Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, as we know, it has previously been revealed that
the two hundred and seventy million dollar Project Camus tanks
built on Darwin Harbor were constructed without a building certificate
not suitable to withstand a Category three cyclone. Then last month,
we know the Environment Center NT wrote to the Environment
Department to raise concerns that the US military fuel tanks
(00:21):
are not structurally sound. Now, according to a report by
the ABC, who have covered this story pretty extensively, Minister
Bourgoyne granted an exemption from occupancy certification to approve the
tanks the following day, on the fourth of September, so
the following day after that letter. Now joining us on
the line is the Environment Center's Kirsty Howe. Good morning
(00:42):
to you.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Kirsty, Good morning Katie. How are you?
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Yeah, really good, Thanks so much for your time. Now,
can you just explain to us in plane terms, what
exactly is going wrong with the safety liner on these
tanks and how groundwater is leaking through. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Well, look what we received evidence of, and this was
from a pretty brave whistleblower, was that there were tests
done of the liner that exists at the bottom of
the tanks, and you need that liner obviously to keep
what's in the tanks, which is pretty toxic it's military
(01:21):
grade fuel, from seeping into groundwater. And it's obviously right
there on the banks of the harbor, like the mangroves
are just there. So to keep the harbor safe and
to keep the environment safe, you've got to have impermeable
liners in place. And we were really troubled to receive
these tests which indicated that actually they were not structurally sound.
(01:44):
They would leak. And there has been reporting in the
past of groundwater making its way into the tanks which
suggested a leak. But the new evidence suggested that this
wasn't a thing that had been fixed, it was an
ongoing problem. So we wrote to the NTEPA and to
Minister Bourgoin about it.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
And what was the response from both.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Look, we were really surprised because literally the day after
we sent this evidence, which we thought was very serious,
Minister Burgoyne did provide a form of exemption under building
regulations for the tanks and basically said, you know, I've
approved these and said quite publicly that they were structurally sound,
(02:29):
that they had the capacity to hold that fuel. So
you know, we took that at faith value, and were
very surprised to receive a letter from the regulator, the
Northern Churchy Regulator, indicating that that wasn't the case, that
confirmed that the tanks had the capacity to leak, that
the problem hadn't been fixed, there were ongoing repairs happening,
(02:50):
and our view was, well, both things can't be the same.
You cannot have as Minister Burgoyne said, the leak been fixed,
and at the same time the regulators saying it had
been but both things can't be true.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
So as it currently stands, how many of those fuel
tanks do you understand to be leaking and what kind
of volume of leakage are we talking here?
Speaker 2 (03:15):
Well, when we received the correspondence, one of the things
we said was, look, can you please give us assurance
that the tanks won't be filled until this problem is
solved to the satisfaction of the public. And we didn't
get that. We didn't get that in the response to us,
and we were really surprised to learn actually yesterday in
the reporting by ABC, that four of the tanks have
(03:36):
been filled and that repairs may be ongoing for the rest.
So it's really difficult to say what the risk is
to the harbor, to the environment. You know, we don't
have modeling that indicates what could happen, but it does
seem to be a really high order of risk and
we really think the Minister has to explain himself here.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
So from the evidence or from the info that you
guys have got based on you know, the tanks or
what is leaking? Does that you know? Are you fearful
that you know that the repair work that's maybe getting
underway is not like that it actually needs to happen
on all of those tanks.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Yeah, that's right. I mean, it's really difficult for us
to tell. We don't have all the information. We only
have some of the information that's then provided. But we've
had confirmed there's a problem that some of the tanks
are leaking. There has not been real transparency about this,
so you know, we'd like to see that. We'd like
to see full disclosure of everything that the Minister is
(04:38):
placing his decision making on. And we think that really
there does need to be an investigation into this because
we've got just this rolling series of scandals that were
builded built illegally. They may not withstand cyclones higher than
a category three and now we've got evidence that they're
continuing to leak and could leak into the future. So
(05:00):
kind of I think enough's enough. The community needs to
know that harbor's too precious. We're talking about people's safety
as well. Here. You know, something's got to give here.
There needs to be a concession by the government.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
So what do you think needs to happen now? I mean,
do these tanks need to be shut down until the
problem is properly fixed? What needs to happen from your perspective.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Look, I don't think the tanks should be filled. I
think that needs to be stopped and the problem needs
to be fixed. Now, I'm not an expert in how
you fix tanks. That's sort of not my gig. It
would take a lot of expertise, But you know, they
do need to be fixed. They shouldn't be leaking. If
it costs a lot of money to do that, then
that money should be spent. These are It's a very
(05:45):
expensive project, as you mentioned, two hundred and seventy million dollars.
It is ultimately owned and operated and will be used
by the US government Department of Defense. Surely they can
find it in themselves to fix this problem. And really
we would expect our politicians to hold them to the
highest possible standard in the middle of Dalen Harbor, which
(06:06):
is so precious.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Well, Environment Center NT executive director Kirsty Howie, really appreciate
your time this morning. Thank you very much for having
a chat with us.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Thanks so much, Katie, thank you
Well, as we know, it has previously been revealed that
the two hundred and seventy million dollar Project Camus tanks
built on Darwin Harbor were constructed without a building certificate
not suitable to withstand a Category three cyclone. Then last month,
we know the Environment Center NT wrote to the Environment
Department to raise concerns that the US military fuel tanks
(00:21):
are not structurally sound. Now, according to a report by
the ABC, who have covered this story pretty extensively, Minister
Bourgoyne granted an exemption from occupancy certification to approve the
tanks the following day, on the fourth of September, so
the following day after that letter. Now joining us on
the line is the Environment Center's Kirsty Howe. Good morning
(00:42):
to you.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Kirsty, Good morning Katie. How are you?
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Yeah, really good, Thanks so much for your time. Now,
can you just explain to us in plane terms, what
exactly is going wrong with the safety liner on these
tanks and how groundwater is leaking through. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Well, look what we received evidence of, and this was
from a pretty brave whistleblower, was that there were tests
done of the liner that exists at the bottom of
the tanks, and you need that liner obviously to keep
what's in the tanks, which is pretty toxic it's military
(01:21):
grade fuel, from seeping into groundwater. And it's obviously right
there on the banks of the harbor, like the mangroves
are just there. So to keep the harbor safe and
to keep the environment safe, you've got to have impermeable
liners in place. And we were really troubled to receive
these tests which indicated that actually they were not structurally sound.
(01:44):
They would leak. And there has been reporting in the
past of groundwater making its way into the tanks which
suggested a leak. But the new evidence suggested that this
wasn't a thing that had been fixed, it was an
ongoing problem. So we wrote to the NTEPA and to
Minister Bourgoin about it.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
And what was the response from both.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Look, we were really surprised because literally the day after
we sent this evidence, which we thought was very serious,
Minister Burgoyne did provide a form of exemption under building
regulations for the tanks and basically said, you know, I've
approved these and said quite publicly that they were structurally sound,
(02:29):
that they had the capacity to hold that fuel. So
you know, we took that at faith value, and were
very surprised to receive a letter from the regulator, the
Northern Churchy Regulator, indicating that that wasn't the case, that
confirmed that the tanks had the capacity to leak, that
the problem hadn't been fixed, there were ongoing repairs happening,
(02:50):
and our view was, well, both things can't be the same.
You cannot have as Minister Burgoyne said, the leak been fixed,
and at the same time the regulators saying it had
been but both things can't be true.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
So as it currently stands, how many of those fuel
tanks do you understand to be leaking and what kind
of volume of leakage are we talking here?
Speaker 2 (03:15):
Well, when we received the correspondence, one of the things
we said was, look, can you please give us assurance
that the tanks won't be filled until this problem is
solved to the satisfaction of the public. And we didn't
get that. We didn't get that in the response to us,
and we were really surprised to learn actually yesterday in
the reporting by ABC, that four of the tanks have
(03:36):
been filled and that repairs may be ongoing for the rest.
So it's really difficult to say what the risk is
to the harbor, to the environment. You know, we don't
have modeling that indicates what could happen, but it does
seem to be a really high order of risk and
we really think the Minister has to explain himself here.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
So from the evidence or from the info that you
guys have got based on you know, the tanks or
what is leaking? Does that you know? Are you fearful
that you know that the repair work that's maybe getting
underway is not like that it actually needs to happen
on all of those tanks.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Yeah, that's right. I mean, it's really difficult for us
to tell. We don't have all the information. We only
have some of the information that's then provided. But we've
had confirmed there's a problem that some of the tanks
are leaking. There has not been real transparency about this,
so you know, we'd like to see that. We'd like
to see full disclosure of everything that the Minister is
(04:38):
placing his decision making on. And we think that really
there does need to be an investigation into this because
we've got just this rolling series of scandals that were
builded built illegally. They may not withstand cyclones higher than
a category three and now we've got evidence that they're
continuing to leak and could leak into the future. So
(05:00):
kind of I think enough's enough. The community needs to
know that harbor's too precious. We're talking about people's safety
as well. Here. You know, something's got to give here.
There needs to be a concession by the government.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
So what do you think needs to happen now? I mean,
do these tanks need to be shut down until the
problem is properly fixed? What needs to happen from your perspective.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Look, I don't think the tanks should be filled. I
think that needs to be stopped and the problem needs
to be fixed. Now, I'm not an expert in how
you fix tanks. That's sort of not my gig. It
would take a lot of expertise, But you know, they
do need to be fixed. They shouldn't be leaking. If
it costs a lot of money to do that, then
that money should be spent. These are It's a very
(05:45):
expensive project, as you mentioned, two hundred and seventy million dollars.
It is ultimately owned and operated and will be used
by the US government Department of Defense. Surely they can
find it in themselves to fix this problem. And really
we would expect our politicians to hold them to the
highest possible standard in the middle of Dalen Harbor, which
(06:06):
is so precious.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Well, Environment Center NT executive director Kirsty Howie, really appreciate
your time this morning. Thank you very much for having
a chat with us.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Thanks so much, Katie, thank you
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com