Q&A
Dept. of Lands published an Environmental Q&A on their website http://www.hmasadelaide.com/news/?a=121800 and there are some glaring discrepancies in the Review of Environmental Factors of the exHMAS Adelaide.
Rebuttal Of Points Made In Dept Lands Fact Sheet:
Q1.“What has been done to ensure the Ex-HMAS Adelaide does not impact the environment?”
A1. A comprehensive environmental assessment has been completed
An environmental impact study (EIS) has not been completed.
Q2.“Is there any presence of the environmentally hazardous material (PCB) in the Ex HMAS Adelaide?”
A2. PCB’s on the vessel have been identified and removed for safe disposal.”
“Electrical cabinets and transformers are present throughout the vessel. These could contain PCB’s or radioactive compounds. The RAN identified MOST of these items and installed warning labels to assist the Ship Preparation Contractor in either removing hazardous material from the equipment or removing the piece of equipment” Extract from REF p.80
Q3. “Will surf conditions be impacted by the scuttling of the vessel?”
A3. No…The findings of the environmental assessment have confirmed that there will be no measurable impact on swell conditions in the surrounding area, the shoreline and sediment movement in the bay….
“As a result, along Avoca Beach, the quantity of littoral drift or other related beach processes such as surf quality, beach safety or beach state, is not expected to be SIGNIFICANTLY altered”
“At a scuttling depth of 32m, there is unlikely to be:
• sediment movement such that significant regional seabed lowering or raising would occur at the submerged vessel; or
• capture of sediment that would otherwise be worked on to beaches. HOWEVER, during large wave conditions there is potential for sediments to become mobile and local scour to occur at the bow and stern. Occasionally, currents may also induce scour. The flow regime around the submerged vessel during periods of extreme wave conditions is complex. It is NOT POSSIBLE to be definitive with regard to the extent and location of scour features without undertaking a comprehensive investigation of such effects. This may include case studies from other scuttled vessels in similar coastal environments and potentially some type of modelling technique (for example, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) or physical modelling). Such an undertaking is beyond the scope of this investigation.” Extract from REF pp. 70-71
Q4.“Who did you consult when considering the environmental impact of scuttling the vessel?”
A4. Public meetings and information sessions; consultation with interested stakeholder groups and the Surfrider Foundation; project website for the past 2 years.
Section 3.2 of the REF lists the 2007/2008 stakeholder meetings. Avoca Beach residents are not mentioned. We have not been adequately consulted.
Q5.“Will the sinking of the ship cause pollution to the water?
A5. No
“Monitoring of heavy metals in sediments for the Ex-HMAS SWAN (aluminium, iron, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, zinc) at five and twelve months and the Ex-HMAS PERTH (as per the Ex-HMAS SWAN plus nickel, tin and mercury) at six and 12 months was reported by MacLeod et al (2004). For the Ex-HMAS SWAN, after 12 months, there was a MARKED ENRICHMENT of aluminium, chromium, copper, iron, lead and zinc adjacent to the vessel. For the Ex-HMAS PERTH, analysis showed that metal enrichment in sediment decreased with increasing distance from the vessel. Although heavy metal enrichment of sediments was associated with both vessels, all concentrations were below the ISQG-low guidelines with the exception of copper at one site.”
“As noted in Section 4.2, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE, substances and items containing heavy metals would be removed from the ship and the paints and antifoulants used on the Ex-HMAS ADELAIDE in more recent years would not have contained tin and chromium. Accordingly, no significant impacts on sediment or water quality are anticipated. HOWEVER, as some heavy metal enrichment of sediments IS POSSIBLE, monitoring of a suite of heavy metals is included in the Long Term Monitoring and Management Plan (see Appendix G). In addition, active bioaccumulation monitoring would be undertaken to identify any potential effects on fouling biota that would colonise the vessel over time (see Section 6.2.5).” Extract from REF
Q6. “What is the risk from organic pollutants and heavy metals?”
A6. There will be no organic pollutants remaining on the ship. The environmental studies have confirmed that the potential for pollution from heavy metals would be at very low levels which would be below international guidelines for sediment quality……Environmental studies conclude that there will not be an impact on the food chain and there is NO potential for toxicity to aquatic life”
“Toxic Effects on Marine Biota As noted in Section 6.2.4, THERE IS POTENTIAL for metal enrichment of adjacent soft sediments from heavy metals leaching from the superstructure of the ship and remnant paint, although MOST of these would have little affect on species or food chains.”
“The exact process of decomposition is unknown, but it is assumed that zinc and chromium would be liberated into the marine environment through multiple processes involving dissolution and flaking. Therefore an experimental study would form part of the Long Term Monitoring and Management Plan (see Appendix G) to identify if bioaccumulation of heavy metals (such as chromium) is likely in the tissue of marine fouling organisms which later colonise the vessel.” Extract from REF
