Case StudyRhodes Peninsula

SydneyAustralia

A Case Study on Rhodes• Rhodes Peninsula sites• Why is EPA involved in Rhodes Peninsula?• Regulatory role of EPA • Who is involved in EPA regulatory activities?• Regulatory framework• Site history, regulation and remediation• Regulatory procedures• Regulation time line• ITD vs DHTD• Remediation concept implications• Remediation concept, scope and cost

Key acronyms• CCO – Chemical control order• CLM – Contaminated Land Management Act• CoI – Commission of Inquiry• DEC – Department of Environment &

Conservation• DIPNR – Department of Infrastructure Planning

and Natural Resources• EHC – Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act• EIS – Environmental impact statement • EP&A – Environmental Planning and Assessment Act• GTAs – General Terms of Approval• IDA – Integrated development and assessment• POEO – Protection of the Environment Operations Act • RAP – Remedial action plan • SCW – Scheduled Chemical Waste• SPCC – State Pollution Control Commission (precursor to EPA)• SRoH – Significant risk of harm• VRA – Voluntary remediation agreement

Sydney Harbour,

NSW

Why is EPA involved in Rhodes?

• Numerous old contaminated industrial sites• Broad range of contaminants

– Lead, phthalates, hydrocarbons, dioxinbenzenes, phenols, herbicides, pesticides

• Posing risk for current and proposed uses• Sites require remediation• EPA involved in

– assessment of risk posed by sites– regulation of sites– licensing & monitoring of remediation activities

Regulatory Role of the EPA

• Determining if a site poses a SRoH to human health or environment under CLM

• Regulating site under CLM if required• Assessing remediation proposals under EP&A

and IDA• Assessing remediation treatment technologies• Licensing remediation and treatment works

under POEO and EHC• Monitoring and enforcement of licences• Assessing remediation outcomes for suitability

for proposed future uses

Who does the regulation?

EPA Contaminated Sites Technical Officer –responsible for

• Site assessment and determination of SRoH• Preparation of declarations for sites posing

SRoH• Assessment of RAP • Assessment of remediation outcomes and

justification for removal of SRoH• Decision on need for ongoing monitoring or

further remediation

Who assesses the EIS Risk Assessment

EPA Scientific officer – responsible for• Assessing acceptability of ecological and

human health risk assessment, based on either– Relevant recognised remediation levels, or– Site specific risk assessment

• Review of derived site remediation criteria

• Consideration of remediation concept

Who assesses EIS remediation proposal

EPA Scientific officer – responsible for assessing• Acceptability of treatment technology from a

chemical/process engineering perspective including treatment outcomes

• Procedures for handling contaminated materials

• Acceptability of remediation and treatment air emissions, noise levels and waste management procedures

• Management of site ground and surface water, including catchment, treatment, use and disposal

Regulatory Framework Key Legislation

• Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (CLM Act)

• Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act)

• Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act 1985 (EHC Act)

• Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)

Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (CLM Act)

• Provides regulatory framework and authority for:– Requiring notification by site owner or

occupier of high risk contaminated sites – Assessing site contamination for SRoH– Regulating sites through voluntary

agreements or proscription to investigate and remediate

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act)• Provides the framework for licensing

many industrial processes (scheduled activities) including contaminated soil treatment works

• Based on type and scale of operation• Provides EPA powers of regulation

and enforcement• POEO licences required for Union

Carbide and Allied Feeds sites remediation works because of nature of work and scale of operations

Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act 1985 (EHC Act)

• Sets legislative framework for controlling chemicals and wastes that are hazardous to human health and the environment, eg:– Dioxin – Schedules Chemicals such as Organo-chlorines,

DDT, DDE – PCB

• Chemical Control Orders under CLM are significant tool for control/regulation for PCBs, Dioxin and SCW

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)• Provides framework & guidance to State and

Local government planning and consent bodies on environmental protection issues

• Provides planning approval powers for such consent bodies

• Controls Integrated Development Assessment (IDA) process involving multiple agency approvals for large scale activities often licensed under POEO such as soil treatment works

Key planning policies & guidelines

• State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 (SEPP 55) : Remediation of Land 1998

• Managing land contamination Planning Guidelines – SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

• Sydney Region Environmental Plan 29 for redevelopment of Rhodes Peninsula (SREP 29)

Rhodes Historical UsesHistory, Regulation,

Remediation1. Berger Paint Factory (Orica)2. Bay sediments (Orica)3. CSR Chemicals plant (Orica)4. Union Carbide chemicals plant5. Bay sediments (Union Carbide)6. Allied Feeds flour mill7. Glad retail products factory

1. Berger Paints (Orica)

• History– Lead based paint manufacture– Later water and resin based paints– Closed in 1997

• Regulation– EPA issued notice requiring RAP under

Pollution Control Act– Concord Council approved remediation for

potential re-zoning for residential and commercial

Berger Paints (Orica)

• Remediation – Initially some lead cleaning of

contaminated soil considered but not successful

– Final choice was removal and secure landfill in mono-cells of lead contaminated soil

• Outstanding issues– Un-remediated lead contaminated

sediments remain in Homebush Bay

2. Berger Paints sediments (Orica)

• History– Sediments front along western boundary

of site– Subject to storm water and waste water

impact from paint factory– Sediments now impacted with high lead

levels (up to 90,000ppm)

Berger Paints sediments (Orica)

• Regulation– Site remediation consent, required risk

assessment to be submitted to EPA for approval

– Risk assessment concluded low bio-availability of lead and acceptable risk

– EPA and Health did not accept level of risk– EPA found SRoH due to levels of lead and

declared area an investigation site– Further investigation completed– Remediation now agreed, VRA finalised

3. CSR Chemicals (Orica)

• History– Wide range of hydrocarbon production– High levels of phthalates, other

hydrocarbons and odour issues– Site heavily contaminated– Groundwater contamination

• Regulation– As for Berger site

CSR Chemicals (Orica)

• Remediation– Opportunity for use of bio-remediation– Land farming successful – No work required on sediments as

phthalates present are degrading at an acceptable rate

• Outstanding issues– Seawall not remediated retains significant

levels of phthalates & hydrocarbons– Who will own seawall and manage it

4. Union Carbide

• History– Herbicide, insecticide and other diverse

chemical production– Major portions of land reclaimed using

contaminated wastes– Organo-chlorine contamination

• Chlorinated benzenes and phenols• Herbicides (Agent Orange)• Insecticides DDT, DDE etc• Dioxins

Union Carbide

• Regulation– SPCC notice under s.25 of EHC in 1987

for investigation– Notices issued under EHC in 1988 for

remediation– Site remediated for industrial use

completed 1993– EPA s.35 notice under EHC for long

term monitoring 1994– EPA notice changed to s.28 CLM

monitoring and containment

Union Carbide• Remediation

– 1998-1993 excavation – Some removal to landfill– Containment in on-site cells and capping– Monitoring

• Outstanding issues– Not remediated to residential standards– Large volume of contaminated material

remains on site– Potential for groundwater problems– Not determined as posing SRoH

5. Union Carbide Bay Sediments• History

– Impacted by runoff, leachate and groundwater from land reclamation materials and operations

– Chemical spills from barging activities– Heavily contaminated with dioxin, chlorinated

benzenes, phenols, herbicides and pesticides• Regulation

– Investigated through 1990’s and 2000’s– Determined SRoH under CLM 1998 – Declared remediation site under CLM 1998– Total fishing ban invoked for Homebush Bay

6. Allied Feeds• History

– Former flour mill– Close to half of site reclaimed using

contaminated waste from Union Carbide and elsewhere

• Regulation– SPCC uses s.35 of EHC for no disturbance

notice– 2001 EPA assesses under CLM and finds

SRoH– No declaration by EPA as owner agrees to

remediation controlled under planning process

7. Glad Site• History

– Contaminated in some areas from fill (Union Carbide waste)

– Used for retail products manufacture• Regulation

– Remediation regulated by DIPNR• Remediation

– Excavation and most to secure landfill– Worst material for thermal treatment

Parliamentary intervention for Rhodes• In 2001 NSW Upper House Standing Committee

on State Development calls inquiry into Rhodes• Inquiry proceeds through late 2001 and early

2002• Submissions by Govt Depts, residents,

remediators, conservation groups• Major issues are dioxin and thermal treatment

processes• Report with 33 recommendations published

mid-2002• Government response not published to date

Regulation procedures for Union Carbide and Allied Feeds Site’s Remediation

• Managed under IDA • Consent authority is Planning (DIPNR)• Development Application required with

EIS including Risk assessment & RAP• Planning seeks Director General’s

requirements from EPA and other Depts for EIS

• SREP 29 and SEPP 55 main guidance documents

EIS requirements by EPAAlso known as Director General’s requirements• Site risk assessment based on detailed site data

and development of remediation goals in accordance with National Environmental Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (NEPM)

• Comprehensive RAP with Auditor sign off• For ITD or DHTD - demonstrate conformance to

National Protocol Approval/Licensing of Commercial Scale Facilities for the Treatment/Disposal of Schedule X Wastes (ANZECC 1994)

• Conformance to EPA treatment goals and emission limits for air, water, noise and waste

Regulation procedures for Union Carbide and Allied Feeds

• EIS assessed by Planning, EPA, Health etc• Planning calls for Commission of Inquiry (CoI)• CoI takes submission from

– Proponent– Government Depts– Public– EPA Draft GTAs, Planning consent terms

• CoI reports to Minister on project with recommendations and consent advice

• Planning advises Minister on consent• Consent granted

Approvals and Licences

• Project is given consent by Minister for Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources

• Consent includes detailed conditions and is issued by Planning

• Applicant applies to EPA for POEO and EHC Licences for– Remediation and soil treatment works– Handling hazardous chemical materials

Remediation Regulation Time line

2nd & 3rd Qtrs 2004

2nd & 3rd Qtrs 2004

EPA Licence negotiations

May 2003 November 2003

March 2003 July 2003

CoI – commenced – reported

20002001Assessing site

December and February 2002/3

July and October 2002

EIS and DA submitted

2nd half 20042nd half 2004Commence work

May 2004October 2003Consent granted

October 2001January 2002EPA issued DG Requirements

Union CarbideAllied Feeds

Thermal Treatment - ITD vs DHTD

Lower – (more soil treated)

Higher - (less soil treated)

Unit cost

Requires tight process control to limit air emissions

Produces condensate for 2nd stage treatmentLess soil treated

Weakness

HigherLowerLevel of treatment

High volume requires very efficient process to limit dioxin etc.

High volume low contaminants due to indirect firing

Air emissions particularly dioxin

DHTDITD + BCD/Plasma Arc

Remediation concept implications

All material treated to 1.4 ppb dioxin

Top 1 metre layer dioxin level 0.084 ppb Lower levels have much higher dioxin levels

Material placement

Smaller contaminated volume, all material treated

Much larger volume, only 27% material treated

Cost implications

All material treated to more stringent level

Treatment level less stringent

Treatment levels

Dioxin emissions to air more contentious

Dioxin emissions lowerEmissions

Treat all with DHTD Treat some with ITD

Remediation concepts, scope and cost

$20-25M$60-65 M$30-40 M$20-30 MCost est.

$5.5-5.9

11

350,000

ITD & BCD

Thermally treat worst

material

Union Carbide

$0.9-1.4

22

60,000

Biological treatment

Land farm hydrocarbon

sRemove lead

Orica

66Area (ha)

Remove & replace 0.5m and treat or bury on land

Thermally treat all impacted

Remediation Concept

27,00077,000Volume (m3)

$3.3-4.2$5-6.7Unit cost ( M/ha)

ITD & BCDDHTDTreatment technology

Bay sediments

Allied Feeds

Further Information

• http://rhodesnsw.org/