Last month the Olympic Coordination Authority boasted that "when athletes
arrive to compete in the year 2000 they will have little idea that the Homebush
Bay site was once a waste dump." However Sharon Beder points out that
the toxic waste will still be there when the athletes arrive and questions whether
international best practice has been applied.
The remediation strategy for the Homebush site, as outlined by the Olympic
Coordination Authority (Search, July 1996) involves neither treatment of
the toxic waste at the site, nor its removal. Rather it is an attempt at
containment. The Authority described how contaminated soil and waste material
has been collected together in a 20 metre high mound near Haslams Creek
which is being capped with a metre of compacted clay and beautifully landscaped
so that the international athletes will have no idea what is beneath the
surface.
But beneath the grass and the thousands of native plants on the "sculpted
landform that hugs the southern bank of Haslams Creek" there will
be heavy metals, hydrocarbons, asbestos, pesticides and putrescible wastes.
In 1991 groundwater leaching from the wastes in this area was found to
contain elevated levels of chlorobenzenes, chloromethanes and chloroethylenes
presumably leached out of the dumped material. The surface seep water contained
elevated levels of chlorobenzene, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead, ammonium,
fluoride, barium, copper, zinc and other metals.[1]
The metre of clay capping and the drains between the creek and the waste
mound have been put in place in an attempt to prevent any surface seep
or leachate from reaching the public or the creek. However the mound of
toxic wastes is not lined underneath as is expected in modern hazardous
landfill dumps. The Authority has also conceived a rather extraordinary
plan to recirculate captured leachate for irrigation.
In normal circumstances it is unlikely that an unlined hazardous waste
landfill site would be approved on this site because of the risks of groundwater
contamination and unexpected leachate movements. There would be noisy protests
from local residents and environmentalists. However, there are special
circumstances that seem to have allowed normal precautions to be waived.
No environmental impact statement has been prepared and publicly displayed.
The reports examining the contamination of the site, the possible remediation
options and the risks associated with the toxic waste have not been published.[2]
Moreover the environmental watchdogs have been strangely silent on this
one. This can be largely explained by the close involvement of Greenpeace
Australia and other key environmentalists with the Olympic Games and their
focus on the development of Olympic facilities as a showcase for environmentally
friendly technologies. It was convenient for them, as it was for the government,
to quietly ignore the real environmental problem associated with the site.
Best Practice?
There are clearly two approaches to dealing with the risks to human
and environmental health posed by a hazardous waste site. One is to lesson
those risks by reducing the contamination through treatment or removal
of contaminated soil. Alternatively risks can be lessened by preventing
exposure of humans, animals and plants to the contamination. The first
alternative--treatment--is the more responsible way of dealing with contaminated
sites because it is more permanent, but it is also more expensive.
In the US under Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
provisions, permanent treatment of contaminated soils is preferred to non-treatment
containment systems[3] such as
those being applied at Homebush Bay. Treatment is also the approach preferred
by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
(ANZECC) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) which
published guidelines for contaminated sites in January 1992.[4]
The NSW government has chosen the cheaper, quicker and less reliable approach
of containment. The Homebush Bay Authority argues that the technology to treat
this mixture of toxic waste is just not available. Others disagree. People in
the industry, such as environmental consultant Beven Schwaiger, say that substances
such as dioxin and heavy metals can be separated out and that this would remove
some of the worst contaminants and reduce the amount of contaminated soil that
had to be dealt with.[5] However treatment
takes time.
The need for a quick clean up has obviously affected remediation decisions.
For example removal of 80,000 tonnes of asbestos waste from the Olympic precinct
posed a problem that was overcome by using unorthodox methods. With the agreement
of union officials the waste, instead of being sealed and bagged, was wetted
down and moved in bulk.[6]
Risks?
Although no additional site allowances were given to the workers dealing
with waste material on the site, monitoring was installed to protect workers'
health. If levels of waste in the air exceeded set levels then the site
was supposed to be closed down. For example, at the State Sports Centre
monitoring was carried out for chromium 6 and benzene (both carcinogens).
In the vicinity of the Aquatic Centre monitoring was done for arsenic and
asbestos fibres. Dust was collected and analysed.[7]
The Olympic Coordinating Authority said that the diversion of the creek near
the State Sports Centre was to allow "the free movement of fish" however
the decision was actually made because of the difficulty of catching the leachate
going into it in its original position. It was thought that digging trenches
to put the drains into that area could have endangered the lives of the workers.[8]
Groundwater in the area had elevated levels of chlorobenzenes, organochlorines
and cyanide. Surface water in the creek was also contaminated with chlorinated
hydrocarbons. A major concern in this area was that acidic leachate was threatening
to corrode pipelines buried under the western portion of the site including
oil and gas lines and high tension underground electricity lines.[9]
Wastes from around this creek have been "consolidated" in one area,
covered with a metre of clay and shale and made into a golf range. Beneath the
grassy slopes are an accumulation of arsenic, lead, cadmium, asbestos, pesticides
and low concentrations of dioxins and dibenzofurans. Drains are supposed to
catch the contaminated leachate from this area.
It was the job of environmental consultants Inner City Fund (ICF) P/L to assess
the health and environmental risks that were posed by the Homebush Bay site
for the Property Services Group, before and after remediation. ICF are an Australian
branch of a US firm set up in the 1960s to clean up big East Coast American
cities. ICF was unable to come up with definitive conclusions because of numerous
uncertainties that have yet to be resolved and because it was not responsible
for remediation work and had to assume it would be done properly. For example,
in its report on the State Sports Centre, ICF had to qualify its conclusion
that after remediation there would be little chance of adverse ecological impacts
with the provision that no leachate from the contaminated part of the site entered
the creek and that the creek didn't intercept any contaminated soil.[10]
Similarly, in its report on the contamination of Haslam's Creek South, ICF concluded
that risks to people using the site from breathing in contaminants were probably
within acceptable limits but that "insufficient data was available for
quantitative assessment". ICF was conducting ongoing investigations into
this but its reports have not been published.
Environmental effects from toxic waste sites are also difficult to predict.
Stuart Nicholson and Nirander Safaya, writing in a recent issue of Environment,
Science and Technology say that there are no comprehensive data bases on
hazardous waste site ecology to draw on "other than general principles
of ecotoxicology and some documented effects of contaminants on biota."[11]
A 1991 study of aquatic sediments and fauna in Homebush Bay commissioned by
the State Pollution Control Commission[12]
and carried out by scientists Norman Rubinstein and John Wicklun, both from
the US EPA, found that there were "high concentrations of a number of organochlorine
compounds, especially 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)" mainly
as a result of the past activities of the Union Carbide facilities across the
Bay from the Olympic site. The scientists claimed that they were "not aware
of any sites in the US with sediment concentrations of TCDD this high".[13]
Fishing in Homebush Bay is currently banned because of contamination of the
fish. Material taken out of the Bay previously was so contaminated that the
land it was taken to had to be subsequently classified as a contaminated site.[14]
Public Consultation?
The ANZECC/NHMRC guidelines are quite explicit about the need for community
involvement. "There is a demonstrated requirement for community consultation
and participation during the investigation and clean-up of sites".
They say this is because the public has a "right to know".[15]
The government authorities claim there has been extensive community
consultation in this case. Groups consulted involved Greenpeace and a local
group called Greenspace which apparently consisted of three married couples
who organised exhibitions and translators for the local community. Also
there was a specially selected environmental advisory committee and newsletters
and brochures were distributed by the Property Services Group.
However many local residents do not feel there has been adequate public
consultation and participation. A survey of local residents undertaken
in 1992 by the local group, Greens In Lowe, found that of the 100 residents
surveyed, 71 said they were not getting enough information about what is
to be done in the Homebush Bay area for them to be able to form an opinion
on it and 75 said that they had not received enough information about the
clean-up of pollution in the area to satisfy them that the area was safe
for people to live and work in.[16]
The usual process in NSW for involving the public in such decisions is through
the public and advertised display of an environmental impact statement (EIS),
which the public is able to make submissions on. A Regional Environmental Plan
prepared by the NSW Department of Planning removed mandatory requirements for
an EIS to be prepared for earthworks on the site that had been subject to landfilling.
It gave the NSW Minister for Planning full authority to give consent for development
of the area earmarked for Olympic facilities and allowed development of the
contaminated land within the area, including landfilling, removal and reworking
of filled material to occur without the normal consultation process.
It is clear that public discussion of the toxic waste question has been discouraged.
However, the international media will be turning its attention to Sydney after
the Atlanta Olympics are over. Then the world is likely to discover that Australian
boasts of running a green 2000 Olympics are built on short-cut, low-cost remediation
measures that are anything but green.
Endnotes
[1] See for example Dames and Moore, 'Site remediation works: Haslams Creek North, Homebush Bay Development, NSW', report for Property Services Group, 11 July 1991.
[2] For example ICF Pty. Ltd., 'Health and environmental risk assessment for dioxins: Homebush Bay Redevelopment Area, volume 8, prepared for Property Services Group of NSW, 5 February 1993,
[3] Paul Bishop, 'Contaminant Leaching from Solidified-Stabilized Wastes', in D.William Tedder and Frederick Pohland, eds, Emerging Technologies in Hazardous Waste Management II, American Chemical Society, Washington DC, 1991, p. 303.
[4] Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, National Health and Medical Research Council, January 1992.
[5] 7.30 Report, ABC Television, 1993.
[6] John Pym, paper delivered at 1993 Environment Institute of Australia National Conference, Homebush Bay Field Trip, 22 September 1993.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Site guide at 1993 Environment Institute of Australia National Conference, Homebush Bay Field Trip, 22 September 1993.
[9] See for example Dames and Moore, `Site remediation works: State Sports Centre, Homebush Bay Development, NSW', report for Property Services Group, 1991.
[10] ICF Pty. Ltd., Volume 2 of 7, report prepared for Property Services Group of NSW, 1993.
[11] Stuart Nicholson and Nirander Safaya, `Restoring Hazardous Waste Sites', Environment, Science and Technology 27(6), 1993, p. 1022.
[12] predecessor of the NSW Environmental Protection Authority, EPA.
[13] Norman Rubinstein and John Wicklund, `Dioxin contamination of sediment and marine fauna in Homebush Bay', report for the State Pollution Control Commission, January 1991, p. 12.
[14] Personal communication with Dr John Pollack, Total Environment Centre.
[15] Australian and New Zealand Guidelines, op.cit., pp. 7,9
[16] Greens In Lowe, 'Survey - Homebush Bay Development', 1992.