Jen Drysdale submission 17 Dec 15

 

constituent of Motor Spirit
is 1% v/v as legislated in
Australia. This is a minor
fraction of total chemical
compounds in Motor Spirit.
With the advent of modern
VR1 systems and fibreglass
underground tanks the
vapour fraction escaping to
the environment has
reduced to extremely low
levels that poses no
detrimental health impacts
to those living in close
proximity to Petrol
Stations.

we have provided elsewhere in this document that clearly shows the
adverse impacts of emissions and the danger to children from being in
close proximity to a service station.

The setback distances proposed in this development do not come close
to meeting best practice either in Australia or overseas.

In Queensland, the health risk from benzene (and other pollutants) is
recognized in the Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 (EPP). THE
EPP sets exposure limits in air to ensure protection of human and
environmental health from those pollutants. The EPP objective for
benzene is a maximum concentration of 3 ppb (parts per billion) over a
1-year period.

The Applicant has failed to show by reasonable analysis that the levels
of exposure, particularly to young children in the adjacent School, will
not harm their health.

The Precautionary Principle demands that, particularly in relation to
young children, we address possible risks where scientific
understanding is yet incomplete in a way that is not harmful.

In the absence of scientific consensus that the Development is not
harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on the
Developer and the Property Owner.

 

 

2. The refuelling canopy is
some 46m to the boundary
with the school that backs
onto the sports hall and
swimming. There are no
classrooms within at least
100-150m of the petrol
station. This separation
distance alone is more than
sufficient to neutralise /
dilute any minor trace
benzene particulates to
such a degree and to be
undetectable.

 

This is indeed an indictment on the whole Development proposal.

The Applicant acknowledges that the refuelling canopy isa mere 46m
to the boundary with the school that backs onto the sports hall and
swimming complex.

The Applicant further acknowledges that classrooms are within 100-
150m of the petrol station.

The Applicant then makes yet another idle assertion without any
objective evidence or scientific analysis; without measurement or date;
without evidence of the qualifications, expertise or experience of the
person making the assertion; that “This separation distance alone is
more than sufficient to neutralise / dilute any minor trace benzene
particulates to such a degree and to be undetectable.” This assertion is
no more than an unsubstantiated opinion and insufficient grounds on
which to approve the Development given that the setback distances
proposed in this development do not come close to meeting best
practice either here, in Australia, or overseas.

 

25