MEDIA RELEASE
Monday, 9 September 2002
"Asbestos Contamination: Does Zero Really Mean Zero?"
Greens MLC Ian Cohen (pictured right) Visits Contentious Bundock St Demolition Site.
home
Confusion exists over how to meet a court ruling that says asbestos contamination on the huge Bundock Street redevelopment site must be reduced to zero before it can be built on. Does zero really mean zero?
The confusion is being driven by the fact that there is presently no health standard for 'asbestos fibre contaminated soil' in Australia.
Randwick Greens Councillor Murray Matson states,
"The various consultants involved talk not of achieving a zero level of asbestos as the court wanted, but of achieving a level 'allowable for the intended land use', which is residential dwellings. Despite the Court's ruling, the NSW Department of Health has not yet determined what degree of remediation must be implemented. This is a worrying situation."
Clr Matson has asked Greens MLC Ian Cohen to make the matter a state election issue. Mr Cohen said this week,
"We have a situation where the Department of Defence is proposing to sell a large amount of contaminated land for residential use but the NSW Health Department does not know whether it is safe to let them.
State Parliamentarians should be looking at this with concern, particularly as Randwick Council is preparing a new Local Environmental Plan for the site. I want the Minister to allow me to put residents concerns to him before he signs off on it."
Clr Matson has also brought another Bundock Street contamination issue to the attention of both Mr Cohen and his number two running mate Marrickville Councillor Sylvia Hale. He said,
"There is another issue as well. What about the contaminated groundwater flowing off the site into adjacent residential areas? The Land & Environment Court has said that any development must not further pollute the ground water. Defence has not even addressed this issue and the Environmental Protection Authority seems reluctant to as well."
The Greens have drawn comparisons between the EPA's performance on Bundock Street with it's more aggressive actions in monitoring the Malabar Headland site. Clr Matson said,
"The EPA is taking a directly opposite approach to how they are monitoring contaminated groundwater flowing from the Malabar Headland site, which is also Commonwealth owned."
Clr Hale has responded to Clr Matson by saying,
"The EPA is aggressively monitoring groundwater flowing off the Malabar Headland site where they have clearly accepted a responsibility to protect residents against the Commonwealth but don't seem to recognize the same need at Bundock Street."