gas import jetty and pipeline project · we supplied flyer bundles to mornington peninsula,...

April - September 2019

Community Engagement Report

Gas Import Jetty andPipeline Project

2 | Community Engagement Report | April - September 2019 | Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project

Seat at Wooley’s Beach overlooking Crib Point Jetty.

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project | April - September 2019 | Community Engagement Report | 3

1.0 Background 4

1.1 Project overview 4

1.2 Consultation overview 4

2.0 Community engagement overview 5

2.1 Engagement objectives 5

2.2 Key stakeholders 6

3.0 Opportunities to provide feedback 8

3.1 Communication and feedback tools 8

3.2 Community drop-in sessions 8

3.3 Digital feedback tools 9

3.3.1 Online discussion forum 9

3.3.2 Interactive feedback map 9

4.0 Communicating engagement opportunities 10

4.1 Publicising community drop in sessions 10

4.2 Publicising digital engagement 11

5.0 Feedback participation 12

6.0 What we heard 13

6.1 Traditional and digital engagement 14

6.2 Feedback comparison 15

7.0 Key Themes 16

7.1 Marine Impacts 16

7.2 Consultation 22

7.3 Land impacts 24

7.4 Project rationale 26

7.5 Safety 30

7.6 Regulatory approvals 32

7.7 Community impacts 33

7.8 Noise and vibration 34

7.9 Construction 36

7.10 Visual impacts 37

8.0 Summary and next steps 41

ContentsContents


1.1 Project overviewAGL and APA are proposing the Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project (the Project) to import Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) at Crib Point, Victoria and deliver it to the Victorian Transmission System (VTS), via a new gas pipeline.

The Project would establish a gas import jetty and pipeline comprising:

• a floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) at Crib Point Jetty – the Gas Import Jetty Works

• a gas pipeline between Crib Point and Pakenham to connect to the VTS east of Pakenham – the Pipeline Works.

The Project will provide a new source of gas for households, businesses and industry across south eastern Australia.

On 8 October 2018, the Victorian Minister for Planning (the Minister) announced that an Environment Effects Statement (EES) was required for the AGL Gas Import Jetty and APA Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project, under the Environment Effects Acts 1978.

1.2 Consultation overviewCommunity consultation and engagement helps shape the Project and the Minister’s assessment of the EES. AGL and APA have prepared a joint communication and consultation plan for the EES, outlining the opportunities and approaches for community engagement.

The focus for EES communications has been to:

• Introduce the EES process

• Explain the scope of technical studies underway

• Reply to specific technical community questions.

Monitoring of community engagement has helped improve our engagement strategies.

The Community Engagement Feedback report (February - March 2019) summarises engagement activities occurring during this period including community sessions, surveys, online discussion forum and direct contacts. You can download the report from the ‘Publications’ section at:

https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/how-we-source-energy/gas-import-project/agl-apa-environment-effects-statement

You can find the EES Consultation Plan on the Victorian Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) website:

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/environment-assessment/browse-projects/projects/crib-point

1.0 Background

This report incorporates data we collected from community members involved in engagement activities for the Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project EES. This report summarises the main themes and issues. The report does not include all feedback, nor the raw data collected, during consultation. We have used quotes from written feedback to demonstrate sentiment, but kept personal details confidential.


2.0 Community engagement overview

2.1 Engagement objectivesThe objectives of the second round of engagement, from April to September 2019, were to:

• Communicate the EES process and technical studies underway

• Communicate the Project timeline, rationale and site selection

• Provide an opportunity for community to comment

• Encourage engagement via an online hub

What are your priority concerns with the Project?

Do you have any specific questions about the Project?

What do you think of our technical studies so far?

What else is important to you

that we should investigate?

During this phase of engagement, we asked the community:

Do you have any specific questions about the Project?


2.2 Key stakeholdersWe have been consulting key stakeholders and community since June 2017. We identified potentially impacted or interested stakeholders as part of the EES consultation planning process. They include:

This report details our efforts to communicate and engage with these groups and what we heard from them.

Local residents and landholders

Aboriginal cultural heritage

Interest and community groups

Recreational and seasonal visitors

Government

Wider community

Businesses and industry

Birds resting on Crib Point Jetty safety handrails.


Figure 1 Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project stakeholder identification and broad interests

Stakeholder identification and broad issues


3.1 Communication and feedback tools To ensure we heard from a range of community members across the Project area during April to September 2019, we publicised and ran engagement activities face-to-face and digitally. Community and stakeholders could give feedback via the following channels:

AGL and APA representatives and technical specialists recorded feedback including key themes and questions raised:

• In conversations at community drop-in sessions

• On feedback forms pinned to a wall at community drop-in sessions

• In email, letter and phone calls, as recorded in a stakeholder management database

• On the online discussion forum and interactive feedback map

3.2 Community drop-in sessionsWe invited the community to attend any of five community drop-in sessions in August and September 2019:

Location Date Venue

Hastings Saturday, 24 August Hastings Community Hub

Crib Point Tuesday, 27 August Crib Point Community Hall

Pearcedale Wednesday, 28 August Pearcedale Community Centre

Cardinia Saturday, 31 August Cardinia Public Hall

Grantville Tuesday, 3 September Grantville Hall

Online discussion

forum

Meetings (formal & informal)

24/7 phone hotlines

Emails or letters

Feedback cards at drop-in sessions

Online interactive map

Surveys (online & print)

Conversations with AGL and APA

and technical specialists at

drop-in sessions

3.0 Opportunities to provide feedback


We held community drop-in sessions in Grantville and Cardinia in response to feedback at previous engagements. This meant a broader range of potentially impacted community members could engage face-to-face, at a convenient location.

Informal meetings throughout the engagement period included door-knocking Hastings businesses and meeting local community groups. Formal meetings included briefing a youth group and special interest groups. We also held a series of small group workshops to discuss noise, visual impacts, and safety issues.

3.3 Digital feedback toolsCommunity members and stakeholders could give their feedback via an online discussion forum and interactive feedback map, on the joint AGL and APA EES webpage. We updated and monitored these platforms regularly, responding promptly to community queries or comments.

Online engagement channels will remain instrumental to sharing Project information and updates, and responding to community and stakeholder feedback.

3.3.1 Online discussion forum

The joint AGL and APA EES webpage hosts the Project online discussion forum, via the Online Engagement Hub.

The online discussion forum encourages community members to post detailed questions, feedback or statements. Fellow forum subscribers receive post notifications. Community members, the Project team or a technical specialist can reply.

Fifty-three people subscribed to the forum, posting more than 140 comments posted between April and September. AGL and APA responded more than 115 times to comments. Forum comments varied between different community concerns about the Project such as the potential environmental impacts, regulatory planning approval processes, impacts to amenity and overall Project rationale. The discussion forum will remain open throughout planning and construction of the Project.

3.3.2 Interactive feedback map

Social Pinpoint provides the interactive map platform, accessible via the joint AGL and APA EES webpage. Participants can pin comments, suggestions and feedback to key locations, or about the Project, generally. The location-specific comments give AGL and APA valuable Project feedback about local community concerns.

Figure 2 AGL Online discussion forum

Figure 3 Interactive feedback map


4.1 Publicising community drop in sessionsCommunity drop-in sessions provided an opportunity for community members to connect with technical specialists at locally hosted events, ask questions and provide specialists feedback on their studies to date.

We sent information flyers publicising the community drop-in sessions to 29,700 homes and businesses across the Project area including:

We supplied flyer bundles to Mornington Peninsula, Cardinia and Casey council offices, and other community hubs, including libraries and community halls. We also developed social media content for councils and stakeholders to publicise sessions on their platforms. (See Attachment A for flyer design and Attachment B for social media content).

We informed key community and stakeholder groups about the sessions by phone calls, meetings, emails and flyers. We also sent letters about the sessions to all Project Pipeline landholders.

And we ran advertisements, (see Figure 4) in the following local newspaper editions:

• Western Port News (August 14 & 21)

• South Peninsula News (August 21)

• Mornington Leader (August 20)

• Pakenham Gazette (August 21)

• Mornington News (August 20)

• Phillip Island and San Remo Advertiser (August 28)

• South Gippsland Sentinel Times (August 20)

4.1 Communicating engagement opportunities

Bass Bittern Blind Bight Cardinia

Clyde Corinella Coronet Bay Cowes

Crib Point Grantville Hastings Koo Wee Rup

Lang Lang Nar Nar Goon Pakenham Pearcedale

Pioneer Bay San Remo Somerville Tooradin

Tyabb Wonthaggi Balnarring Somers


4.2 Publicising digital engagementWe promoted our digital engagement opportunities via the following:

• Joint AGL and APA EES website

• Email updates to Project news subscribers

• Community drop-in session flyers, newspaper advertisements, social media tiles

• Pull-up banners and business cards at community drop-in sessions.

We updated the EES website regularly to reflect the current Project status, and forthcoming engagement opportunities. For the August - September 2019 community drop-in sessions, we published details for each session in advance, including the nominated technical specialists attending each event.

Community members could subscribe to the Project email news mailing list via the joint AGL and APA EES webpage, and receive milestone updates.

Figure 4 Local newspaper advertisement design


We heard from people living in Western Port and a diverse range of community members. This report analyses community feedback between April to September 2019, gathered from:

210

1158

1372053 An online discussion forum, involving

53 people who made 170+ comments and received 130+ detailed Project responses

An interactive feedback map, with 20 comments

Five community drop-in sessions, held in August and September 2019, attended by a total of 137 people

Two workshops held in Hastings, with 8 attending each

Email, phone and in-person contact, involving 115 people

Business forum held, attended by 10 people

Door-knocking of Hastings businesses near pipeline alignment over 2 days

5.0 Feedback participation


We identified ten key themes in the February - March 2019 Community Engagement Report. The same themes have been used to code, count and analyse feedback for this reporting period (April to September).

This second edition of the Community Engagement Report identifies community questions that have remained constant since the February - March 2019 report; community questions that have decreased in mentions; and new questions being raised since the last report.

Below, we order the ten themes, high to low, based on the frequency of mention during the engagement period.

1. Marine impacts (30%) 6. Regulatory approvals (6%)

2. Consultation (17%) 7. Community impacts (6%)

3. Land impacts (13%) 8. Noise or vibration (5%)

4. Project rationale (11%) 9. Construction (3%)

5. Safety (9%) 10. Visual impacts (2%)

Where a single piece of feedback contained multiple themes, we counted each theme mentioned. The following section gives more detail on the feedback within each theme.

Feedback themes from community engagement April - September 2019:

6.0 What we heard

Technical specialists in areas of Planning Approvals, Marine & Land environments, Social & Amenity, Safety and Construction were present at community sessions. They led discussions and collected feedback in these topic areas.


(March 2019, Online discussion forum)

“Could you please tell me what % of the LNG to be imported at the proposed AGL gas import terminal project at Crib Point will be used for gas-fired power stations and what % of imported LNG will be for residential households and business customers?”

6.1 Traditional and digital engagementThe information below represents a summary of the feedback we heard during traditional engagement (i.e. phone, email, letters and meetings) in comparison with digital engagement:

Digital Online discussion forum gave community members the opportunity to publicly provide detailed written responses. It also allowed for specific questions to be answered by AGL, APA or relevant technical specialists:

Suggestions were heard about how to mitigate environmental impacts or to improve consultation plans:

“““

( June 2019, Online discussion forum)

(August 2019, Online discussion forum)

“…why can’t the ship simply recycle fresh water and use some of the gas on board to heat it up and just keep re-using the same water? There is already a recycled water line running right past the gate from Somers to Hastings…”

“Would love some forums conducted discussing the facts from all parties perspectives to be held within clubs and organisations ….This gives people who the project directly effects, the chance to hear arguments without having to timetable something separately apart from their participation schedules within their club or organisation….”

Traditional Phone calls, emails, letters and meetings were opportunities for individuals to discuss specific concerns in details.

These channels of communication and engagement developed relationships with communities and stakeholders over a longer period. These relationships assisted AGL and APA to adapt or cross-check planned activities to ensure they suit the community’s needs.

Location specific concerns were observed during community sessions:

Meetings were held to brief community interest groups (including youth) and targeted interest or concern groups in a more focused setting.

“ “(September 2019, Grantville community session)

August 2019, Crib Point community session

“Main concern is light from FSRU affecting shearwaters which utilise Phillip Island and Westernport.”

“Why not further up the bay? Why not connect to new marine industry park”


Them

e ca

tego

ries

Theme mentions (%)

Marine impacts

Land impacts

Consultation

Project rationale

Safety

Noise/Vibration

Community

Construction

Regulatory approvals

Visual impacts

5%

2%

2%

6%

3%

3%

3%

6%

5%

5%

7%

9%

11%

11%

11%

11%

13%

14%

30%

33%

17%

0% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

March 2019 September 2019

6.2 Feedback comparisonComparing the two key milestones of engagement through the EES process, the graph below compares the level of interest for each theme between the time periods of February to March and April to September 2019.

Marine impacts remained the highest mentioned theme during both periods. Consultation and Regulatory Approvals themes both saw an increase in mentions during the second phase of engagement.

Technical specialists in areas of Planning Approvals, Marine & Land environments, Social & Amenity, Safety and Construction were present at community sessions. They led discussions and collected feedback in these topic areas.


7.0 Key Themes

This section details key themes raised during the April to September 2019 round of engagement.

7.1 Marine ImpactsMarine impacts in Western Port remain the community’s main concern, though this theme was less prominent in the August – September 2019 community sessions, compared to those February - March 2019. The community stressed the importance of thorough technical investigation in the preparation of the EES, especially about the potential impacts of Floating Storage Regasification Unit (FSRU) operation on the marine ecosystem. Feedback, in order of concern, related to the potential:

• General marine impacts on Western Port, or the Ramsar site

• Effects on specific marine species

• Concern about the LNG regasification process

• Effects on marine activities (recreational or commercial)

• More ships in Western Port

Community feedback Project response

7.1.1 General marine impacts to Westernport Bay / Ramsar site

Communities are concerned about potential impacts to the valuable marine environment. They are interested in learning about the Project’s potential marine impacts on Western Port, as identified in the EES studies.

“A Ramsar area should not be exploited for short-term gain. Future generations should enjoy a beautiful resource forever” (Grantville Community Session, September 2019)

We fully recognise these concerns and the strongly held views about the unique environmental significance of Western Port. We are very aware that Western Port is an environmentally sensitive area and many areas within it are covered by the Ramsar international convention on the protection of wetlands.

Comprehensive marine studies are being completed as part of the EES to understand the potential impacts and to ensure any impacts can be minimised to an acceptable level.

The feedback we collected has informed the technical studies. For example, the community raised concerns of the potential for possible whale strikes from LNG carriers travelling to Crib Point Jetty. As a result, whale strikes have been added into the Risk and Impact Assessment, of the EES Marine Biodiversity Assessment.

One of the reasons the Crib Point site was chosen was that it has an existing jetty that is already in commercial use. We want to ensure that the marine environment is not significantly impacted by the proposed facilities by using existing infrastructure, and that there are appropriate mitigation mechanisms in place to reduce the potential impacts. This is important to us as well as the community.

The findings will be publicly available when the EES goes on exhibition in Q2 2020. During this time, the public can make written submissions to the Victorian Government.

Some of the responses below may differ from those previously published on the online discussion forum, email correspondence and in person because we have either summarised or updated them to include new findings from our ongoing studies.


Community members asked about the effect of sedimentation and turbidity on the marine ecosystem.

“What would be the effect of sedimentation and turbidity on the marine ecosystem of Western Port?” (Hastings Community Session, August 2019)

Initial technical reports produced for the EES referral by independent CEE Environmental Scientists and Engineers on the Effects of LNG Facility on Sea Level and Seabed at Crib Point Jetty (August 2018) investigated the potential for local erosion impacts associated with the shipping operations.

The report concluded the extent of disturbance would be “to the seabed within the port turning basin and within 150m of the berth. This is considered to be a normal part of port operations. The water discharge from the FSRU would cause a local depression in the seabed within the shipping berth. The report concluded that the erosion “will have negligible effect outside the shipping basin and will not impact on Ramsar values of Western Port.”

This concern is being investigated as part of the EES. The Marine Impact Assessment will consider the risk of seabed scour and sedimentation from both FSRU operation and shipping movements.

The community asked us if the Project would involve sweep dredging and why this would be required at Crib Point Jetty.

“Where would the sweep dredging be done?” (Grantville Community Session, September 2019)

Sweep dredging, also known as seabed levelling, will be required at berth two of Crib Point Jetty, the proposed location of the FSRU. About 95 cubic meters of material will need to be levelled around and under the berth. No material is removed.

The work would be undertaken by the Victorian Regional Channels Authority (VCRA) which is responsible for routine maintenance of the Western Port shipping channel and berths at declared depths so that ships can enter the ports and load to their required capacity without risk.

Sweep dredging at Crib Point Jetty berth two has already been approved by the government, under the Coastal Management Act 1995, and would be managed under the strict controls of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) which has also been approved by DELWP.

If the Project goes ahead, the community wants us to protect the marine ecosystem.

“I would like for marine life to be protected if the project goes ahead.” (Grantville Community Session, September 2019)

Community members want continued monitoring of marine impacts, including impact on plankton and larvae, during Project operation.

“There should be ongoing marine study monitoring once the FSRU is operating.” (Pearcedale Community Session, August 2019)

As set out in the scoping requirements for the Project, the EES will outline a framework for managing and monitoring environmental effects and hazards associated with construction, operation, decommissioning and rehabilitation phases of the project to achieve acceptable environmental outcomes.

Ongoing monitoring is generally a condition of statutory approvals. This would form part of the EPA Works Approval that is required for this Project.

If the project goes ahead, we will follow any conditions the regulatory authorities determine to be necessary.


7.1.2 Effects on specific marine species

Community members asked us about the impacts on seagrasses and mangroves in Western Port, as well as the potential for degradation of these ecosystems over time.

“What has been done to ensure there are no negative effects of the discharge on mangroves?” (Online discussion forum, April 2019)

Mangroves are vital to the Western Port environment. The combination of mangroves, seagrass and wildlife make Western Port a very valuable marine ecosystem both in Australia, and internationally.

Effects from seawater intake to and cold water/residual chlorine discharge from the FSRU, including potential medium and long-term effects on the ecology of the North Arm of Western Port associated with changes to seawater quality is one of the key matters for the EES to examine.

Detailed modelling is being completed to understand the dispersion and potential for the discharged water to impact seagrass and mangroves, and this will be included as part of the EES.

Mitigations being investigated to reduce any impact include the design of the discharge ports on the FSRU.

Initial technical reports from the EES referral by CEE Environmental Scientists and Engineers stated that there would be ‘negligible effect on seagrasses and mangroves.’ The report also found benthic habitats in water depths less than less than 12.5m of the Ramsar area would be unaffected by the direct effects of the seawater heat exchange discharge from the FSRU operation. These unaffected habitats include intertidal saltmarsh, mangroves, seagrass and mudflat habitats, which are valuable foraging and roosting habitats for water birds. The reports suggested subtidal seagrass and shallow, bare seabed habitats in the Ramsar area would also be unaffected by direct effects.

However, this is being examined in further detail as part of the EES, a requirement by the Victorian Government.

We heard concerns about the impact of the seawater intake on marine species.

“I’m worried about marine life being sucked into the boat.” (Hastings Community Session, August 2019)

Extensive studies are being undertaken to characterise the existing plankton in Western Port and analyse the rates of entrainment.

The risk to marine life is being considered in the design of the seawater intakes. The speed of the intake current and screens have been specified to reduce the risk of fish and other fauna being drawn into the FSRU’s water circulation system.

The species most vulnerable to the pull of the intake are considered most likely to occur near either the surface or the seabed. The intake has been placed in the mid water column to reduce impacts to species near the surface and seabed.

The findings will be publicly available when the EES goes on exhibition in Q2 2020.


7.1.3 FSRU regasification process

Questions were asked on the validity of the studies for the newly selected FSRU vessel.

“Are the initial marine studies being re-done for change of preferred FSRU?” (Hastings Community Session, August 2019)

The Höegh Esperanza, our preferred FSRU, and the Höegh Giant, the previous FSRU, have almost identical configurations. This includes the same length, width and depth. They are considered ‘sister ships’, built in the same shipyard. The marine studies factor in the specifications that cover each of the potential FSRUs so repeating early studies undertaken prior to the change in FSRU is not required.

Should the project go ahead, regardless of which FSRU is used, there will be modifications to the ship in order to meet the requirements for the seawater intake design and water discharge locations based on the marine studies and in response to community concerns.

The community reiterated their concerns about chlorine discharge, as part of the FSRU regasification process, into Western Port.

“We want to know the impact of chlorine pollution as part of this project.” (Online Discussion Forum, April 2019)

Some wanted to know why toxic liquids are needed for the regasification process.

“Interest in effects of chlorine, ammonia and other by-products of FSRU on Western Port, and why are these necessary.” (Hastings Community Session, August 2019)

Others asked if the Project would consider successful de-chlorination methods used in other projects.

We’ve heard from the community that one of the overriding concerns is potential marine impacts from the regasification process.

While the initial independent reports produced for the EES referral show the chlorine breaks down very rapidly and the temperature differences quickly dissipate, we recognise this still concerns the community.

The ship’s biofouling system, which uses the same electrolysis process as the filtration system in a saltwater swimming pool, needs to produce 5mg/l of chlorine from the seawater to keep the system clean.

The initial independent specialist report ‘Chlorine in seawater heat exchange process’ produced for the referral tells us this small amount of chlorine would break down very rapidly, when, it returns to Western Port there is only 0.1mg/l of chlorine left in the returned seawater which then further breaks down to undetectable and safe levels for marine species within 20 seconds.

To put this in context, the level of chorine in the water returned to the port would be significantly less than that allowed in our drinking water under Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.

Other dechlorination methods such as chemical dechlorination which uses additives such as sulfur dioxide or disodium phosphate, are difficult to control when managing near-zero levels of residual chlorine. Excess dechlorinating agents can reduce the dissolved oxygen content of the water and lower its pH (acidification), both of which are detrimental to marine biota.

The issue of chlorine is subject to further investigation as part of the EES. The findings will be publicly available when the EES goes on exhibition in mid-2020 and the public will be able to make a written submission.


Concerns about introducing ballast water from other marine locations around the world into Western Port. Community concern about foreign organisms entering the ecosystem and affecting marine life.

“Worried about ballast water throwing out organisms into Western Port” (Hastings Community Session, August 2019)

The risk of introduction of invasive marine species is well understood – the introduction of any species that is not native to Western Port is a danger and threatens the biodiversity of the environment.

Unfortunately, this is not a unique issue, it is a worldwide problem with shipping. It’s very serious issue and one responded to by strict management policies, oversight from regulatory bodies and adherence to the law.

Visiting LNG carriers will arrive full of LNG and will not need to discharge ballast water. Rather, they will take on ballast water in Western Port as they unload their cargo.

All ships, even with full cargo, may have remnants of ballast water on board as the bottom ballast tanks have an unpumpable ballast spread. To manage this, ballast water is exchanged at sea at least 200 miles offshore and in greater than 200 m water depth. This ensures the removal of any aquatic organisms and tanks are backfilled with clean ballast. It is this clean ‘deep ocean’ water that would remain in the tanks from discharge at the time of LNG loading.

The FSRU would be fitted with a ballast water treatment system in compliance with the International Maritime Organization Ballast Water Management Convention.

Ballast operations are highly regulated. The prior approval of the Australian Department of Agriculture and Water Resources is required for any discharge of ballast water within the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone if it is an Australian vessel or a foreign vessel administered by a State party to the Ballast Water Convention; and in all cases, within the 12 nautical mile territorial sea (including any discharge within the three nautical mile State waters and in port waters), that has been taken up outside of port waters in Victoria; and the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria to any discharge of ballast water within the three nautical mile State waters (including any discharge in port waters).

All ships must maintain a ballast water management plan and ballast water record system in accordance with the Biosecurity Act; and maintain a ballast water log in accordance with the EPA Victoria.

Community members asked questions about the discharge water temperature and any effect on the marine environment.

“Clarity about discharge water temperature, what’s in it and where does it go once released?” (Online Discussion Forum, March 2019)

The FSRU uses seawater to heat LNG back into its gaseous state, a temperature of about -163°C. The FSRU would return this seawater to Western Port at about 7°C cooler than when it went in.

Initial studies completed for the EES referral indicate the cold-water discharge would quickly mix back into the main water body, to within 0.3°C of its original temperature, by the time it reaches the seabed, and fully mixes with the movements of the tide. This is in line with daily temperature variations within Western Port.

Further investigation is being completed as part of the Environment Effects Statement.

Some community members asked if the Project could discharge water away from the environmentally sensitive areas of Western Port.

“Could discharge water be piped or shipped away from Western Port?” (Email, May 2019)

The amount of discharged water is too significant to be shipped away from Western Port and the pumps on the FSRU aren’t designed to discharge longer distances. Even if this was possible, the energy involved in pumping water would result in increased greenhouse gas emissions. A pipeline would need to be constructed and laid on the seafloor which would not be permissible within an operating port. This would also involve additional construction and additional environmental impacts.


7.1.4 Effects on marine activities (i.e. recreational fishing/walking/swimming)

Community members who use the area for fishing or recreational boating asked us about exclusion zones when the proposed FSRU is operating and LNG carriers visiting.

“How will the current exclusion zones change depending on the presence of visiting LNG carriers?” (Hastings Community Session, August 2019)

“Would there be an impact on yachting and fishing activities in wider Western Port?” (Hastings Community Session, August 2019)

We understand Western Port is a popular area for recreational boating and fishing. Mooring of the FSRU at the jetty will require ongoing enforcement of the current safety exclusion zone. This won’t affect areas of the foreshore that are currently permitted to be accessed.

There may need to be changes to the exclusion zones if the Project were to go ahead. These are decided and requested by the Port of Hastings Development Authority (PoHDA). This may restrict local fisherman who currently fish in and around the jetty although proposed changes predominantly impact the channel side of the jetty.

The current Maritime Security Plan requires an exclusion zone with a 100m clearance around the jetty in all directions, also referred to as the Waterside Restriction Zone. However, as an FSRU would occasionally have a carrier alongside during berthing and operation, PoDHA has reviewed the current plan and would request an amendment to a 200m exclusion zone on the channel side of the jetty. The 200m exclusion may be a permanent zone and enforced for the duration of the FSRU, at Berth 2 for all scenarios (FSRU alone; FSRU with tankers; FSRU with tankers and during unloading; during FSRU regasification etc).

The exclusion zone on the Crib Point side of the jetty area would remain the same and not limit the designated fishing area that currently exists.

Any changes to exclusion zones are subject to the Project going ahead.

Some community members expressed concerns the Project would hamper boat ramp accessibility and kayaking activities

“Hastings boat ramp is the second busiest boat ramp in Victoria. Will it get busier and be impacted by the Project?” (Hastings Community Session, August 2019)

“Interested to get clarity on current and future restrictions for kayaks around the jetty” (Pearcedale Community Session, August 2019)

If the proposed project goes ahead, recreational use of Western Port will be affected when LNG tankers are berthing. At those times through traffic will be restricted to allow tugs to safely berth LNG carriers. This already occurs when ships visit the United Petroleum, BlueScope and Esso facilities.

The current water-side restricted zone (or exclusion zone) at Crib Point Jetty includes the area underneath the jetty and down to the seabed. This restricts activities such as swimming or kayaking underneath the jetty.

The Project is not expected to affect boat ramp access around Western Port.

Because the FSRU would be moored more than 500m off the shore, access to areas of the foreshore that are currently permitted to be accessed, such as Woolley’s Beach, would not be affected.

AGL is interested in working with the community to help find safe and accessible locations for launching kayaks.


7.2 ConsultationMembers of the community who engaged with us:

• Sought assurance independent technical specialists are performing EES studies, not AGL and APA

• Expressed appreciation for the opportunity to share feedback and ask questions

• Felt AGL and APA are not listening to local concerns

• Voiced continued opposition to the Project

• Wanted more information about the Project

Additional independent specialists were invited to attend events to address community concerns, which arose in the last round of sessions.


7.2.1 Complaints

We heard concerns about the Project’s responsiveness.

“You will probably find AGL will either not reply or take many weeks to do so.” (Online discussion forum, June 2019)

We are sorry for any delays in responding to concerns from the community and recognise that some responses took longer than we hoped. Our aim was to answer questions as well as possible and many questions we received required detailed and comprehensive responses. These questions were escalated to technical specialists for responses to ensure that they were answered to the best of our ability at the time.

Statements about the accuracy of information provided.

“Some of the “facts” in your reply... are not accurate.” (Online discussion forum, March 2019)

“That statement is a blatant lie.” (Online Discussion forum, April 2019)

The EES requires technical specialists and studies to be independent from AGL and APA. These studies are to be peer reviewed by a technical reference group, chaired by DELWP, before public exhibition.

7.2.2 Request for further engagement / suggestions

Requests for information, in a more accessible format, suitable for non-technical stakeholders. Statements or recommendations included:

“Noise maps could have been clearer.” (Hastings community session, August 2019)

Community members asked us to expand on key concepts to build stakeholders existing knowledge:

“I read and watched your videos and found I have some trouble in how you present them...” (Online discussion forum, April 2019)

We aim to continuously improve our collateral and Project communication, to address community suggestions. We published a series of Project materials, including information sheets and posters, in advance of the August - September community sessions, as a response to earlier community suggestions seeking more technical information.

Continuous improvements will be made by AGL and APA in the lead up to EES public exhibition to provide technical information to the community in a clear and accessible manner. We will publish information on the joint AGL and APA EES website and notify email subscribers of updates.


We heard recommendations that the Project information should focus on job creation, apprenticeships, timeframes and safety measures.

Some stakeholders want information about the Project during the feasibility and approvals phases, others on approval.

Community members identified key community contacts or groups the Project should engage.

We will work with our community and stakeholders throughout the lifecycle of the Project, should the EES and a Financial Investment Decision be approved. For example, if the project went ahead, we would engage Public Transport Victoria (PTV) and emergency services, during construction to plan alternative access routes, mitigate disruption and communicate delays, or changes to normal activities

We heard stakeholders appreciated negotiations made for the Pipeline Works alignment to follow the rail line through Hastings, rather than street frontage. We also heard compliments about AGL or APA replies to the online discussion forum.

We are listening to the community and will look for ways to engage further before the EES exhibition. To register an expression of interest for a project briefing session, contact:

[email protected] 1800 039 600

[email protected] 1800 531 811

Communities wanted more clarity about the Project structure and the relationship between the organisations involved.

AGL and APA, jointly called the Proponent, are preparing a joint EES submission for the Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project. The Minister for Planning Victoria (the Minister) will assess the submission.

Technical specialists, independent to AGL and APA, prepare EES impact assessment studies in response to each of the EES scoping requirements.

DELWP, representing the Minister, regulates the EES submission and impact assessment process. It chairs the technical reference group that peer reviews each EES technical study.


7.3 Land impactsThe community reiterated the importance of the technical studies and sought assurance the Project would consider possible environmental impacts along the Pipeline Works alignment.

Potential land impacts remained within the three most frequently mentioned themes throughout the preparation of the EES, shifting from second during the February - March 2019 sessions to third in the August/September events.

The most commonly mentioned land impacts related to flora and fauna. People made fewer queries about impacts to specific terrestrial animals, particularly to endangered animals along the pipeline route. People told us about specific trees and plants they would like preserved.


7.3.1 Impacts on plants, vegetation, trees and parks

Community asked about the Project’s potential for destruction of sentimentally valued plants, and if the pipeline can avoid them.

“I planted trees along the proposed alignment 4 years ago - now they will be lost.” (Cardinia community session, August 2019)

“Replanting of trees does not replace old trees.” (Grantville community session, September 2019)

“We do not want the [significant] tree to be cut down. Why can’t the pipeline to go around it?” (Pearcedale community session, August 2019)

An EES requirement is to understand what species live in the Project area, and how they may be affected.

Ecological assessments have studied existing flora and fauna within the proposed Pipeline Works area. We will develop an environmental mitigation measure to manage potential risks, if assessments identify vulnerable species.

Early survey results identified 201 flora species, including 118 indigenous species, 13 non-indigenous and 70 introduced species. The study also found 145 fauna species within the Pipeline Works area.

An APA landholder engagement team has been working with private landholders along the proposed pipeline route to survey flora and fauna on their properties. The Project would rehabilitate the Pipeline Works alignment, after construction, to DELWP’s standards, and as agreed with the landholders.

We chose the Pipeline alignment to avoid vegetation clearing where possible. Where removal of high conservation value vegetation would be required, we would use mitigation methods, such as reduced construction footprint or horizontal directional drilling underground, to avoid clearing vegetation.

7.3.2 Impacts on habitat, terrestrial animals

Impacts to the endangered Growling Grass Frog and Southern Brown Bandicoot are still a community concern.

“I’m a landholder and know that the Growling Grass Frog and Southern Brown Bandicoot are present on my property.” (Cardinia community session, August 2019)

Protecting the habitats of the Growling Grass Frog, Southern Brown Bandicoot and their habitats is integral to preserving these listed species.

Horizontal directional drilling for areas of the Pipeline Works alignment providing habitats to these species, would reduce, or eliminate any impacts. Ecologists have been surveying for Southern Brown Bandicoot and Growling Grass Frog, as part of the EES, to assess if any populations are present, or likely to be present, within the proposed alignment area.

The publicly exhibited EES will include these results. An environmental mitigation measure would be required if these species or their habitats are deemed to have a potential negative impact resulting from the Project. Such as using a horizontal directional drilling underground construction method or reducing the construction footprint to avoid sensitive areas.


7.3.3 Impacts on agricultural areas

Community members asked about impacts on farmland:

“What are the exact impacts of this project on risks … to farmland along the proposed pipeline site?” (AGL online discussion forum, March 2019)

“The pipeline is going through agricultural land – what if the pipe isn’t joined properly and toxicity comes from pipes and leaks into soil? That soil would flow into Western Port.” (Hastings community session, August 2019)

We recognise agriculture is a significant part of the local economy. A land use impact assessment will understand the potential impacts to all land types in the Pipeline Works alignment area, including agricultural land. This assessment will take place in consultation with landholders.

Before the pipeline becomes operational, it is filled with water and pressure tested for strength and leaks, in a process called ‘hydrostatic testing’.

DELWP and Energy Safe Victoria regulate pipelines to ensure best practice, in line with AS2885 Pipelines – Gas and liquid petroleum (2018), which includes integrity testing to ensure safe operations.

Concern over the treatment, and rights, of landholders in the pipeline development process.

“It’s going through their land – do they have a choice? It’s really tough on them.” (Hastings community session, August 2019)

The APA landholder engagement team is committed to regular contact with landholders to provide information about the process and hear feedback on the Pipeline alignment. The team facilitates negotiation between parties, to compensate landholders for the loss of acquiring an easement on their land.

We would reinstate disturbed areas, in accordance with the conditions of approval requirements and in landholder agreements, to minimise any lasting property impacts.

7.3.4 Impacts on private property

Landholders spoke of the inconvenience of having a pipeline on their property, including issues related to ongoing access and privacy.

“Ongoing maintenance of the pipeline would interfere with our lives on the property. It is inconvenient for us to be constantly making ourselves available to give access when they’re on the property… it is an intrusion on our privacy.” (Grantville community session, September 2019)

Regular field surveys ensure the ongoing safety and operation of the gas pipeline. Given that a pipeline is a long-term infrastructure investment, APA would develop working relationships with landholders by giving adequate notice of field surveys and considering landholder needs when field surveys are scheduled.


7.4 Project rationaleCommunity members queried the need for the Project, specifically the need to import gas, site selection, gas supply shortages and use of fossil fuels. We responded to queries, and took comments on notice, where we could not answer them immediately.


7.4.1 Importing of gas

Community members asked about the need for importing gas if the Victorian Government were to lift the onshore gas exploration moratorium, in the near future.

“Would the lifting of onshore moratorium in Victoria mean the Project isn’t required?” (Cardinia Community Session, August 2019)

AGL supports initiatives that safely bring more supply and a diversity of suppliers to the market. The most efficient way to ensure sustained supply in the short and long term is through market-initiated additions to supply, whether that be contracting new supply from existing market participants, increasing domestic gas production or importing gas from other markets.

Gas projects have significant gestation periods and require long term environmental and safety planning – any application would be subjected to a rigorous environmental assessment, just as this project is subject to the EES process.

It is unlikely that any new proposal, brought on by the possible lifting of the moratorium, will immediately address forthcoming Victorian supply shortfall projections in the 2020’s. However, AGL is assessing, and will continue to assess, all opportunities for incremental gas supply.

Why Victoria needs to import gas, given Queensland is a gas export market, and Australia is the biggest gas exporter in the world.

“Australia’s the biggest exporter of gas, so why would we want to import it? Not commonsense, not economic, not conservative minded.” (Grantville Community Session, September 2019)

While AGL is not a gas exporter, Australia is a major exporter of natural gas. However, most of this gas is not available to the south-eastern states.

It has been a difficult realisation for many that the abundant gas supplies Victoria once enjoyed are in decline. The declining production from Bass Strait’s big legacy fields has meant Victoria needs to seriously consider and prepare for alternative sources of supply.

Victoria would not be able to supply enough gas during peak winter demand due to the limited capacity of the East Australian existing pipeline network.

The straight-line distance between existing pipelines in the north and south of eastern Australia is more than 1,500km. The cost to build a pipeline of that length would be significantly more expensive and have greater environmental impact than the proposed 57km Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline.

In addition, gas supplies from Western Australia’s North West Shelf are not available to Victoria because there is no pipeline across the country.

The tightening outlook for gas supply early next decade has required AGL to seek alternate sources of gas supply to meet the needs of AGL’s 1.4 million gas customers.

Community members asked if a solution to meet gas demand could be storing gas from Queensland gas fields in southern Australia.

“Why can’t we bring gas from QLD during low demand periods and store it in VIC?” (Pearcedale Community Session, August 2019)

Even if supply could be procured in low demand periods, to store gas in Victoria from summer to winter would require massive amounts of gas storage. The maximum storage capacity of the state’s main facility, at Iona, would cover less than a week of Victorian demand.


Community members suggested other potential locations for gas import jetty facilities.

“Why could gas not be imported at Longford?” (Grantville Community Session, September 2019)

Victoria does host a number of gas production and processing facilities, including Longford but because gas is delivered to these facilities by pipeline, they do not have existing jetties or facilities that could be leveraged for this project.

The Longford gas plant (operated by Esso) is approx. 14km inland from the coast.

The coastal areas nearby do not have any existing jetties that could host the facilities meaning a major construction project, possibly with extensive dredging would be required.

The offshore industry in the Gippsland Basin is supported by a marine base at Barry Beach and we have also been asked about this site. This location is accessed by a channel that is only around 6m deep, less than half what would be required for LNG carriers, meaning extensive dredging would be required.

7.4.2 Why Crib Point?

Community members asked if we had considered alternative locations to Crib Point for the marine part of this Project.

“Why can’t the Project not locate to be further up Western Port and connect to new marine industry park?” (Crib Point Community Session, August 2019)

“Why not move Port access north on Western Port to minimise pipeline length and get pipeline out of residential areas?” (Crib Point Community Session, August 2019)

Selecting Crib Point as the location for importing LNG was not a decision AGL undertook lightly. Eight sites were initially evaluated by AGL as potential locations to import LNG into south-eastern Australia. The three shortlisted options identified as most feasible to meet the screening assessment criteria were Port Adelaide in South Australia; Port Kembla in New South Wales; and Crib Point in Victoria. The Project Development chapter of the EES will address selection of Crib Point in detail.

While the Western Port channel does have deep sections leading to the Bluescope jetty in Hastings, it becomes quite shallow north of that location. To accommodate an FSRU substantial dredging would be required. Declared depths are between five and ten meters north of Bluescope. This Project requires a minimum of 13 meters.

Crib Point by comparison has an existing jetty, already being used to import liquid fuels and only requires bed levelling to shave off some high points at the berth. The total amount of material to be levelled out is estimated at 95m³ and has been approved under the Marine and Coastal Act 2018.

7.4.3 Local cost benfeits

Some community members asked how they might benefit from the Project, i.e. if we could connect towns along the pipeline route to the gas transmission system.

“Are we supplying towns along the pipeline route with gas as part of the Project?” (Cardinia Community Session, August 2019)

The current project does not include local connections along the pipeline route, or the infrastructure required to convert the gas for domestic distribution.

If there is sufficient demand in future, a compression station could be built to allow distribution of gas into the domestic market.

The pipeline has been designed as a bi-directional pipeline. This means that it would allow gas to flow from Crib Point to Pakenham and also from Pakenham to Crib Point. This provides flexibility in the future to continue to use the Pipeline to supply gas for domestic use from different sources other than the gas proposed to be imported via Crib Point.


Community members asked about the costs of importing gas, and if this Project would lower gas costs.

“Would there be any discrepancy in costs between imported gas and existing gas?” (Online discussion forum, March 2019)

AGL does not export gas from Australia, so the company cannot comment on the exact pricing being achieved by sellers of LNG from the projects in Australia’s Northwest, Darwin and Gladstone.

The majority of internationally traded LNG is priced on contracts linked to oil price. This provides pricing transparency and allows buyers and sellers the ability to use financial derivatives to manage their price exposure. AGL will be exposed to the same markets and pricing structures as the export projects.

AGL currently sources its gas from local producers. As a retailer of energy, AGL is only able to read the current market. As the supply sources offshore from Victoria are in decline, AGL has to seek new supply sources. As suggested by the market, to pipe gas long distances is very expensive (around $2.98/GJ) to transport from Queensland to Victoria) and is limited by lack of capacity on the pipelines, for example out of Queensland.

As converting natural gas to LNG through liquefaction results in the gas in liquid form taking up only 1/600th of its original volume, shipping it is an efficient and cost-effective way to transport gas long distances and is not constrained by the lack of pipeline capacity in the domestic network.

The chances of gas returning to historically low prices is slim. The reality is that the current price (about three times the historical price), will likely remain the price of gas even if this project is put in place. This is due to several factors but includes the international market and dwindling supply. By increasing the supply of gas available, the Project will hope to put downward pressure on prices for households, business and industry with increased competition.

7.4.4 Transition to renewable energy

The need to transition to renewables, to address climate change, and The Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement, within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is an agreement between nations to combat climate change.

“The move to renewables isn’t happening fast enough – we want more emphasis on solar, batteries, windfarms and pumped storage.” (Grantville Community Session, September 2019)

We consider climate change a critical issue facing the global community. AGL is committed to helping shape a sustainable energy future for Australia.

AGL operates the country’s largest renewable electricity generation portfolio. However, we also operate the largest coal portfolio in Australia. Over 80 per cent of electricity produced in Australia is sourced from the combustion of fossil fuels. We are therefore integral to any move towards decarbonisation.

As the energy sector progressively transitions from thermal power (like coal-fired plants) to more renewable energy (like wind and solar) – gas, which generally has lower emissions than coal, will play a role in enabling firming capacity to complement renewables at peak times or when renewables are not available.

Modern gas fired power plants can start up very quickly, stepping in to generate energy when it’s needed most. Until the cost-competitiveness and storage capabilities of other firming capacity (like batteries and pumped hydro) improves, gas is a part of the transition balancing reliability, emissions reduction and affordability objectives.


Concern how the Project will manage greenhouse gas emissions, given climate change concerns.

“Put the environment first before we wreck the planet and have to look for elsewhere to live” (Grantville Community Session, September 2019)

Australia’s climate is changing and greenhouse gas emissions are a key contributor. The EES requires an assessment of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project and suggest measures for its mitigation.

In regard to the FSRU, emissions for each regasification operating mode (open and closed loop) are being assessed. These emissions would be managed in accordance with EPA Victoria requirements. The Project would produce emissions from a number of activities, including:

• Burning of fossil fuels, in plant and vehicles, during construction and operation

• Vegetation clearance

• Manufacture of construction materials

Greenhouse gas emissions as result of the Project’s construction will be minimised through:

• Avoiding vegetation removal by optimising the pipeline design

• Biodiversity offsetting where vegetation removal is unavoidable

• Sourcing local materials where possible during Jetty works

• Considering the use of more energy efficient materials

The Project would be required to report greenhouse gas emissions to regulators on an annual basis.

Renewables are the future of energy and AGL is committed to getting out of coal from 2023. However, to develop a pathway to a modern, decarbonised generation sector, gas is still needed to enable a cost-effective and reliable energy transition.

Over 80 per cent of electricity produced in Australia is sourced from the combustion of fossil fuels. Given the sheer scale, decarbonising the generation sector is likely to take several decades of replacing the existing generation fleet with low-emissions substitute technology such as solar and windfarms.

AGL’s generation fleet plays a critical role in the transition to a decarbonised generation sector, providing valuable low cost and efficient generation over the coming decades while the power sector transitions to more renewables and distributed energy resources.


7.5 SafetyThe community is concerned about safety during pipeline and jetty construction work. They asked for assurance the technical studies will consider worst-case scenarios and identify appropriate mitigation measures, specifically relating to spills and environmental contamination. The community expressed fewer safety concerns in the August – September 2019 sessions compared to February – March 2019 sessions. They voiced more concerns about community impacts, over environmental, suggesting we move the Project to less populated areas.


7.5.1 FSRU safety

Concerns about the gas exchange process and potential for a catastrophic accident. What consideration of risk to people living nearby.

“This [FSRU] could injure or kill people within a 5km radius and there are many homes within that area.” (AGL online discussion forum, March 2019)

“It is a very dangerous place to put a gas terminal, so close to the township of Crib Point... Take your gas plant to somewhere else, e.g. off the Gippsland coast where the rest of them are.” (Online interactive map, August 2019)

Safety is very important, and risks must be taken seriously. Like all big industrial and resources projects, the Gas Import Jetty will carry some risks. AGL is working with international FSRU risk and safety specialists to identify, minimise and manage the risks to the greatest extent possible and will share this information with the community.

There has been reports in Crib Point about the FSRU exploding and creating a blast and damage radius that would destroy Crib Point from a BLEVE (boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion). Much of this seems to have come from a report found online from “Thermal Radiation and Impact Assessment of the LNG BLEVE Fireball” authored by students or staff of a University in Guangzhou China.

To assist the community to understand the phenomenon of BLEVE explosions AGL engaged international FSRU risk specialists DNV-GL to provide a peer review of the document and its findings and to provide further advice on the probability of BLEVE explosions in LNG shipping.

DNV-GL found that the report contained a number of errors in terms of its assumptions and calculations. It was based on calculations of a pressure tank similar to an LPG gas tank and not on an LNG cryogenic tank, which is structurally different and does not store liquid under pressure. It found that the scenario of an explosion with a 2.3km radius described in this paper cannot occur on a FSRU.

There have been accidents in similar facilities however it is worth noting these were at liquification plants and not regasification facilities. There has never been an incident involving an explosion or a loss of cargo involving an LNG tanker or FSRU.

Hazard and Risk is one of the study areas being investigated as part of the EES for the proposed Project. Studies focus particularly on understanding the risk involved with constructing and operating the Project and measures to minimise risk and ensure safety for the workforce, nearby operations and the public.

7.5.2 Pipeline safety

Concerns about gas pipelines near built-up areas, such as Hastings.

“Gas pipelines are dangerous.” (Online interactive map, August 2019)

“The proposed pipeline will be on our street - is it safe to live around one?” (Cardinia community session, August 2019)

Pipelines are a proven safe mode of energy transportation, buried below ground, with warning signs above, and inspected and tested regularly to ensure they are operating safely. Community safety and property protection are priorities for pipeline operators, to ensure best and safest practices.

APA operates about 15,000 kilometres of gas transmission pipelines, in Australia. Many are near homes and businesses.

APA has invested heavily in protecting gas pipelines from interference and safety risks, and has a commendable safety record.


What about moving the pipeline to a less built-up area, such as in the north of Western Port bay?

“Why can’t you move the project to the north of Western Port bay to get the pipeline out of residential areas?” (Crib Point community session, August 2019)

We chose the proposed pipeline route after detailed assessment of other routes. The factors we considered included environment, safety, social, constructability and cost.

The route will be mostly underground, connecting to the Victorian Transmission System (VTS), which transports natural gas within Victoria. The existing jetty infrastructure in Crib Point also informed our preferred route. Location is also addressed in section 7.4 of this report (“Why Crib Point?”), and the Project Development chapter of the EES will address selection of Crib Point in detail.

7.5.3 Questioning of AGL’s safety record

Concern about the proposed Project safety processes, given previous AGL incidents.

“Thanks for the effort… but I am not reassured, given AGL’s safety history.” (Hastings community session, August 2019)

AGL understands the community concern about past behaviour. We need to do better. All the breaches and fines referenced are publicly available and as a major ASX listed company AGL’s conduct is rightly subject to high levels of regulator, shareholder, customer and media scrutiny.

The breaches and the resulting fines are evidence that AGL is closely monitored, and action is taken by both regulators and AGL to address past failures. AGL is made accountable for our actions and often take further action to ensure these types of issues don’t happen again.

In relation to the Project, AGL is not expecting the community to trust us and we recognise the community can’t simply take our word that safety and environmental risks will be well managed. The purpose of the EES process is to independently assess if these risks can be addressed before the project is approved by the state government and many other regulators.

In addition to the EES, AGL will be subject to oversight by numerous regulators and government agencies, including:

• Environment Protection Authority Victoria

• Australian Maritime Safety Authority

• Transport Safety Victoria

• Marine Safety Victoria

• Office of Transport Safety (Commonwealth)

• Energy Safety Victoria

• WorkSafe Victoria

• Harbour Master

• Victorian Regional Channels Authority

• Port of Hastings Development Authority

The project also must adhere to several legislative requirements, including:

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

• Environment Effects Act 1978

• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

• Victorian Advisory Lists

• Planning and Environment Act 1987

• Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme

• Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (DELWP 2017a)

• Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act)

The local community also play an important role to ensure AGL is accountable to the highest safety standards.


7.6 Regulatory approvalsCommunity mentions of ‘regulatory approvals’ increased slightly between the February - March 2019 and August - September 2019 engagement rounds. DELWP representatives attended some community sessions in August/September 2019, so people could ask about the EES and determine the independence of the assessment process. Some appreciated the comprehensiveness of the EES; others felt the process inhibits their ability to influence, or stop, the Project on nvironmental grounds.


7.6.1 EES process

Requests for more detail about the EES process.

“Can you explain how the EES process addresses my specific concern?” (Cardinia community session, August 2019)

Doubts about the rigour of the EES and if the government will approve the Project for political reasons.

“Cynicism about the EES process - Government has a vested interest in the Project going ahead.” (Crib Point community session, August 2019)

An EES is the Victorian Government’s most robust environmental assessment process. It requires AGL and APA to submit a set of studies, completed by independent technical advisors, addressing each of the environmental areas outlined in the Minister’s scoping requirements.

During Q4 2018, the community had the opportunity to comment on the draft scoping requirements for the Minister’s consideration before its finalisation.

DELWP provides oversight on the technical competence and integrity of EES studies. The Department chairs a Technical Reference Group (TRG), which meets regularly during the EES preparation phase, to ensure technical integrity.

The TRG can question work and ask for more investigation, if it believes the studies have not addressed the scoping requirements. DELWP also reviews the complete EES submission, which includes all 18 technical studies, to check for adequacy before releasing for public exhibition.

7.6.2 Technical studies

Questions about the technical studies displayed and why only some community concerns were shown.

“In your technical reports, catastrophic bay-wide risks were not considered. Can you guarantee there will be no damage?” (AGL Online discussion forum, March 2019)

Some community members were pleased with the thoroughness of the EES studies.

“The independent experts were very helpful with answering our questions. I am very glad to see that the additional research is being done.” (Grantville community session, September 2019)

Community sessions aimed to engage the community and interested stakeholders about the EES, the scope of studies, methodology and, where available, early technical study findings. The events also provided an opportunity for specific community questions to be answered by technical specialists about the studies completed to date.

During August - September 2019 community session period, EES investigations were a work in progress, with final findings to be publicly launched during the public exhibition period.

From previous engagement, we heard that having the technical specialists available at Project events to directly answer community concerns was highly valued.


7.7 Community impactsConcerns remain about the further industrialisation of Crib Point and Western Port. Most believe the Project would have negative impacts on the community, although there were variations in between locations and community interest groups. Contrastingly, local business are generally positive about the potential economic stimulus - a consistent response from engagement. The community also asked how AGL or APA might give back to the community as part of the project.


7.7.1 Community impacts

Community members expressed concern that the long-term negative social impacts have not been properly heard or taken on board by Project team.

“I feel AGL underestimates the impact the project is having on the community” (Phone call, August 2019)

“To think that locals have spent decades restoring the wetlands and AGL come along and claim their pristine environment for a massive, floating gas terminal must be heart breaking for them and they have been actively fighting against AGL going ahead.” (AGL online discussion board, March 2019)

We also heard suggestions about how AGL/APA could give back to the community if the project were to proceed.

We are very aware that Western Port, is a protected Ramsar wetland and UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. We fully recognise its importance and will work with the community to protect it.

The EES impact assessments will assess any potential environmental, social, economic and planning impacts of the Project. If the Project goes ahead, mitigation measures would be put in place to mitigate any risks.

Community members will have the opportunity to comment on the EES and make a submission to an independent panel if they feel the impacts have not been adequately assessed.

We have been meeting with local groups and recording community member suggestions from all public engagement activities. Suggestions have included:

• Environmental rehabilitation

• Eco-tourism investment

• Building community infrastructure

• Sponsoring local community groups, sporting teams

We will work with the community on how to best do this and encourage anyone to get into contact with us to discuss it further.

Potential impacts to the rail line, including if the Project would affect future line duplications, potential upgrades or, during construction, cause delays.

APA are working with VicTrack to minimise impacts to future rail development. This includes using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) construction, two to 15 metres under any rail line.


7.8 Noise and vibrationCommunity concerns centred on pipeline and FSRU noise and vibration, both above and under water. Concern about FSRU noise or vibration was more prominent than about pipeline noise and vibration. These concerns increased in the latest public information sessions, compared to those earlier in 2019. Questions included if the EES will consider case studies of existing FSRU’s and marine noise impacts.


7.8.1 Noise of operating FSRU

How have EES studies considered potential noise impacts, such as:

• Pump noise heard from existing United Energy operations

• How industrial noise will travel across bodies of water, impacting a wider area

Local businesses wanted to understand potential noise impacts on daily activities.

“Concerns about [Project] noise and [impacts to] their recording studio for podcasts.” (Community meeting, August 2019)

Specific questions about the amount of noise from an FSRU, in peak periods, running 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The Project was also asked how it would manage and mitigate operational noise effects.

As an industrial project, the proposed Project is expected to create some noise. We recognise noise is a concern to the community and the potential noise, its sources and frequency can have an impact.

Noise can also impact the amenity of an area. Many in the community were particularly concerned about increased noise levels in nearby locations, in particular Woolley’s Beach, disturbing day-to-day or recreational activities.

There are three key sources of noise during operation:

• Gas Import Jetty including the FSRU

• Crib Point Receiving Facility

• Pakenham Delivery Facility

A noise assessment of the operational FSRU, and associated onshore facility, was commissioned during the feasibility and EES impact assessment phases, to gauge compliance with EPA’s Noise Control Guidelines. Project noise sources also include the regasification processes and running noise of the FSRU, visiting LNG tankers and tugboats. United Energy operations at the jetty also produce noise and this has been included in noise assessments.

Existing conditions were characterised through baseline noise monitoring at 14 locations for a continuous two-week period and five short-term hand-held monitoring measurements in January, February and April 2019.

Operational noise is expected to vary according to gas demand. For example, seasonal changes in gas demand for household heating in winter compared to summer. In high demand, there may be periods where the FSRU is exporting gas 24-hours-a-day, seven days-a-week. Other times, it may only export gas 12 hours-a-day, Monday to Friday, or less, such as when there is no gas demand and the FSRU is acting only as an LNG storage facility.

Similarly, the number and frequency of LNG tankers arriving each year would vary between 12 and 40 ships depending on demand. Operational noise at Crib Point is predicted to be closest to the recommended noise levels at night when the Port of Hastings Development Authority tugboats are assisting with mooring of LNG carriers. The EES is investigating measures to further mitigate noise in this period.

As part of the EES, mitigation strategies are also being investigated to reduce the impact of noise during operation and in order to meet the EPA Victoria’s Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria (NIRV) Recommended Levels.

Potential ways to reduce the level of noise emitted during operation include:

• Mufflers on tugboat engines

• Acoustic enclosures, screening or isolation material around equipment that generates noise.

• Manufacturer supplied noise suppression kits for relevant machinery i.e. silencers or low noise casing

If the Project were to go ahead, it would be subject to a number of regulations and guidelines during both construction and operation.


Cont. Construction

During construction, the relevant regulations and guidelines include:

• EPA – Noise Control Guidelines Publication 1254, 2008

• EPA – Environmental Management – Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites. February 1996

Other non-binding guidelines are also being used as a reference to develop the Project noise criteria including the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change – Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG).

Commonwealth, state and local-level documents do not currently have legislative requirements or guidance limits to govern vibration originating from construction activities. Standards used for this project are consistent with those adopted on other Victorian projects and include:

• British Standard BS 6472-1:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings. Vibration sources other than blasting

• German Standard DIN 4150-3:2016 Structural vibration in buildings – Effects on structures

Operation

Operational noise criteria is being established using Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria (NIRV), EPA Publication 1411 (NIRV).

EPA Publication 1413 - Applying NIRV to Proposed and Existing Industry has been used to guide the assessment where noise sensitive receptors are potentially going to be exposed to cumulative impacts from multiple sites and existing operations with the addition of the proposed Project.

7.8.2 Noise during pipeline construction

Requests for more information about construction impacts on local fauna.

“…Will construction noise affect birds? (Crib Point community session, August 2019)

Other participants provided helpful anecdotal local experiences about noise-sensitive residential areas in close proximity to the proposed Pipeline Works.

Construction of the Pipeline Works would create noise levels, especially for people and fauna nearby, louder than normal daytime conditions. But this noise will be temporary, ceasing as construction moves on. APA will work with contractors to minimise or mitigate temporary disruptions by applying noise management methods and site controls, in compliance with EPA Victoria guidelines.

Construction would be limited, mostly, to the following:

• Monday – Friday: 7am – 6pm

• Saturday: 7am – 1pm

In some areas, for logistical reasons, construction may extend seven days a week.

The Project team would tell potentially-affected residents in advance about planned work. We would use noise reduction measures (e.g. noise barriers) in any out-of-hours work.


7.9 ConstructionCommunity members voiced concerns about the pipeline construction along the alignment, including spoil and waste management, and impacts on air quality, local commerce and traffic.


7.9.1 Construction impacts

Differences in construction methodology along the pipeline alignment.

“What’s the difference between trenchless and open cut construction?” (Hastings community session, August 2019)

Construction projects use different techniques, such as horizontal directional drilling, to crossroads, railways, and rivers, for reasons including to:

• Protect the environment

• Avoid traffic and service disruption

• Address particular geotechnical conditions

Open trench crossings: An excavator digs a trench, into which pipeline is laid, before the trench is backfilled. It is used for unsealed roads and tracks.

Trenchless or HDD: Drilling a shallow-angle hole beneath the surface, and then pulling the pipe through. It is used to cross major watercourses and environmentally sensitive areas.

Construction impact on Hastings traffic.

“Will traffic management be in place as I’m concerned about local travel impacts. We don’t need any more disruptions to the Hastings railway line.” (Hastings community session, August 2019)

Pipeline construction would mean some road closures, access restrictions and more traffic, on roads along the pipeline alignment. We would notify people of road closures, in advance. Traffic management and detours will minimise the effects on people’s movements. We would maintain resident access at all times. We will develop a comprehensive Traffic Management Plan to make sure people know what is happening and that we reduce any disruption to a minimum.

Construction impact on Western Port wildlife.

“Will odour in the air caused by construction and operation affect the birds using Western Port bay?” (Crib Point community session, August 2019)

The EES biodiversity assessment will examine potential Project effects on the birds of Western Port.


7.10 Visual impactsVisual impacts concern the pleasantness, attractiveness, desirability or utility of a place.

The community voiced concerns about the FSRU’s visual impacts on Crib Point and Western Port. Visual impacts, as a theme, was the least mentioned in this engagement period. About half the comments related to FSRU light spill, the remainder to the FSRU structure itself, pipeline construction or, more broadly, further industrialisation of Western Port.


7.10.1 Visual impacts of FSRU

The local community values the natural environment and the Crib Point beaches. They are concerned about possible impacts to this environment.

“The landscape and visual video does not properly depict how big the boat will be.” (Crib Point community session, August 2019)

“Will ship sit at the Jetty all year round?” (Grantville community session, September 2019)

Natural landscapes within the Project area such as Jacks Beach, Woolley’s Beach Foreshore North and the Pinnacles on French Island, are important to local amenity. Community feedback reinforced the significance of the Western Port landscape and visual amenity.

The EES includes a requirement to investigate visual impact including how the FSRU, visiting LNG carriers and potential vegetation removal might affect community use. It also investigates any mitigation techniques that could help manage and reduce impacts. Examples of mitigation measures include not having brightly coloured infrastructure and where possible maintaining existing mature vegetation, as a screen.

7.10.2 Visual impacts of the Crib Point Receiving Facility

Some community members questioned the appearance of the Crib Point Receiving Facility:

“What does the Receiving Facility look like?” (Crib Point community session, August 2019)

We understand the community is concerned about the impact the Project will have on the landscape and enjoyment of Western Port, especially at Crib Point.

Alongside the FSRU, the Crib Point Receiving Facility will be one of the main visual impacts during Project operation.

Detailed design of the Crib Point Receiving Facility has not yet been completed. Indicative plans include a nitrogen storage tank, equipment for measuring the gas flowrate and injecting odorant and vent stacks.

The EES will include a landscape and visual impact assessment and mitigation measures in response to the assessment.

The viewpoints the facility will likely have most impact from include the Victorian Maritime Centre and submarine lookout.


7.10.3 FSRU lighting and light spill

Communities told us of their concerns about potential Project impacts on local wildlife and habitats, in Crib Point and the wider Western Port.

“I’m concerned about more light being introduced into landscape – I value the existing darkness for the wildlife in Crib Point.” (Hastings community session, August 2019)

“My main concern is about light from the FSRU affecting shearwaters which utilise Phillip Island and Westernport.” (Grantville community session, September 2019)

Lighting can have an impact on the environment and the lifestyle of the surrounding community so we are taking care to look at the potential impacts and how they can be addressed.

In particular, we want to ensure all marine species (for example the short-tailed shearwaters which are sensitive to light disruption) are not significantly impacted by our proposed Project and that there are appropriate mitigation mechanisms in place to reduce any impact. This is being assessed in the Terrestrial and Freshwater Biodiversity report.

There is existing security and safety lighting at Crib Point Jetty because it is currently used to import petroleum. The FSRU will also have security lighting as will the jetty head at berth 2 and the entrance to the facility and some in the onshore facility itself. These lights will have directional lighting to illuminate the required areas down while reducing upwards light spill. We are currently also looking at whether the existing jetty lighting also needs to be replaced as part of the security arrangements. These are areas AGL has input in to lighting design and light spill mitigation. AGL will not have any influence over visiting LNG tanker lighting.

Several national and international regulations and legal obligations that FSRU’s (domestic and visiting) must comply with, mainly due to establishing a safe working environment and ensure it can be seen by the vessel masters in the Port. While we must comply with the standard we aim to avoid or minimise direct light spill beyond the immediate surrounds of the FSRU/LNG carrier, Crib Point Receiving Facility and Pakenham Delivery Facility. Regulations also require us to minimise the risk of dazzle and glare.

An initial review conducted for the referral for the EES states, any increase in light will impact in some way the naturalistic qualities of the area. As suggested by the report, the aim is that “External lighting should be designed, baffled and located as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.”

However, in this assessment, the exact lighting configuration was not able to be modelled because we had not yet selected the preferred FSRU. Conditional on regulatory approvals and a financial investment decision, the FSRU will be supplied and operated by Höegh LNG, with the likely vessel being the Höegh Esperanza.

The impact of light spill is being assessed as part of the Terrestrial and Freshwater Biodiversity and Landscape and Visual chapters, including in terms of the impact on waders and water birds and impact to nearby receptors including the Victorian Maritime Centre and residential dwellings near Jack’s Beach.


7.10.4 Visual impacts of the pipeline

Some community members questioned the permanency of Pipeline Works signage and appearance of the Receiving Facility:

“Permanent signage on easement affects visual amenity.” (Grantville community session, September 2019)

“What does the Receiving Facility look like?” (Crib Point community session, August 2019)

APA must comply with the Pipelines Act 2005 to get both a pipeline licence from the regulator, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, and associated safety approvals from Energy Safe Victoria. We expect permanent signs would be necessary along the proposed pipeline alignment, for safety reasons.

APA recognises permanent signage may negatively affect visual amenity of private and public property. We have chosen an alignment that follows existing pipeline alignments, to avoid, insofar as possible, additional impacts to local amenity. We will work with each landholder where issues of signage-related visual amenity arise. In the EES, the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment chapter will investigate visual impacts expected as part of pipeline construction and operation.

7.10.5 Concerns about the increased industrial activity in Western Port

Some community members expressed concern about the cumulative environmental impacts of the further industrialisation of Crib Point and Western Port:

“The community has many concerns about the cumulative environmental impacts of the industrialisation of Crib Point and Western Port Bay. It belongs to the people of Australia, not AGL and APA.” (Grantville community session, September 2019)

We recognise for many in the community the proposed project has more downside than upside and there is committed opposition. It’s rare for any community to want more industrial development, even if it is proposed at an existing industrial site that currently imports petroleum products.

One of the advantages of this Project is that there is in-built flexibility. Unlike a coal fired power station, which takes seven or eight years to build and leaves a lasting imprint, Crib Point will host a FSRU via a jetty which has been there for 50 years. If the demand for gas reduces, and the Project is no longer required, the FSRU can simply travel to its next location leaving Crib Point with minimal rehabilitation requirements.

The FSRU is likely to be leased and if the facility is no longer needed, the FSRU will be unmoored and will sail away. The Project will also include an onshore facilitated located next to the jetty. The design of this facility is still underway. When the facility is no longer needed, the site will be remediated.


Local resident having an afternoon swim.


Summary and next steps

This report summarises what we heard during the public engagement period of April – September 2019.

The main suggestions from the community during this period of engagement were:

We welcome stakeholder and community feedback and remain open to suggestions on how we can improve our Project communication and engagement.

APA Community and Landholder Engagement team 1800 531 811

[email protected]

AGL Stakeholder Engagement team 1800 039 600

[email protected]

Provide more information on the levels of chlorine discharge from the FSRU

Provide prompt responses to queries from the community including those made on the online discussion forum

Meet more community groups and local councils, more often, to give project updates

Communicate findings of technical studies in a more community accessible format

Keep communities updates on the planned community fund and construction supplier opportunities

We will keep the community informed about the Project, ahead of the full EES public exhibition in 2020. To register interest in a project briefing, please contact:


Attachment A – Flyer distributed via Australia Post


Attachment B – Social media advertisements for community drop-in sessions

To provide feedback on the Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project please visit the project website at

aglener.gy/ees

Or, by contacting us:

1800 531 811

[email protected]

1800 039 600

[email protected]

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project

gas import jetty and pipeline project · we supplied flyer bundles to mornington peninsula,...

Documents