On June 26 the Port of Hastings Corporation (PoHC) lodged a new referral for the Victorian Renewable Energy Terminal, to set up Victoria’s Offshore Windfarms in Bass Strait.
As the project is proposed within the Western Port Ramsar Wetland, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, this referral is a necessary step for the project to begin Commonwealth environmental assessment, as approvals are required if the project is to proceed.
The PoHC has undertaken preliminary environmental assessments and studies to inform the referral, and their EPBC referral is now available on the EPBC Act Public Portal.
It will be open for public comment for 10 business days, until Weds July 9.
Save Westernport urges our members and supporters to make a quick submission while the referral is open for public comment, saying the project MUST BE Assessed as A CONTROLLED ACTION under the EPBC Act (1999).
Why? Because this would be an enormous project in Westernport Bay, with significant potential environmental and social impacts needing careful assessment.
To assist in navigating the documentation attached to the EPBC referral, PoHC has prepared a reader’s guide and a virtual tour video to make the material more accessible and easier to navigate.
The video can be accessed either on their EPBC webpage here, or on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAwsl82PFQk&t
The Port of Hastings’ reader’s guide can also be accessed directly on their resources page here: https://renewableenergyterminal.com.au/community/resources.
You may recall that former Environment Minister Tania Plibersek REJECTED the Port of Hastings Corp’s original referral for the construction and operation of the proposed Windfarm Terminal because she found the project’s impacts on Western Port would be “clearly unacceptable”.
We know that Victoria’s Renewable Energy Terminal or V-RET would operate 24/7 to set up offshore Windfarms in time to meet the government’s emissions reduction targets. The resulting increase in shipping volumes in the Port would inevitably mobilise sediment and increase turbidity. Both are known causes of dieback in mangroves, seagrass and other marine species
When the Federal Minister for the Environment determined that the Terminal as proposed in the 2023 Referral would have ‘clearly unacceptable’ impacts, the Minister provided a ‘Statement of Reasons’ document that outlined why the Terminal Project could not proceed.
In response to the Minister’s decision and Statement of Reasons, the PoHC claims to have developed a substantially modified Project. Att 1 Statement of Reasons, that they say sets out how the design and assessment of the Project specifically addresses each of the issues identified in Minister Plibersek’s comprehensive Statement of Reasons for her 2024 decision to reject the original EPBC referral.
You can use your submission to tell the federal government that Westernport’s unique environment must not be compromised or degraded for any reason— particularly not for a project aimed at creating “sustainable energy”, which was initially rejected based on serious environmental concerns.
The PoHC’s reports on the project’s marine and bird life studies etc are available on the EPBC website for comment now:
See referral # 2025/10224 on the EPBC website:
https://epbcpublicportal.environment.gov.au/all-referrals/
Make your submission as brief or as detailed as you want, but remember to lodge it on the EPBC website BEFORE July 9th 2025
If you need more time to comment, please contact the Referrals Gateway team:
- Email: EPBC.Referrals@dcceew.gov.au
- Phone: 1800 423 135 between 9am and 5pm
Let them know that you intend to make a submission and request an extension.
The enormous extent of this proposal is evident in the Port of Hastings Corporation’s Project Description from their referral:
Proposed Action – This New Referral
PoHC proposes to develop and operate additional infrastructure within the existing port to serve as a laydown and assembly area for the development of Offshore Wind (OSW) along the coast of Victoria, to support meeting State and Commonwealth renewable energy generation targets. The Project would include onshore development, land reclamation, construction of a quay wall and apron and dredging. The Project would consist primarily of heavy-duty pavements or concrete decking on existing and reclaimed land and supported by piles. The Project would allow for storage of cargo and associated handling equipment for the pre-assembly of OSW components.
The Project Area is approximately 148.8ha with a Disturbance Footprint of 76.3ha.
The proposed Project comprises onshore and marine components, where ‘onshore’ refers to the final form of the Project (i.e. it includes reclaimed land).
The onshore component would be approximately 43 hectares (ha) in size (25ha of the existing Old Tyabb Reclamation Area (OTRA) site and 18ha of newly reclaimed land) and be made up of the following key areas:
Operational area – Approximately 37ha; and
Quay apron – Approximately 6ha; and
Revetment required to the north and south of the reclamation area.
The marine components comprise the:
Quay wall;
Shipping channel;
Berth pocket; and
Swing basin.
Key onshore and marine components that would make up the Project are shown in Att 2, Fig 3,p10.
The construction of the Project would require onshore and marine works. The sequence of the onshore works would comprise:
OTRA (Old Tyabb Reclamation Area) site clearance
Ground improvement work
Establishment of site offices, warehouse and car parks
Service installation
Pavement laying
The marine works would include:
Quay wall establishment (retaining structure)
Reclamation
Dredging and scour protection.
The sequencing of marine works is dependent on the final design.
Construction
The final construction methodology is under development and will be progressed through the preparation of the Project’s impact assessment.
Ground improvement
Ground improvement is required to ensure the ground surface at the Terminal would be sufficient to handle the heavy loads of OSW equipment. Due to varying existing ground conditions and site constraints, four ground improvement methodologies may to be implemented at different areas to reduce post-construction settlement. These include:
Surcharging – Importing a layer of fill, known as surcharge, across an area to accelerate consolidation of soils beneath the load.
Dynamic Compaction – Use of High Energy Impact Compaction to enhance soil density and strength by applying repeated high-energy impact
Mass Soil Mixing – Mechanically blending in-situ soil with stabilising agents, such as cement or lime, to increase strength, stiffness and durability
Mudcrete – Mixing dredged marine sediments with stabilising agents, such as cement or slag-lime blends, to produce a stronger, more stable fill material.
Quay Wall
The retaining structure proposed is a steel piled quay wall. The configuration outlined in the attachments is a twin wall quay structure comprising of two parallel rows of piles driven into the ground and connected by a system of tie rods at one or more levels. The space between the walls is generally filled with granular materials such as sand or gravel. The twin wall quay structure would be largely constructed by floating plant (pile driving rigs on barges). As the design progresses, variations on a steel piled quay wall will be investigated. An alternative configuration is to undertake all reclamation works initially and then construct the quay wall by land-based piling rigs. These, and potentially other similar configurations will be assessed during the impact assessment process to determine the optimal solution.
Reclamation
The reclamation process would operate in parallel with the dredging program. Prior to any reclamation works a 1,100m long temporary silt curtain would be installed around the planned reclaimed area to mitigate turbidity plumes from the reclamation process.
Dredging
For the Terminal to support the development of OSW, the approach channel depth would need to be deepened to account for tide changes and vessel draught. As a result, dredging would be required:
Adjacent to the berth – deepening of the berth pocket would allow vessels to moor at all states of tide. A layer of scour protection rock would be installed to prevent seabed disturbance caused by vessel propellers, bow and side thrusters
In areas of the approach channel and swing basin – to widen and deepen these areas so that the supply and offshore installation vessels can pass safely. This would consist of localised dredging (in specific areas) to ensure that at low states of tide, a navigable water depth is maintained within the channel
Dredging would be undertaken by a medium sized backhoe dredge, with a bucket of approximately 5m3 and three hopper barges. Dredging works would take place 24/7, dredged material will be transported to the reclamation area and incorporated into the new landform once the dredge material is treated.
The Project description (Att 2 Project Description) and preliminary impact assessments included in this referral have assumed that dredging would be required to develop the berth pocket, approach channel and swing basin and would be completed in a single campaign which would take approximately 5 months. Depending on the outcome of further studies and refinement of the project design, there is a possibility that the berth pocket and quay wall will need to be deepened further to ensure that the seabed is stable enough to support the legs of jack up vessels. The amount of material required to be removed in this location will depend on the results of further geotechnical testing and impact assessment.
Operations
Onshore operational activities would typically include receival, storage, inspection, fit out and transport of large numbers of the foundation units (FOUs), wind turbine generators (WTGs) and electrical components. The operational area needs considerable storage capacity to stockpile large numbers of units due to the vulnerability of a long international supply chain.
OSW farm construction can be categorised into two separate scopes: the assembly and installation of FOUs and the assembly and installation of WTGs. The Terminal has been designed to accommodate both the assembly and installation of FOUs and the assembly and installation of WTGs at the same time within certain criteria and limitations.
The onshore load-on and load-off operations and movement around the Terminal would largely be facilitated by self-propelled modular transporters (SPMTs) and high-capacity cranes.
The key components of an OSW turbine and foundation would be shipped to the Terminal and stored and partially assembled on site. The following OSW equipment will likely be stored, prepared and partially assembled for OSW farm installation:
Monopile and transition pieces
Jackets and pin piles
WTG towers
Blades
Nacelles
There are four distinct design vessel types that could transport and install turbines and foundations that would use the Terminal:
WTG offshore installation vessels
FOU offshore installation vessels
Semi-submersible roll on roll off (RORO) vessels
General cargo vessels
Typical OSW farm development would require use of the Terminal as an assembly port for a minimum two-year period. The construction of such a wind farm would comprise the following:
General cargo vessels would deliver the pin piles to the Terminal. Semi-submersible RORO vessels would deliver jacket foundations
Jack up installation vessel would pick up pin piles at the Terminal and install them at an OSW farm
Foundation installation vessel would load-in jacket foundations at the Terminal and install them at an OSW farm
WTG transportation vessels would deliver WTG components (blades, nacelles, tower sections) to the Terminal and tower sections would be assembled
WTG offshore installation vessel would load components at the Terminal and install them at an OSW farm
Maintenance Dredging and Seabed Levelling
It is not anticipated that regular maintenance dredging would be required as part of Terminal operations. The last recorded maintenance dredging program at the Port was in 1994 in the main shipping channel. Seabed levelling may be required, however has been historically infrequent in Western Port due to limited sediment build up as a result of fast moving currents.
Decommissioning
Decommissioning of the Terminal isn’t likely in the foreseeable future. The history of port assets of this scale and nature is that they are repurposed and upgraded. The design life of the facility is 50 years, with ongoing maintenance required if decommissioning is not likely to occur.
Related activities – Shipping Channel and Anchorage
It is necessary to amend the mapping of the shipping channel and nearby anchorage area should the Terminal be approved. At this stage, these changes have not been defined, however they will be near the existing shipping channel and anchorage and wholly within the declared Port of Hastings limits. Amendments to anchorages are implemented by Ports Victoria.”
* Save Westernport has repeatedly requested the selection criteria that the State government used to determine that the Port of Hastings was their “preferred location” for Victoria’s Renewable Energy Terminal (VRET) proposal.
Despite the PoHC’s claim that no other suitable locations are possible, we know that alternative sites do exist. With a unique, internationally recognised wetland at risk, we’re convinced that cost alone should not be the sole factor in naming Westernport as the preferred location.
