Chapter 3 Issues and Conclusions
Options Considered
3.1
In its main submission Defence states that:
While other options were considered for home basing the Multi
Role Tanker Transport, RAAF Base Amberley is considered as the only viable
location…[1]
The Committee sought more information on the other options considered by Defence, as they were not
listed in its main submission.
3.2
Due to the confidential nature of some of the options, Defence could not
provide detailed specifics of the options considered, however did mention that
a number of options were considered. Current Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT)
location of RAAF Base Richmond was one option that was considered, but was
ruled out due to the physical limitations for the operation of the newer and
larger aircraft. The option of operating from a commercial airfield was also
examined, but ruled out on financial and operational grounds.[2]
3.3
Defence continued that as the primary role of the MRTT aircraft is
air-to-air refuelling of aircraft based at Amberley and Williamtown, RAAF Base
Amberley represented a more cost effective option. Defence reassured the Committee that the work and research undertaken within Defence indicated RAAF Base Amberley as
the optimum location.[3]
MRTT Location on Base
3.4
On the site inspection, the Committee viewed the proposed specific
location for the MRTT aircraft accommodation on base. The Committee was interested in what options Defence had considered for the specific location of the
MRTT aircraft on the Base. Defence explained that it had considered various
locations on Base, however ran into issues of aircraft parking aprons being too
soft for the large MRTT aircraft, and the requirement for extensive
modifications to existing taxiways. Cost and constructability issues led
Defence to choose the area adjacent to the 38 Squadron as the location for the
MRTT aircraft accommodation.[4]
Project Delivery
3.5
Defence states in its main submission that subject to parliamentary
approval, the redevelopment of RAAF Base Amberley is to commence in the latter
half of 2005 and completed by December 2007.[5] The Committee sought reassurance that pending parliamentary approval, Defence could deliver the
project in the stated time frame.
3.6
Defence responded that it had used individual consultants and contractors
for the three elements of the project: the MRTT works; the base services
infrastructure; and the 9th Force Support Battalion (9FSB) project.
Defence added that, subject to parliamentary approval, the works could commence
quickly and completed as scheduled.[6]
Contracting Methodology
3.7
The Committee sought more detail on the contracting methodology employed
by Defence for the project. Defence commented that in selecting particular
contractors and contracting methodologies, it assessed the risk of the individual
project elements and selected an appropriate project delivery method.
3.8
For the MRRT element of the Base redevelopment, Defence have a
contractor engaged for the planning phase of the project, providing flexibility
for further negotiation. Given the 9FSB element of the project is planned to
be on a greenfield site, Defence opted for a head contractor approach which
provides better value for money and control of the project. As for the works
to the Base infrastructure, Defence opted for a managing contractor approach,
allowing for the Base’s operations to continue throughout the redevelopment.[7]
Consultation
3.9
Defence lists in its main submission organisations consulted, or that
Defence plan to consult, with regard to Base redevelopment.[8]
The Committee sought clarification on which organisations had been consulted to
date and what issues had been raised throughout the consultation process.
3.10
Defence confirmed that all organisations listed in its main submission
have been consulted. An example of consulting forum is the RAAF Amberley
strategic advisory group which was established to discuss issues regarding the
Base and also the development of the region. The group meets every two months
and comprises of representatives from the Ipswich City Council, senior executives
from the Base, the Chamber of Commerce and local industry members. All
feedback from local community, relevant agencies and the advisory group has
been positive in support of the Base redevelopment.[9]
3.11
The Ipswich Region Chamber of Commerce and Industry supported the
project and indicated that it had not received any negative feedback or
comments from the community. The Chamber added that its relationship with the
Base was very good and any issues, such as increased traffic congestion and
disturbance to the community, were addressed and communicated well.[10]
3.12
The Ipswich City Council further supported the project and informed that
the once poor communication between the Base and the Council had since greatly improved,
and the Council welcomed the opportunities of the Base redevelopment.[11]
Local Impact
Workforce
3.13
The Committee enquired, given the size of the project, whether Defence
anticipated any issues with shortage of skilled workers or supplies and
materials. Defence assured the Committee that even though it had factored
worker and material supply issues into the planning of the project, it does not
expect trouble with finding skilled workers in the area. In the event of a
skills shortage in the south-east Queensland region, Defence are confident that
it would not be difficult to attract skilled workers to the area.[12]
3.14
With regard to the workforce involved with the project, Defence states
that according to its latest estimates:
…we [Defence] are probably looking at more than 350 people
employed across the three projects when they are all up and running.[13]
Traffic Considerations
3.15
The Committee enquired as to what initiatives Defence would be
incorporating to minimise impact on the local community during the construction
phase of the project. Defence acknowledged that the Base redevelopment would
impact on the level of traffic accessing the Base. To minimise this impact, Defence
have identified a separate access point for construction traffic.[14]
3.16
Defence’s research indicates that much of the traffic flow issues would
occur between the Cunningham Highway and the construction site. This route is
used heavily by Base population, and Defence anticipate more impact on Base
population rather than the local community. Contractors have agreed with
Defence to use Southern Amberley Road to get to the construction site, thus
avoiding the Amberley State School area on Rosewood Road. Defence also look to
have traffic diverts for construction traffic so as to avoid the child-care
centre.[15] Defence expect the
highest road loading period between the months of May and June, when the
overlay work for the runway would be carried out.
Hazardous Materials
3.17
Defence’s main submission states that as part of the MRTT works, a
Maintenance Complex is proposed to accommodate equipment, personnel and
facilities. The design of the complex incorporates an external hazardous waste
collection point.[16] The Committee enquired
as to what hazardous materials would be collected, and what procedures were in
place for disposal.
3.18
Defence assured the Committee that the Base has procedures for the
handling of hazardous waste, and meet all of the standards for hazardous waste
collection and disposal. In the case of MRTT and 9FSB facilities, hazardous
waste issues mainly relate to fuel spillage. These facilities will have triple
interceptor technology incorporated into the design to capture any spillages
that may occur.[17]
3.19
Defence added that MRTT fuel tank work, where fuel spillages may occur,
is not carried out on a frequent basis. However:
The work activity is strictly controlled using appropriate
personal protection equipment and procedures. The building services inside the
hangar also allow for mechanical fuel vapour exhaust systems.[18]
Any trade waste that
is generated is collected in sump areas, treated and disposed off site. All
drum trade waste and bulk liquid waste is removed for disposal under contract.
Building Services
Building Management Systems
3.20
In its main submission Defence states that facilities on the Base will
incorporate building management systems, metering and other provisions to
monitor and measure energy use and to allow regular energy audits.[19]
The Committee sought further information on the benefits of the building
management systems and the other provisions being utilised to measure energy
use.
3.21
Defence responded that all elements of the project have complied with
the Department of the Environment and Heritage’s Ecologically Sustainable
Development Design Guide for Australian Government Buildings. Defence also
plan to incorporate multiple metering points into building design to be able to
accurately monitor energy consumption and adjust usage accordingly. Currently,
Defence have utilise a single point of metering with the supply authority to
measure and monitor energy usage.[20]
Air Conditioning
3.22
In its main submission Defence outlines that new facilities will “generally”
be air-conditioned.[21] The Committee sought
detail on exactly which facilities were to be air-conditioned and what types of
air-conditioning units would be used. Defence clarified that personnel areas
would be air-conditioned, however areas such as vehicle shelters would not. Air-conditioning
units to be used in the project make use of a mixed-mode operation system,
enabling units to utilise natural ventilation in appropriate climate
conditions. Therefore, air-conditioning would not be used unnecessarily
outside hotter and cooler periods of the year. The air-conditioning units will
be air-cooled, rather than water cooled, to ensure no danger of Legionella
Bacillus.[22]
Water Reticulation
3.23
Defence states in its main submission that none of the proposed sites
for new facilities present any particular civil engineering problems[23],
however on the site inspection Defence explained issues that had arisen with
regard to water reticulation. The Committee wanted clarification on these
issues and how Defence propose to overcome them.
3.24
Defence informed the Committee that the existing water reticulation
system has pipes that run underneath the runway. While this was suitable at the
time they were laid, the pipes have since been stressed by vehicles and
aircraft traffic and deteriorated in quality. This project addresses the water
piping issue by diverting the water main to the southern side of the airfield.
Ipswich Water also proposes to establish another water main from the northern
side of the airfield, resulting in dual feed into Base.[24]
3.25
Extensive topographical and geotechnical surveys have been, and will
continue to be, carried out to identify any potential soil or underground
services issues. Surveys have shown that some water and sewer lines require
maintenance, which will be addressed as part of this project.[25]
Security
3.26
Given the large amount of works proposed for the Base, the Committee enquired as to effect on the Base’s defence capability during the construction phase
of the project. Defence explained that whilst there will be interruptions to
Base services due to infrastructure works, the managing contractor project
delivery provides for flexibility as to how the work is staged and carried
out. Defence also assured the Committee that:
In terms of operational capability, the plans have been
worked so that we [Defence] retain our full F111 and Caribou capabilities
throughout the construction period.[26]
3.27
While on the site inspection, the Committee were shown the new site for
the electrical substation. Given the location of the new substation would be
off-base, the Committee expressed concern over possible security issues.
Defence explained to the Committee that the off-base location of the new
electrical substation provides 24-hour access to authorised electrical
technicians without having to gain access to the grounds of the Base, be it for
regular maintenance or in the case of emergency.[27]
Future Projects
3.28
Defence states in its main submission that:
…further redevelopment of RAAF Base Amberley is included in
Defence’s unapproved Major Capital Facilities program for consideration later
this decade.[28]
The Committee was interested in
what future redevelopment for RAAF Base Amberley was anticipated. Defence were
unable to elaborate in detail of future projects, however stated that subject
to parliamentary approval of the current project, further redevelopment of the
Base is anticipated. Future works would cover issues not addressed by the current
project before the Committee.[29]
3.29
Defence indicated that certain elements proposed as part of this project
will have capacity for future expansion. The design philosophy extends to
project elements such as mechanical services and building design. Buildings
will be designed to be able to handle an increase in staff number, or a change
in function.[30]
Recommendation 1 |
|
|
The Committee recommends that the proposed RAAF Base
Amberley redevelopment stage two, QLD, proceed at the estimated cost of $285.6
million.
|
Hon Judi Moylan MP
Chair
2 November 2005
