Save Our
State South Australia IncSave Our
State South Australia Inc
Dedicated to the preservation of personal freedoms, moral standards, honest responsible government and principled political behaviour for the people of South Australia
Are the long standing environmental problems caused by Adelaide Brighton Cement any closer to being fixed? The company is hoping that recent changes to to the plant, and the formation of a new community liaison group will go some way to resolving the problems.
The previous liaison group was criticised for being too dominated by ABC and after a particularly nasty dust emission, and an an influx of angry residents in August 2004, the company spat the dummy (so to speak) and did not hold any further meetings.
The new group is modelled on a similar group run by the company to resolve problems at it's Munster site in Western Australia. The group has a different make-up to previous groups. For a start it has an independent chair - Peter Bicknell, CEO of UnitingCare Wesley Port Adelaide and himself a local resident. The group also has a wider representation. Representatives are drawn from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Port Adelaide Enfield Council, the Port Adelaide Community Health Centre, in addition to eight local residents and two from Adelaide Brighton Cement. Meetings are open to the public.
It is fitting that these organisations should be represented. The state government administers planning and environmental regulations through Planning SA and the EPA, and the Port Adelaide Enfield Council formulates planning rules, and sometimes hears applications for new developments.
It is poor planning and lax environmental regulation and enforcement in the past that has fostered the situation we are faced with today. For example ABC's plant at Munster has been kept at least 700 m from residential areas whereas in Port Adelaide the plant has been allowed to expand right up to the boundary, just across the road from the residential area.
The Port Adelaide Community Health Service will be able to bring expertise to address community concerns on health risks. It is also appropriate that Le Fevre Primary School be represented as the EPA monitoring station is situated at Le Fevre.
The current eight resident representatives are volunteers from the contact list drawn up after the public meeting at the Port Adelaide Town Hall in October 2004. All meetings are open to the public, and in addition time is set aside at each meeting to allow public contributions. For example people might like to raise particular issues that they thought should be considered by the committee, or ideas on the directions the committee was taking. Minutes of the meeting are also public and will be published on Adelaide Brighton Cement's website and be available in local libraries.
The first meeting was mainly to get things organised, and to develop an idea of how meetings would be run. It was also an opportunity for residents to present a set of issues that the committee needed to address. At the second meeting the EPA made a presentation on environmental legislation in general, and on the EPA license in particular. The legislation itself seems to be biased so that environmental excellence runs second to financial viability. Not that this should apply to ABC which has had an extraordinary run of financial prosperity and, according to the last ABC annual report, has been strongly supported by the Birkenhead plant. The company's environmental licence is due to expire in October 2007, and under the terms of the old licence there was a requirement to consult with the community.
One of the main points formulated by the Birkenhead and Peterhead resident's group over the last 12 months is that the EPA should increase instrumental monitoring of ABC. The present situation where the level of environmental emissions is monitored by the level of complaints to the EPA or the company is not satisfactory. Firstly it is not acceptable to treat the local population as caged canaries, that will become alarmed when environmental conditions become intolerable. Secondly it is just plain inefficient as a cycle develops where complaints have no discernible effects, people lose faith in the system, and so the level of complaints, and the effectiveness of the system falls. From the company's point of view, it must be difficult to demonstrate small decreases in emissions.
The emissions most residents are concerned about do not seem to come from the stacks but rather from miscellaneous sections from within the plant. This is the so called "fugitive dust" which is not measured. So it was of concern to hear that the EPA thought that the best way to handle fugitive dust problem was by "good" management rather than measurement. This approach has been shown to fail in the past, and a continuation of this policy seems likely to do little to change the current situation.
As an exercise in community consultation the community liaison group has many positives. It has the potential to allow an in depth investigation of the issues, and to attract a broad range of opinions. On the down side, it currently does not have a process to communicate that discussion to the local community. This is to some extent addressed by broadsheets issued by Adelaide Brighton Cement, and by updates like this. Community consultation is of course very fashionable these days, and while it can be useful the aim of the game is to find a solution to the problems caused by Adelaide Brighton Cement.
Tony Bazeley: Port Adelaide Resident's Environment Protection Group
Twenty-five years ago, the "old" Adelaide Brighton Cement plant at Birkenhead was of little concern, though there were ample signs (grey roofs, abraded windows) of previous problems. After a few years of relative peace, pile-driving began without warning at some ungodly hour of the morning. The new expanded plant was on its way.
It had been expected that the "old" (150,000 tonne)plant would close down and be replaced by a very much larger (1.5 MILLION tonnes) plant up river, at Pelican Point. Why Adelaide Brighton Cement planned to build the huge new plant within 30 metres of a residential neighbourhood, and without first removing the existing plant - thereby doubling the visual pollution of the environment, remains a source of puzzlement. However, what is absolutely astounding is that our so-called planners allowed this disgraceful plan to go ahead.
Of course, the plant in such close proximity has caused enormous problems - dust, corrosive dirt, noise, vibration, you name it - and the Company has done less than the minimum to settle the issues raised. Their somewhat cynical concern was exposed recently when they objected to part of the Newport Quays development being placed within 500m of the ABC boundary. Not surprisingly, a resident remarked that the Company didn't care about the working class people of Birkenhead, but were worried sick about the influential monied people of Newport Quays.
We can only hope that the Community Liaison Group and the proximity of Adelaide Brighton's licence renewal bring some resolution of the current severe pollution problems.