Risky chemicals and tough choices

February 25, 2005

Decisions over the storage of dangerous chemicals are a test of political leadership.

In 2002, Colleen Hartland, spokeswoman for the Hazardous Chemicals Action Group, said the State Government's handling of the chemical storage facility at Coode Island had "never been about environmental standards or about residents' concern" but had been "a political process". Ms Hartland had been disappointed when the Bracks Government decided not to relocate the facility despite a pre-election promise that it would do so. Instead it chose to abide by the Kennett Government's decision to keep hazardous chemicals stored on the island with upgraded safety measures, a pragmatic course of action that has only served to delay the dilemma posed by Coode Island.

In the 14 years since Coode Island exploded into flames, casting a toxic smoke cloud over the city, residents and businesses have been moving into high-rise towers on Docklands, two-and-a-half kilometres away. Last November, the State Government stopped office development on the Maribyrnong River only 200 metres from Coode and has talked about devising a port environs plan with "adequate buffers to minimise land-use conflict". The move appeared to acknowledge, implicitly at least, the potential danger posed by the island. And there are other complications. Last year the two operators on Coode were asked to tender to store the dangerous liquid gas, butadiene, on the site. Terminals, one of the operators, said there was not enough room to store butadiene safely and was also concerned that shipping the gas up the Yarra posed a potential terror risk. But an alternative plan to store butadiene at Corio Bay has also been opposed by Greater Geelong Council because it is one kilometre away from a school (Coode Island is half a kilometre from homes in Yarraville). The general manager of Marstel, Coode's other operator, said in 2001 that an ideal chemical store would have a five-kilometre buffer from the nearest housing.

When it decided not to relocate the facility in February 2000, the Government cited the prohibitive cost of moving it, a lack of alternative sites and legally binding undertakings that exist with the private companies on the island. As The Age argued at the time, these are valid reasons. But taking the line of least resistance has not made the Coode Island problem go away. How the Government resolves the dilemma will be a test of its leadership and its environmental credentials.