Resident's submission #2

Co-ordinator General
Attention: Project Manager
– Lytton Refinery Modifications
Major Projects facilitation Division
Department of State Development
P.O. Box 168

Dear Sir


We hereby make the additional following submissions in relation to the above Caltex project at Lytton.

1. We believe that best practice is not always practiced at Caltex. For example sulphur dioxide should be removed by a special extraction plant. It appears that Caltex sends it up the chimney into the atmosphere.

2. The use of Hydrogen Fluoride is not best practice. Most modern plants use Sulphuric acid. We have been told that waste fluoride also is sent into the atmosphere to the tune of 10 Tonnes a year. This must be eliminated.

3. There seems to be little mention of Mercury and other heavy metals in the report except Mercury is sometimes above legal limits and other heavy metals are close to limits. The fact that wastewater discharges into the Brisbane River is a great source of concern.

4. The data on effluent water quality is disturbing considering the 3 water / sludge ponds and various treatment plants. Elimination of nitrogen, phosphorus, other pollutants and heavy metals is necessary.

5. The safety of the above ponds is rather borderline both with heavy flooding and tidal surge. This need to be looked at closely especially in the light of Global Warming and the occurrence of cyclones in the area. The report does not indicate the safety margin of the ponds.

6. Mosquito eradication of the ponds is imperative . Should the Energex proposed 110kV main line to the Port of Brisbane proceed on 20 – 30m poles rather than underground it will endanger the lives of helicopter crews (if they agree to fly) carrying out the mosquito control. Energex needs to be persuaded to underground this proposed line for the safety of helicopter crews and the health of local residents..

7. It is understood that there is a very large stockpile of lime on the site and that this is heavily contaminated with sulphur, fluorides and other contaminates. Has Caltex some realistic plans for its disposal in a safe manner rather than adding to the stockpile? There is also the problem of protection of the stockpile from wind and rain. No mention of this could be found. The neighbouring residences do not want this windblown residue nor the Brisbane River the waterborne ones. This was brought up at a previous meeting but not answered satisfactorily.

8. The location of Noise monitor #2 at 8 Auriga Court is deceptive and totally misleading. The monitor was placed in an area of shrubbery surrounded by trees. (See photograph 1). There was no view of the refinery from the location of the monitor. The monitor height was less than 1m. the only view of the tops of the refinery stacks was from the location’s side / rear yard – (see photograph 2 and an enlarged view as photograph 3.). This is the best view from the location’s yard with photographs taken at eye level – about 1.5m. Photograph 4 taken from 1.5m height again shows the location of the monitor with a cross. As previously stated the sheltered location in Auriga Court, being the third street back from the edge of the estate, would greatly attenuate the noise levels so as to make any readings meaningless. The whole E.I.S. statement needs to be struck down because of the deceptive nature of this location and because of the other matters raised in this and our previous submission. The health, safety and amenity of residents is paramount.

Yours Sincerely


This page is maintained by

The Rivermouth Action Group Inc

as a community service.