It is reported that there is no longer the need to pump PFAS contaminated water to the ocean off Marcoola Beach.
Questions still remain however as to the project management’s due diligence in relation to water management of the site.
Council’s media release linked below continues to contend that unusually high rain fall occurred causing catastrophic failure of the bunds.
Compare the rainfall against February 2018 which was higher. And 4-month cumulative Nov 2017-Feb 2018 was higher than Mar-Jun 2019. And note the very low rainfall Nov 2018 – Feb 2019. So why was this a problem?. Also note that October rains in 2017 were higher again at 320 mm.
The rainfall was not extreme nor unexpected.
The potential failure of bunds should not have happened.
Why were the bunds too low or not engineered properly to contain the volume of water needed? They said in the report bunds began to be removed in July. So they had been reducing their storage capacity at a time they needed it. We can presume this was to allow operations to start but why immediately after the above average rain that caused the problem?.
But again, the issue appears to come back to mismanagement of water volumes.
Finance and resourcing
All costs associated with the management of ponded surface water on site were to be funded from within Council’s budget for the Sunshine Coast Airport Expansion Project (read ratepayer!).
- Why? Again, bunding was a requirement and the rain events were not extreme.
- What were the design criteria for containment of salinity, sediment, PFAS and whatever else is in the DA conditions?
- Had PFAS been identified as present on site?
- Was the bund system constructed and operated to design?
If no to any of the above then the party at fault should pay – is council admitting it was its error?
SCRC Annual Report allows for $38 million to be spent on PFAS treatment and management – this money has now been ‘found’ to address accordingly.
It begs the question – aren’t we paying professionals to figure all this out as they push papers around the last decade or so – to avoid budget blowouts and rectification of serious problems such as this occurring?
This ‘situation’ appears to be a gross omission and oversight on part of the project management team at large, as PFAS was known to be on site and it was not identified and managed as it clearly should have been.
SO MANY QUESTIONS, SO MANY CLOSED MEETINGS
LETS SEE WHAT MY RIGHT TO INFORMATION APPLICATION REVEALS