102 McBryde Street, Fawkner VIC 3060

I understand this address was a contaminated site used by NuFarm which produced herbicides, pesticides and agent orange, with dioxin as a by-product in the 1960s. The site was heavily contaminated and caused many health problems to workers and local residents including a cancer cluster in the local area. A clay cap was put in place 30 years ago to contain the contaminated soil. Development of the site to any degree risks penetrating the clay cap and thus risking the health of workers involved on the site or nearby, and local residents.
The risk to local population health is high if contaminated soil is exposed, so any approval of this development must be on the basis of publicly available and transparent independent evidence and assessment that show beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no risk.

I agree with John Englart's comments. Any development of this site has to have strict environmental safeguards to ensure the safety and long term health of residents.

I also agree with John Englart's comments. Any development needs independent, non-developer arranged environmental assessment before being reviewed for approval.

After what has happened previously on this land why was it even sold to a developer. Totally unacceptable even to consider endangering the lives once again of nearby residents. Please leave the land empty.

We have serious concerns about the safety of this site and the historical cancer cluster seen when residents were previously exposed to this site in a dangerous way. This resulted in terrible, unnecessary morbidity and mortality. We feel very strongly that any development of this site must only occur once independent conclusive tests have been conducted that have been organised by parties other than the developer or any other related or interested parties. The onus is on the council and reared planning processes to ensure residents are safe.

I am a Fawkner resident concerned about the possible development of the previous NuFarm site on 102 Mcbryde street considered to be heavily contaminated with all sorts of chemical as per reports dated 1990 that subsequently caused the application of a clay cap to bury the chemical residue in the soil.
i am from Italy and I lived 40 km away from the site of chemical factory ICMESA in Seveso that in 1976 infamously exploded creating a cloud of dioxins in what was described one the worst environmental disaster caused by mankind that lead to the creation of the european directive 96/82/EC also called Seveso II directive. Without comparing the 2 episodes with each other i would just like to note that the more heavily contaminated area with soil reading >200 µg/m² have been completely removed at an average depth of 90cm, between 50 and 200µg/m² 60 cm of soil were removed and for area with contamination <50µg/m² only 30 cm were removed. after that everything was buried over 2 containment pool of 200'000 m3 and 80'000 m3 in a 4 layer system made of a layer of Clay, a layer of lower polluted soil, a layer 2.5mm tick of HDPE and lastly 20 cm of inert material, everything was closed on top with another layer of HDPE and 70 cm of soil.
of course the site has been permanently restricted to any sort of human activity and now a park of 42.8 ha has been establish to remind future generation of the proportion of the disaster.
From the available information it is clear that the contamination level of Nufarm site is comparable in intensity and hopefully less comparable in terms of area affected.
it is also clear to me that only a layer of questionable depth clay was placed on top and i presume nothing below, without even going to the possibility that the percolate have reached aquifer that might get into the nearby creek and subsequently the Yarra river i wonder how can you even remotely think of granting any sort of building authorization for anything other than a full independent investigation to understand the level of contamination on site and nearby 27 years from last survey.
Similar problem are arising in the Seveso site in italy where the need of road infrastructure have questioned the level of soil pollutant in the cleaned up area after more than 40 years and the result of the 2016 investigation is that the area is still heavily contaminated with areas in excess of 40% of the safe limit. NOTE: this was the cleaned up area with 90 cm of soil removed and the value are still over the limit 40 years after the disaster!!!!! please have a look at what is happening in other part of the world on how to deal with this sort of problem. Do not blindly allow a permit that would potentially be an extremely heavy weight on your shoulders for ever.

In May 1990, after prompting by Greenpeace, the EPA found dioxins present at this site at up to 255 times the U.S. level requiring action for decontamination. Sample studies of soils established the Fawkner plant as possibly one of the worst dioxin contaminated sites in the world.

What has gone on here in the past is simply horrifying. As a matter of justice to Fawkner residents past and present and to the environment itself, the site should never be developed and a credible effort should be made to clean it up and protect future generations from the toxic legacy of NuFarm in Australia.

I grew up on this street and remember hearing about many of my parents friends and family getting cancer. I only ask, why was this site was ever allowed to be sold for development? I know this site was never fully de-contaminated. They placed a clay cap on the site to stop the soil erosion at the time and fenced it off. This land is still not safe the way it is.
The Moreland City Council should not allow any development on this contaminated land to proceed. They owe it all rate payers in this suburb to keep everyone safe unless they want a class action against them and all parties concerned. Enough people have died as a direct result of this toxic contamination.
I want this land sealed for 100 years more, not to be touched until it is deemed safe by independent testing. NO! NO! NO! development on this site EVER!

I concur with fellow residents who attended a recent meeting to consider and discuss the development of this site. Given the lack of an independent environmental audit and this sites history any reasonable risk assessment would suggest that compelling evidence that this site can be used for any purpose should be provided before council agree.

I agree with all the concerns raised above. The land needs a thorough clean up once and for all and to be contained and categorised in a way that does not put current and future residents and workers health at risk. The land is now listed for sale as a potential residential development site - atrocious!! According to the website the Council has identified it for this use. Not on our watch!

I agree with all of the objections and concerns raised in previous comments. I have very strong concerns about (i) the proposed development of the site, (ii) the apparent lack of a thorough and independent assessment of the contamination risk posed by the site in its current state (conducted across 100% of the site rather than a small portion of it), and (iii) the fact that the land is currently zoned as residential and listed for sale.

To allow any development of the land in the absence of very solid data to indicate that it is safe to interfere with the clay cap would appear to be grossly negligent on behalf of council and all involved parties. It would also add further suffering and distress to the many families who have already lost loved ones to cancer likely caused by contamination from the site, and many others whose health has been negatively impacted. In addition, it would pose an unacceptable risk to the lives of current residents and future workers. There are a number of schools nearby and an increasing number of children living in Fawkner who would likely be particularly vulnerable to health risks.

The risk of contamination seeping into the creek if the cap is drilled through also appears to be significant and may have a detrimental (and potentially irreversible) impact on the environment and community far beyond the confines of Fawkner.

I would ask that Council considers the health and safety of its residents over any other interests.

I was very shocked to find out there is a highly toxic site in Fawkner - I was simply flabbergasted to learn that there are plans to redevelop this toxic site.

Please do not approve any redevelopment applications until such time as the site is independently tested and any necessary steps to make the site safe have been undertaken.

Any kind of intrusion to the clay cap, excavation of the 'cleanfill', or disturbance to the site could expose the community and natural environments to a plethora of toxins.

It seems misguided to expose the local community to the possibility of another bout of life threatening illness. Please do not approve this application.
Council has a duty to represent it's community - please be a pro-active Council on this issue and put community first.

Thank you.

This shouldn't even be a discussion. Leave it be. It is woeful that this even needs to be said.

I am hugely concerned about this site, having moved into McBryde St, Fawkner, with a one year old daughter earlier this year. It's bad enough living near a toxic site that has not been properly remediated to today's standards. It's devastating that the block has been zoned residential and can be sold as such for development. Piercing the clay cap for the laying of sewerage pipes and foundations could have serious health ramifications for all us locals, particularly children and the elderly. Please protect this site from any kind of development. No economic benefit to an outside interest is worth the health and well being of your own residents, Moreland.

I agree with all the concerns raised above by Fawkner residents. The land needs to be thoroughly cleaned up and any residual contamination contained. This process should be overseen by an independent authority - not the proposed developer. It really is entirely unacceptable to allow development on such a seriously contaminated site which could quite possibly cause serious health problems and death for local residents.

As others have detailed above, I have grave concerns about the clear evidence of toxicity of the site.

The current proposal under consideration by Moreland City Council involves breaching the (inadequate) clay capping 16 times alone for screw piles "(penetrating) through the full thickness of the soil with residual contamination which remains beneath the clay cap" plus two service trenches to connect the sewer line, which will both be approximately 25m long and up to 2m deep. Breaching the clay cap will undoubtably unlock and release potent and toxic fumes from the contaminated soil below.

As I understand it the current owner has previously laid a concrete slab with no permit, which breached the clay capping. This shows a clear disregard for the safety and wellbeing of both the workers and residents. This permit should not be approved. This site should never be developed until a full decontamination process has occurred and adequate, independent testing confirms that it is fully safe.

The impact of the original factory and the legacy of this factory is unknown. There is some evidence to suggest several cancer clusters associated with the site. If this permit, or any other permit pertaining to this site, is approved and development is allowed on this site then as a community we will endeavour to collect all appropriate epidemiological data using the latest methodological approaches to determine whether the said development results in a cancer or other illness related cluster for the residents of Fawkner.

The residents of Fawkner are aware of the atrocious history of this site. Moreland City Council has access to all of the information we have seen plus more. Based on these data you must not approve any development at this site. We the residents will not let avoidable tragedy happen again.

All of the comments above make very good points and there is clearly a sound argument against developing this toxic site in our community. It would be outrageous for Moreland Council to approve this and our community will not stand by and allow this to happen.

I LIVED AT THE THE END OF LYNCH RD WITH THE REST OF MY FAMILY MY SISTER DIED OF CANCER AT THE AGE OF 51AND MY MOTHER DIED AT 66 WE ALL USED TO PLAY ON THAT LAND AS KIDS THE MORELAND CITY COUNCIL DONT CARE. ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS HOW MUCH MONEY THEY CAN MAKE OUT OF THIS AS FAR AS IM CONCERN ALL THOSE FACTORIES ALONG THERE SHOULD BE PULLED DOWN AND THAT LAND SHOULD BE DEEMED UNFIT TO BUILD ON EVER AGAIN

After reading all the information about this matter, as a long time resident of Moreland I have one simple question to bring to the council-

'If it was your family living next to this, given all the facts, would you approve it?'

Thank you for your time. Please keep my family save, they are everything to me.

From the information available ....

The site appears to be a toxic waste repository. Nufarm, leaving behind a site contaminated with physical evidence so immediate they had to cap the area with clay.

Essentially a toxic waste landfill, unlicensed, not lined and capping not engineered. An unlicensed, not engineered toxic waste suppository adjacent to a freshwater creek.

I believe a Statutory Environmental Audit by EPA Notice upon the current owner immediately, the best solution, providing:

1. A soil and groundwater contamination investigation in accordance with the National Environmental Protection Measure (the national guideline for contamination investigations), sampling programs are based on thorough review of historical info and detailed.site inspections.
2. All environmental sampling programs, testing, risk assessments, clean up etc reviewed and approved from start to finish by an independent Vic EPA Accredited Contaminated Lands Auditor.
3. EPA and local council are involved and provide valuable input and say in final approval of site remediation and approval for any future benefical use of the site.
4. The Vic EPA Contaminated Lands Audit process includes community stakeholders, documents and records historical information and provides information sessions and discussion with local community during the process.
5. The final Audit report including all the investigation reports and historical information is published free on Vic EPA for the world!

Yours Sincerely,
Mark Thomas
Environmental Scientist

Thankyou for this oportunity to provide comment.

Please consider..

How can the EPA determine the site suitability for the intended use, being, that there is no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment without following their own enforced environmental investigation and reporting standards, in the relevant Publications and Policies.
Where is the investigation to the National Environmental Protection Measure which is the back bone of Vic EPA Contaminated Lands, Water and Groundwater. In addition no evidence of meeting Australian Standards AS4482.1 for sampling density and investigative riggor.

How did EPA assess the clay cap to be 'working with confidence' over contamination where the nature and extent has not been determined or monitored. Has the cap been engineered as required for any contamination that is left in situ any where else in Victoria.

Where are the Environmental Site Assessment Reports? Where is the contaminated site risk assessment, the review of various clean up methods that determined this cap is suitable.

Where are the down stream groundwater reports detailing on going monitoring groundwater at the site boundary to verify there is no groundwater contamination eminating from the site?

Approval of any building plan is opening a legal mindfield exposing stakeholders to future litigation because the decisions were based on flawed and non existent Environmental Site Assessment Reports normally required and expected.

Yours Sincerely,
Mark Thomas
Environmental Scientist

To whom it may concern,

I agree with the concerns raised above. The site has a well-documented history as a toxic site and recent tests of soil below the clay cap bear this out. This is concerning, but what is even more concern is what we don't know. As Mark Thomas outlines above, the lack of investigation and monitoring of the site by council or state government demonstrates utter indifference towards local residents and negligence on behalf of council and all involved parties.

Since we have no way of knowing how drilling into the clay cap will effect public contamination, since sufficient data has not been collected ON the site, the council cannot safely approve any development of the site or guarantee public health. Additionally, a recent meeting with the applicants and objectors revealed that sewering the site would require digging into soil which has never been cleaned and is not capped. With proposed residential developments next door to the site, it puts more families at risk. I feel it is my moral obligation to inform any new residents of the past and recent history of the site and the parties responsible for the current and future situation. I ask the council to keep local residents safe and put our health and lives first.

Best regards,
Kim

Please do not condemn our future generations to a cancerous future. Also since only financial considerations are being observed,please also think of the hundreds of millions of dollars which the people of surrounding sites will sue for once they get affected with cancer.I know that if i or my kid get affected i will see you all in court and sue the council and that company as well.

I concur with the comments of other residents above and would like to add some of my concerns around this application.

There are a lot of inadequacies in the testing, sampling, proposed procedures and work safety issues that pose grave health risks to residents and make Council vulnerable to considerable risks and future problems, costs and litigation, if the application is approved.

The soil from the actual site has not been tested since the testing conducted for the 1995 report. The EPA has failed to require appropriate testing of the site consistent with current standards, not 1995 standards. The Mayor has previously stated that there is not enough evidence to warrant asking the applicant to conduct new tests of the soil. However, at the Planning Information and Discussion meeting between objectors and representatives of the applicant held on June 29th 2017, the independent auditor representing the developer stated that the testing of the “clay cap” had revealed the levels of toxins in the soil directly beneath the cap were in line with those found in the 1995 report.

Therefore it would be inappropriate to make any conclusions about the toxicity of the soil beneath the clay cap in the absence of more though testing of the soil beneath the cap itself, from the site itself. Note that to-date the only tests the EPA have conducted have been of samples taken from behind the site and the creek. The verge and other sites for proposed sewerage have never been tested or remediated and would require extensive evacuation of soil.

The motion that councillors passed to test the site stipulated that testing be conducted ON THE SITE. An additional motion asked for clarification of the proposed site of the sewerage. How can the council vote on this matter when there are two sets of motions unanswered on your books and without the knowledge that was deemed necessary to make the decision?

The Site Assessment Document prepared by Edge is alarming. It states on page 21 that ‘chemical concentrations above the respective applicable investigation/screening levels would not automatically trigger remedial action.’ Since dioxins are known to trigger birth defects, genetic mutations, developmental problems in children, cancer and more. How can you approve this management plan given there is no levels specified in that report that would trigger automatic remediation to prevent these adverse effects?

We must have this knowledge in order to safely develop the site and safely transition the whole area to a residential zone in the future. I call on council to reject this application in light of what we know now from the environmental auditor and wait until extensive testing has been conducted below the cap before considering development that will breach the cap. The precautionary rule must prevail, given the unknown risk to human health and the environment.

Best regards,
Patrick Alves

Agree with all above comments. We have serious concerns about the safety of this site and the historical cancer cluster seen when residents were previously exposed to this site in a dangerous way. This resulted in terrible, unnecessary morbidity and mortality. We feel very strongly that any development of this site must only occur once independent conclusive tests have been conducted that have been organised by parties other than the developer or any other related or interested parties. The onus is on the council and reared planning processes to ensure residents are safe.