1

REPORT ON A PUBLIC CONFERENCE UNDER SECTION 20B OF THE

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1970.

CONFERENCE HELD IN RESPECT OF

THE WORKS APPROVAL APPLICATION RELATING TO

BARWON WATER’S NORTHERN WATER TREATMENT PLANT.

Report prepared by the Chairperson:

Geoff Brown - Tangent Consulting

Section 20B conference venue:

Norlane Neighbourhood House

Rose Ave, Norlane

Date of Section 20B conference:

Thursday 24th June, 2010.

Date of Chairperson’s report:

12th July 2010.

2

Table of contents

1. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………. 3-4

2. REVIEW OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS …………………………………………………. 5

3. PROCESS AGENDA FOR THE SECTION 20B CONFERENCE …………………… 6-7

4. ISSUES RAISED IN CONFERENCE AND THROUGH PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS .. 8

4.1 Concerns raised ………………………………………………………………….. 9-11

4.2 Questions raised …………………………………………………………………. 11-12

4.3 Summary of main topics in public submissions ……………………………. 12

4.4 Points of clarification requested ………………………………………………. 13

4.5 Other requests and resolutions ………………………………………………... 13

4.6 Next steps …………………………………………………………………………. 13

4.7 Participant feedback …………………………………………………………….. 14

5. CHAIRMAN’S CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions ………………………………………………………………………….. 15

5.2 Recommendations ………………………………………………………………….. 15-16

ATTACHMENT ONE:

QUESTIONS, ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED IN CONFERENCE ………………….. 17-19

ATTACHMENT TWO:

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS ACCEPTED THROUGH

THE 20B CONFERENCE PROCESS …………………………………………………………. 20

3

1. INTRODUCTION

This report contains the community questions, issues and concerns raised at a 20B

Conference (conducted under Section 20B of the Environment Protection Act 1970) in

response to a works approval application by Barwon Water for the proposed Water

Treatment Plant, to be located on industrial land east of Station Street in Corio.

This report has been prepared by Geoff Brown, chairman of the 20B community

conference and staged with 26 participants (including 14 community members) at the

Norlane Neighbourhood House on the evening of Thursday, 24th June 2010.

A wide range of groups were invited including:

Figure 1: List of groups invited to the 20B Conference

Barwon Water states, in it’s Work’s Approval Application (Executive Summary), that the

water treatment plant “will treat a combination of domestic sewage from the catchments

of Corio West and Oyster Cove, and process water (trade waste) from the Shell refinery.

The treatment plant will be located in the Corio area, north of Geelong, next to the

refinery. The refinery currently utilises a significant amount of potable water for its boilers,

which the NWP will substitute to fit for purpose, Class A recycled water, which will

provide an immediate reduction of 2000 ML/a (5 per cent) in Geelong’s drinking water

use.”

4

Barwon Water also states the strategic objectives for the project (2.1 Project Overview):

Barwon Water to:

– meet growth in North Geelong

– balance water supply

– manage wet weather flow to comply with State Environment Protection Policy

(Waters of Victoria) (SEPP)

– meet reclaimed water use targets

Shell to:

– reduce reliance on potable water

– increase treatment of trade waste.”

EPA Victoria accepted the works approval application on 10th May, 2010. EPA received

public submissions from 7 people and one petition signed by 62 people. As with all works

approval applications, an opportunity for further community input was publically

advertised and organised for 24th June 2010.

This 20B conference was designed to capture and further understand the key concerns,

questions and issues raised by participants. The conference also allowed EPA to hear

from other voices in the community who may not have provided a written submission.

The independent chair is appointed to ensure that all parties, particularly those who have

not made their views known before the conference, are heard and communicated in a

report to EPA that includes recommendations on the proceedings.

5

2. REVIEW OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

7 public submissions and 1 petition (signed by 62 people) were received by EPA Victoria

in response to the advertised works approval application. The submissions (with all

identifying information removed) were reviewed by the conference chairman after the 20B

conference was staged. This review provided the chair with an opportunity to compare

the community concerns raised at the conference with those presented in the

submissions.

A few of the main issues raised in the public submissions are incorporated into the review

of the information captured at the 20B conference – sections 4.1 and 4.2.

Note: Appendix 1 provides a detailed account of the feedback provided by

participants during the small group and whole conversations.

6

3. PROCESS AND AGENDA OF THIS 20B CONFERENCE

3.1 Background and context

The 20B Conference was part of the works approval process for the proposed Northern

Water Treatment Plant. The key milestone dates of this process include:

Figure 2: Key milestone dates

3.2 Conference Design

The 20B Conference was designed by Geoff Brown (Chairperson) in consultation with

Clare Marsh of EPA Victoria. The workshop was designed to meet the following goals:

• Participants have equal opportunity to share and discuss their concerns, issues

and questions with each other;

• Participants are able hear and better understand the concerns, issues and

questions of others;

• The key concerns, issues and questions are captured in written form and in the

words of participants.

7

The 20B Conference agenda is summarised in the following table.

Time Agenda

Item

Process Description

5.45 to

6.30pm

Arrivals Participants welcomed

Tea/Coffee

6.30pm Welcome &

Introductions

Participants sitting in a circle of chairs

*Each person introduced self and the group they represented

*Gavan Mathieson (Manager EPA Vic. Geelong Office) provided the

official welcome and outlined the purpose of the 20B Conference.

6.50pm Context

Overview

*Naren Narenthiran then provided brief background of the works

approval process and a snapshot of the main themes to come from the

public submissions.

7.00pm Concerns,

Issues &

Questions -

Group

Discussion

The conference chair then invited participants to form small groups and

discuss the issues, concerns and questions that matter most.

2 conversations with different groups followed. At the conclusion of the

2nd conversation, each group (of 4 or 5 people) then captured as many

of their key issues and questions on separate sheets of paper.

7.55pm Evening Break

& Supper

Conversations continued throughout the break.

8.05pm Concerns,

Issues &

Questions -

Group Analysis

The Conference chair worked with the whole group to draw out each of

the written issues/questions/concerns from the pre-break discussions.

Each topic was taken in turn and posted on a wall. The chairperson

allowed the participant to find the natural groupings and a range of

different themes emerged. The authoring group of each topic was

asked to clarify their contribution.

8.45pm Next Steps

Evaluation

Whole group discussion to consider next steps and decide how we

continue to engage on the unanswered questions and concerns.

9.10pm Close

8

4. ISSUES, CONCERNS & QUESTIONS CAPTURED AT THE 20B CONFERENCE

In facilitating the 20B Conference workshop, the chair used a group process that allowed

all participants to share and discuss concerns, issues and questions. These were

captured in a written format and shared with the whole group. Most of the concerns,

issues and questions were discussed and clarified with the chair.

The participants assisted the chair to group their written responses in to themes.

ATTACHMENT 1 contains a direct transcription of what was written by participants and,

in some cases, additional notes were added (in brackets) by the chair when clarifying their

response. The heading for each group of responses (themes) was created by the Chair

when analysing the outputs after the conference.

This section of the report presents the broad themes that emerged from participants at

the 20B Conference. The section titled ‘20B Issues’ attempts to summarise the key

concerns that were discussed and captured. The section titled ‘In Submissions’ briefly

highlights the commonly identified concerns in the public submissions.

This chart represents a summary of the key concerns and questions raised at the 20B

conference along with the main themes identified by the EPA in public submissions.

Figure 3: Key concerns & questions

9

4.1 Concerns Raised

There were many concerns raised at the 20B conference and in public submissions. Some

of these issues are relevant to the works approval application and some go beyond EPA’s

role. In section 5 (Chairman’s Conclusions and Recommendations) this is discussed

further.

*The number in the (bracket) indicates the number of individual concerns raised at

the 20B Conference that relate to the stated theme.

Access to recycled water (6)

20B Issues

This theme overlaps with ‘Shell’s benefit from the plant’ and featured prominently in both

written feedback and in group conversations. The key concerns raised here related to fair

and equitable access to the plant’s recycled water by industry and community. The

perception at the conference is that Shell will be the sole beneficiary at the expense of

other industry (e.g. MC Herd) and community (e.g. Steadpark).

In Submissions

• The main concern was that Shell is perceived be the sole beneficiary of recycled water

from the plant;

• It was alleged that early in the project the communication indicated that industry and

community would benefit from the recycled water and that it appears Shell will now be

the sole beneficiary;

• A fear that home owners and other water users will be expected to pay higher prices for

the water was also raised.

Shell’s benefit from the plant (5)

20B Issues

In addition to the ‘Access to recycled water’ theme, the perception from many at the

conference was that Shell’s responsibility for dealing with waste is being handed back to

the community through Barwon Water. The other concern related to corporate welfare -

the public funding private industry.

In Submissions

• Similar concerns were raised with a perception that the “business relationship between

Shell and Barwon Water is problematic” and that this project does not equate to good

value for money.

Results from the Pilot Plant (5)

This group of concerns are also linked closely to the questions relating to ‘Design and

Best Practice of the Plant’ in 4.2 below.

20B Issues

The subject of public access to the pilot plant results at Oyster Cover appeared to be

contentious and was the subject of a Resolution later in proceedings. At the core, the

10

community participants were questioning the validity of the pilot plant results and have

concerns that ‘worst case scenarios‘ have not been factored into the design.

In Submissions

• Lack of access to pilot plant results was also identified in many of the submissions.

Barwon Water’s community engagement processes (4)

20B Issues

The key concern appeared to relate to differences between the initial planning permit

application (to City of Greater Geelong) and the current works approval application.

Participants felt that these changes in ‘scope’ of the project had not been communicated

effectively during the consultation process.

There was also a perception that the works approval application had already been

approved when participants attended a Barwon Water community forum in March, 2010.

In Submissions

• The same concerns were raised with examples provided such as, “notably an open

storage lagoon is contained in the planning permit application”.

The Works Approval process (4)

20B Issues

Like in the public submissions, the core perception is that this works approval application

is not in accordance with the principles in the Environment Protection Act 1970. The

accountability of the project was raised as a concern regarding the overall costs,

environmental factors and a lack of balance between Shell’s needs and community

needs.

In Submissions

• Again, the perception is that the works approval application fails to conform to the

intent of principles contained within the Environment Protection Act 1970. These

principles are listed in detail within many of the submissions.

Ownership of the Land at the site of the plant (3)

20B Issues

The core concern related to public infrastructure should be located on public land and not

private land.

In Submissions

• Of further concern was the possibility that Shell’s funding component may be

withdrawn if a new owner is found for the Shell site.

Contamination (3)

20B Issues

The first issue here relates to the existing contaminated soil and groundwater at the

proposed site and questions were raised about how that will be managed.

11

The second is a concern is about heavy metals and other contaminants in the industrial

wastewater from Shell that will be treated by the proposed treatment plant.

A third issue discussed here and in submissions related to commitment that Shell cease

it’s discharge of water into Corio Bay.

In Submissions

• It was felt that the works approval application lacked information about soil and ground

water contamination;

• Concerns that in the recycling of Shell’s waste, there is a lack of information about how

heavy metals are to be handled.

4.2 Questions Raised

In addition to broader concerns, more specific issues were raised and questions asked

that relate to the detail of the works approval application and the plant design and

location.

Odour, Noise and Flood Risk (7)

20B Issues

The key concern here related to the possible odour and air emissions from the uncovered

Lagoons. This also relates to personal health concerns in the local community,

particularly in relation to storm and flooding events. A recommendation was made by 1

group to tackle this issue:

• “EPA to address odour concerns raised by residents by EPA being involved in the

development of a Neighbourhood Environment Improvement Plan (NEIP).”

In Submissions

• There was a concern that the works approval application lacked research into the

impacts of possible sea level rise;

• Concerns that the health of local community will be affected negatively and the

information provided in the design does not go far enough.

Questions about design and ‘best practice’ of the proposal (5)

20B Issues

The key question from participants was, “Is this plant an example of best practice?” The

concerns related to the design and location of the proposed plant:

• Lack of detail in relation to the technical design;

• Has the proponent researched and visited other plants?;

• Location was an issue due to its proximity to the refinery, and a long distance from

future residential development and location in the floodplain.

In Submissions

• Concerns that no plans for the recycling of stormwater;

• Questions raised about flow rates and bio-reactor digestion;

• Concerns about how the plant will handle shock loads and wet weather;

• no pilot plant results from Oyster Cove

12

Links with the Master Plan and future expansion plans (4)

20B Issues

These concerns were broadly about future water security in Geelong. Participants also

identified that the Northern Water Treatment Plant was not included in the Central Region

Water Strategy and their question was “how does it qualify as part of the master plan in

providing sustainable water for our future?”

In addition a number of groups asked if the plant could be scaled up or expanded to

meet future growth.

In Submissions

• Concern that this plant does not require Shell to cease discharges into Corio Bay

Value for Money (4)

20B Issues

These concerns were closely tied with the theme ‘Shell’s benefit from the plant’. There

were questions relating to a perceived lack of detail on the cost of the project and value

for money.

When clarifying this group of concerns, the chair summarized the core question as, ‘if this

is how much money we have, is it the best use for the outcomes being delivered? Is this

proposed project the best ‘bang-for-buck?’

Energy use of the plant (3)

20B Issues

This was the one theme where other opportunities were identified. Some participants

expressed a desire for alternative energy sources (e.g. solar, wind, tidal) to power the

plant. Another opportunity was to tap the wasted energy from Shell Refinery processes

(e.g. flare energy) and use it to power part of the plant. It was pointed out that any use of

alternative sources should be in addition to existing renewable energy targets.

4.3 Summary of the main concerns received by the EPA in public submissions

EPA Victoria provided the chairperson with a summary of the main concerns contained in

the public submissions they have received. During their analysis of these submissions,

the main topics that emerged included:

• Odour and VOC emissions

• Insufficient design information

• Difference between planning permit application and works approval application

• Public health and environmental impacts

• Location of the treatment plant in flood plain

• Existing potential soil and groundwater contamination

13

4.4 Points of clarification requested by community participants

4.4.1 EPA role in land use planning process

At the beginning of the 20B Conference, a few community representatives

were concerned about some information written under the heading “EPA does

not have the power to do something about”. The information related to EPA’s

role in the land use planning process through the planning permit referral

process.

4.4.2 EPA Role in assessing the cost of the project

Throughout the 20B Conference, there were comments and questions about

the EPA’s role in assessing the cost of the project. When questioned further, it

appears that some community representatives believe that the EPA, under

section 1B, should take into account social, environmental and economic

values when considering the works approval application.

4.5 Other requests and resolutions

4.5.1 Request for an update

An update was requested from Shell and EPA Victoria on the implementation of

Shell’s Water Master Plan.

4.5.2 Request for more detail

Provide community with a more detailed description of the Water Treatment

Plant display. What do the various terms like Type 1, 2 & 3 water in display?

4.5.3 Resolutions

Three resolutions were moved by Sue McLean (supported by Peter Linaker and

a majority in favour)

That the applicant/proponent (Barwon Water) provide:

i. the results of the pilot plant trials to the community

ii. the results of the sewerage study from 2009

iii. an explanation of the Barwon Water modelling It is not clear what is

being requested

The community requested that this information be provided by Barwon Water

at least 2 weeks prior to the next meeting on August 3, 2010.

4.6 Next Steps

June 2010

Chairperson (Geoff Brown) to collate and review the 20B Conference outputs and

summary of submissions

• Any additional submissions from the community via email or Bang-the-Table will also be

included

Early-Mid July 2010

Chairperson to prepare and complete the 20B Conference Report and Recommendations

August 2010

Follow Up 20B Conference

• This workshop will aim to resolve specific concerns and questions from conference #1

14

4.7 Participant Feedback

Participants were provided with 2 options to rate their experience of the 20B Conference.

Option 1: Evaluation Dartboard - this technique allows participants to rate the event

based on 4 criteria (see table below). Participants place a sticky-dot on the dart board to

indicate the extent to which their expectations were met.

*A dot placed inside the small circle = Exceeded Expectations

*A dot placed inside the large circles = Met Expectations

*A dot placed outside the large circle = Missed the mark & did Not Meet Expectations

Evaluation Question

(Criteria)

Exceeded

Expectations

Met

Expectations

Did not meet

Expectations

Level of satisfaction with the

way the meeting was run

0%

n=0

75%

n=6

25%

n=2

The process used in helping

me to understand the issues

12.5%

n=1

50%

n=4

37.5%

n=3

Confidence that the EPA have

heard all the issues

12.5%

n=1

12.5%

n=1

75%

n=6

Level of satisfaction that the

process used identified key

issues & concerns

33.3%

n=3

33.3%

n=3

33.3%

n=3

Option 2: Conference Feedback Form: A 2 page, 8 question form was also provided for

those participants who wanted to provide more detailed feedback on the 20B Conference

and provide suggestions for the second conference in August.

15

5. Chairman’s Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusions

Many of the concerns and questions raised at the public conference related to issues that

sit outside of EPA’s role in making a decision on the works approval application. As we

discovered early on in group discussions, the clarity of EPA’s role in relation to many

issues is clouded and needs further guidance.

Given the complexity of these issues and roles, it was clear that a second public

conference would be required and this was agreed to during the course of the evening.

The group also mapped out a series of activities needed to prepare for the second public

conference in August. Many of these steps listed in 5.2 Recommendations.

It should also be made clear that sufficient opportunities to communicate concerns about

the proposal have been provided through the public submission process and the first 20B

Conference. The 20B Conference was designed to assist all participants to understand

the context and details behind all concerns. It was not the intent of the first 20B

conference to specifically address the wide range of public questions and issues.

The major issues of concern to the community are numerous and wide ranging. High on

the list priorities are concerns about access to recycled water and a perception that

Shell’s private benefit is coming from public funds. Access to pilot plant results was

requested by the community in a resolution. The extent to which this works approval

application conforms with specific principles under the Environment Protection Act 1970

was questioned at the conference and in all public submissions.

Through the submissions it was clear that concerns about adverse health and

environmental impacts are related to questions about the plant design, it’s location and

the results from the pilot plant. These came out clearly in section 4.5 above.

As Chairperson, I am satisfied that the follow up steps identified at the 20B conference

(and communicated in this report), will achieve its intent of providing an opportunity to

hear community concerns and, where possible, provide them with additional information.

5.2 Recommendations

In preparation for the second 20B Conference:

• EPA Victoria provides clear guidance on which of the issue captured at the 20B

conference (and in public submissions) are relevant to the works approval process and

which issues are for other agencies to tackle;

• The EPA again invite specific agencies to participate in the second 20B Conference so

that issues outside of EPA’s role in the works approval process can be tackled by the

relevant agencies;

16

• That EPA respond to a request from 1 group at the 20B Conference who requested that

a Neighbourhood Environment Improvement Plan (NEIP) be considered in relation to

concerns about odour and possible adverse health impacts.

• That the EPA clarifies the intent and meaning of the ‘Powers table’, particularly in

relation to landuse zoning;

• EPA clearly defines and explains its interpretation of section 1B (Principle of integration

of economic, social and environment considerations) of the Environment Protection Act

1970 as it relates to EPA’s role in assessing the cost of the project;

• EPA clearly defines and explains its interpretation of other principles in the Environment

Protection Act in relation to this works approval application. At the 20B Conference and

in most of the public submissions, the intent of many of the principles in Section 1B

were the subject of discussion.

In relation to the 3 resolutions were moved and supported:

• That Barwon Water respond to the supported resolutions captured at the 20B

Conference which states:

“That the applicant/proponent (Barwon Water) provide the community with:

i. the results of the pilot plant trials to the community

ii. the results of the sewerage study from 2009

iii. an explanation of the Barwon Water modelling”

• The community requested that this information be provided by Barwon Water prior to

the next meeting in August.

At the second 20B Conference on August 3rd, 2010:

• That a second, follow up workshop be staged to attempt to resolve community

concerns and, where possible, provide answers to more specific questions outlined in

this report. Two specific requests from the community include:

i. An update from Shell and EPA Victoria on the implementations of Shell’s

Water Master Plan;

ii. Provide the community with a more detailed description of the Water

Treatment Plant display. What do the various terms like Type 1, 2 & 3 water

on the display mean?

17

ATTACHMENT ONE:

QUESTIONS, ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED IN CONFERENCE

The participants assisted the chair to group their written responses in to main themes.

ATTACHMENT 1 contains a direct transcription of what was written by participants and,

in some cases, additional notes were added (in brackets) by the chair when clarifying the

their response.

Barwon Waterʼs community

engagement processes

Questions about the design

and ʻbest practiceʼ of the

proposal

Results from the Pilot Plant

Disappointment in how Public

Relations replaces engineering

The Barwon Water CIB in Feb

2010 incorrectly states Works

Approval application was open for

comment in Feb 2010 - this was

provided to participants at

Barwon Water community forum

in March 2010, implying the

Works Approval application had

already been approved

(this gave the impression to some

in the community that the Works

Approval application had been

completed)

Is this best practice - location and

design?

(*has a plant like this been built

before and has it been done

effectively and was it cost

effective?

*has the proponent

researched/visited international

equivalent projects?

*location is a real issue because

this plant is neighbouring the

Shell Oil Refinery and is distant to

new and future development

*has the risk of sea level rise and

inundation been adequately

researched?)

Test Results

*was it adequate?

* did the Oyster Cove Shutdown

affect the results?

*can the test results be released

to the community?

*the community are questioning

the validity of the pilot because

Shell was shut down for a % of

the duration of the pilot and the

ʻworst caseʼ scenario remains

untested

Consultation - Barwon Water only

reporting good news, not

community concerns

There is a lack of detail available

on the technical design

Disclosure of and interest in

seeing the Pilot Plant results.

Where is the commitment from

Shell?

Is this best practice?

What were outcomes of the pilot

plant testing?

Change in scope (of the Works

Approval application) not

communicated to the community

adequately

Site location for plant - is this a

Floodplain?

Is the process/combination

proven?

Have rising sea level impacts

been addressed?

(the community) ... Need

clarification on process & the

security against risks - e.g.

Shellʼs salt water getting into

mains water

18

Shellʼs benefit from the plant The Works Approval process Access to recycled water

Is Shell just delegating (or

abrogating) responsibility for

waste to the community?

*heavy metals

*petroleum

*(in other words ... Shellʼs costs

are being handed back to the

community through Barwon

Water)

Under the principles of the EPA

Act, the accountability of the

project is a concern:

*regarding the overall costs

*environmental factors

*lack of balance between Shellʼs

needs and community needs

Supply of water to other industry

(e.g. Ford, MC Herd) is limited

*in the Barwon Water Sewerage

Strategy (2005) is states “Drought

proofing of neighbouring sporting

grounds and other industry”)

* (the community expectation that

the water would have a broader

benefit to other industry and

community)

Have environmental

considerations been addressed

(e.g. Hydrocarbons)

Works Approval is not in

accordance with EPA Act

principles

Can the recycled water have

other uses other than Shell and

Steadpark

A low % of the reuse water is

going to the community

Value for Money? - Shell the only

benefit

Government and Statutory bodies

not listening to community

concerns

*(and the community is made of

people with expertise)

We need to identify who else

benefits apart from Shell

Parity of access and benefits What can be put in place by the

EPA to ensure they (i.e. Shell)

comply with the License?

Are there opportunities for others

to access the recycled water?

Concern about corporate welfare

- public funding private industry

- Private Partnerships - who

benefits & who pays?

The Recycled Water Project

should benefit all

industry/community and not just

Shell

Value for Money? Links with the Master Plan &

future expansion plans

Energy use of the Plant

There has been a lack of detail

on the cost of the project - value

for money?

(has a cost-benefit analysis been

done?)

(if this is how much money we

have, is it the best use for the

outcomes?)

(Is this the best ʻBang-for-Buckʼ?)

Water Security in Geelong. How

does this fit in the master plan?

(The Northern Water Treatment

Plant was not included in the

Central Region Water Strategy

and ... how does it qualify as part

of the master plan and in

providing sustainable water for

our future?)

Value for Money? Water Security - there are many

different meanings for this term

and depending on the meaning

being used, this project either

does or doesnʼt improve security?

(secondary question was: “Do

Barwon Water understand the

concept of water security?)

Energy use of the plant is a

concern and can ʻflareʼ energy be

used to power the plant?

(Given Shell uses and wastes so

much energy in itʼs processes,

can this excess energy be used

to power the plant?)

19

Value for Money? Links with the Master Plan &

future expansion plans

Energy use of the Plant

Value for Money? - shell the only

benefit

Can the plant be expanded on

the current site?

Can alternative energy sources

be built into this project?

(e.g. wave, tidal, wind, solar)

(also important that is this is done

it is over and above renewable

energy targets)

Cost of water produced - is this a

way of Shell just getting rid of

waste?

Is the site big enough for current

and future expansion?

How do the ʻtonnes of GHG

produced per litre of water at this

project compare to other water

sources?ʼ

*links with Best Practice

Can this plant be scaled up -

upgraded in future to cater for

COGG growth

Ownership of Land Odour, Noise and Flood Risk Contamination

Ownership of the land is an issue:

*currently Shell land and not

public

*what happens if Shell refinery is

sold and the viability of the

MWP?

(The feeling was that public

infrastructure should be on public

land and not private land)

Odour. Concern about plant

upset during storms, huge

flows/storage (in uncovered tanks

called Lagoons)

Soil and groundwater

contamination and remediation?

What about the long term, secure

ownership of the land?

Flood risk at Plant with

overflowing

What will the land contamination

at this site from shell? (Is this a

risk?)

Ownership of site - public should

own it

Concern about odours/toxic air

emissions - Lagoons not fully

enclosed

This plant doesnʼt stop Shell from

discharging water to the bay, or

sucking water from the bay.

EPA to address odour concerns

raised by resident by EPA being

involved in the development of a

Neighbourhood Environment

Improvement Plan (NEIP).

Odour from storage lagoon

Health concerns/impacts with

open ponds (lagoons)

What will the noise levels be from

the plant?

20

ATTACHMENT TWO:

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS ACCEPTED THROUGH THE 20B

CONFERENCE PROCESS

At the time of submitting his report, the chair had not yet received any additional

submissions or attachments from community members. If these are received, they will be

attached to this report.