Remaining Concerns about plan to dump a warship at Avoca Beach
- Unsuitability of frigates for reefing - dive site predicted to start breaking up within 2 years.
- 23,000 square metres of lead paint will still be on the ship if it is scuttled
It is completely unacceptable to place that amount of a toxic substance in our bay. This means 4 football fields of lead paint will be sunk 1400m from our popular family beach.
Swallowing one lead-based paint flake about the size of a five-cent piece can cause lead poisoning and neurological damage in children (from Dept of Environment’s website) - The paint has never been tested for PCBs and should be.
HMAS Adelaide’s sister ship was the ex-U.S.S. Oliver Hazard Perry which was dismantled in the U.S. in 2006. PCBs were found in the original electrical cabling as well as in the original base paint primer. PCBs are globally banned due to their highly toxic carcinogenic nature. (#28 of Pucketts affadavit) - Beach erosion and changes to waves are a serious potential outcome several experts have warned. The studies about coastal processes were incomplete and did not use local in situ data as shown in the report by Professor Ian Goodwin.
Whales and dolphins will be discouraged from entering the bay.
‘Marker buoys indicating ship location to be installed to NSW Maritime requirements(include ‘pingers’ on mooring lines to discourage whales etc from becoming entangled). Based on other ex-Navy vessel dive sites the number of moorings proposed is six.’
From page 22 of the HMAS Adelaide Plan of ManagementWho will benefit and who will pay? What price are the legitimate users of the area (including the approx 50,000 annual visitors to North Avoca and Avoca Beach) being asked to pay over the next 250 years for the Central Coast’s latest piece of tourism infrastructure billed to create only 3200 additional visitor nights per year? The wreck would be only viable as a dive site for 25-40 years.
Our government iscontinuing to set a dangerous example of how Australia disposes of obsolete warships. Countries such as Canada, the U.S., Japan and the U.K. no longer scuttle old warships because of concerns about environmental damage.
Precious finite resources such as steel and aluminium will be lost to the sea. To replace them, considerable carbon emissions will occur. Since the AAT hearing the value of scrap metal value has roughly doubled. As demand continues to grow the world will look back at this act of waste with astonishment.
Dumping a warship in an enclosed bay is a one-way decision. There is no remediation if contamination or damage to the surrounding environment occurs. The proponents of this project have mishandled the entire process from the start and their experts have been wrong about serious matters of concern such as the presence of lead paint and PCBs.
Zero confidence in the State Government’s ability to complete this job successfully. On March 27 the State Government arranged a party to dump this “clean” warship in our bay without proper community consultation or an Environmental Impact Statement. A community had to raise $70 000 to obtain the truth and they have now been ordered to remove additional toxic materials at a cost of over a million dollars. They have already admitted that much of this toxic material will remain on the vessel and our request for transparent scrutiny of the completed work has been denied.
- Fish and marine biota inhabiting the ship will be contaminated and then enter the food chain