be placed on them. In the same news article, the CEO is reported to have said “The 140 days expires on or around February 17″. Clearly, dredging of contaminated Yarra sediments has continued well into February 2009; so 140 days after dredging ceased would actually be on or around July 7, 2009.
PoMC has been allowed to dump millions of tonnes of toxins from the Yarra into the middle of the Bay – on the pretence that it would be too complex and expensive to treat the toxins on land. What a load of rubbish. If the PoMC wants to disturb toxins, they should pay the price of doing the job properly, rather than shifting the costs and risks onto the environment and the public.
The Channel Deepening Project environment studies did not include testing for radionuclides in the Yarra. ABC Quantum last week reported that a sewerage recycling plant in Queensland tests for about 300 chemicals of concern, including radionuclides. If they can do it, why can’t PoMC? CEO Mr. Bradford should arrange to spend some of their $4 million advertising budget on something useful – like sediment testing to assess any radionuclide risk from Yarra dredging, rather than just peddling $4 million of spin.
STAN SAYS TO JENNY & LENNY: You’re quite right. PoMC have provided no tests for radionuclides. In fact, it appears no studies on radionuclides in the Yarra have ever been done. If they have, they haven’t been made available to the public. This is despite a 1989 investigation of radioactive contamination at 506 Lorimer Street, Fishermens Bend, which found radioactive contaminants throughout the buildings and grounds and in a 380mm stormwater pipe leading to the River. On learning the history of the Lorimer Street site, Baykeeper called for Yarra dredging to stop until tests had been done to prove that there was no radioactive risk. This call was made in July 2008 to the Channel Deepening Community Liaison Group (CLG) convened by PoMC.
The CLG requested a response on the issue from the Office of the Environmental Monitor (OEM). While the Yarra dredging continued, after 5 weeks the OEM replied that they considered the risk to be low. But they failed to provide any scientific studies of Yarra sediments to support this opinion.
is it correct that because port philip bay is a estuary not a bay,this has allowed the toxic material to be dregged up then dumped elsewhere in the bay without EPA approval.
The word ‘estuary’ applies to where a freshwater stream meets a marine environment, such as where the Yarra waters merge with Port Phillip Bay. The freshwater tends to flow over the heavier saltwater until wave action causes the two to mix.
The thinking behind creating a 6 square kilometre contaminated sediments disposal site in the Bay was a huge step from previous policy which aimed to minimise dredging and disposal of contaminated materials in the Bay. In fact, as I understand it, the Environment Protection Act 1970 included clauses to restrict disposal of contaminants into any Victorian waterway, including Port Phillip Bay. This was inconvenient for the Channel Deepening proponents as dumping the material in the Bay was the cheapest option in the short term. So a decision was made to set the Environment Protection Act aside (along with the EPA) and use the National Ocean Disposal Guidelines (which ordinarily applied to dumping at sea) for the Channel Deepening project. The requirements of these guidelines weren’t actually followed in full. But that’s another story!