The state’s planning authorities have received seven public submissions in response to plans that detail how the Port Kembla stack will be demolished.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Concerns raised by residents include the lack of shelter – in case it rains – for humans at a temporary pet shelter that will be set up in Port Kembla on demolition day to more hard-hitting questions about levels of ‘‘toxic heavy metals’’ that could be cast into the air when the towering chimney is brought down.
Port Kembla resident Olive Rodwell was forensic in her submission, in which she concluded ‘‘the whole approval needs to be reviewed’’.
‘‘My main concern is that if this chimney comes down, that it is brought down safely and the health of residents is not compromised,’’ Mrs Rodwell wrote.
‘‘Various tests have been carried out to disclose the composition of the stack. There is still no guarantee that the concrete, mortar, bricks and surfacing paints are free of asbestos, only that it was not detected in the samples.
‘‘All the laboratories placed disclaimers that the method of testing could not detect small and sparse fibres of asbestos.’’
In an anonymous submission, a resident complained that demolition notification letters, including information about requesting a dilapidation survey, had been letterbox-dropped to homes occupied by tenants, and were therefore not necessarily being read by the homes’ owners.
Wollongong City Councillor Vicki Curran also used her submission to accuse Port Kembla Copper (PKC) of not meeting the so-called ‘‘make good clause’’ contained in the project approval.
The clause requires PKC to inform property holders within the exclusion zone that the company will repair any damage to the properties caused by the felling.
‘‘To be eligible for this provision, PKC will arrange for a dilapidation survey to be undertaken to establish the original [ie pre-demolition] condition of any improvements,’’ the condition states.
But PKC general manager Ian Wilson denied Cr Curran’s claim.
‘‘During the course or our extensive consultation within the exclusion zone, it became clear to us that some property holders were not normally resident at the properties,’’ he said. ‘‘We have now been able to identify who those people are and have communicated with them by post.
‘‘PKC is now confident that it has communicated with all property holders within the 300-metre exclusion zone and made the offer of dilapidation surveys. PKC is complying with the terms of the project approvals.’’
A date for the demolition has yet to be established. Submissions closed on October 31.
