Agendas | Minutes  

Before the minutes below were confirmed some brief notes were made available. The minutes are now available and set out below.

Homebush Bay Dioxin Remediation Project
Community Liaison Group
3rd Meeting
Notes of Meeting

When: Thursday 1 November 2001, 5.30pm to 8.30 pm
Where: Rhodes Community Centre
Attendees: John Kent, Independent Chairman
Kate Hughes and John Pym, independent technical reference people
Rhodes Peninsula Group and guests
Rhodes Residents' Group and guests
Meadowbank and West Ryde Progress Association and guests
King Street Area Residents' Group and guests
Auburn Greenspace
Friends of the Earth 
Greenpeace
Nature Conservation Council
Sydney Olympic Park Authority and guests
City of Canada Bay, Cr Pauline Tyrell and Darryn Westman
Doug Moss and John Hunt, Thiess Services
Jo Robertson, Rowena Lennings and Sara Phillips, PPK Environment & Infrastructure

Guest Speaker: Bill Troxler, Focus Environmental
Apologies: Andrew Komli, Liberty Grove Community Group

Notes
Chair's Introduction
The chair noted that the main business of the meeting was the examination of alternative thermal remediation technologies. For this purpose Thiess has engaged Mr Bill Troxler, a specialist from the United States, to come to Australia to address the CLG. Mr Troxler is an expert with an international reputation on thermal treatment technologies, he has extensive experience in the remediation of contaminated and abandoned sites ((Superfund Sites) in the USA. He also contributes and reviews guidance documents for the US Environment Protection Authority. 
It was emphasised that while Mr Troxler would compare and contrast three thermal treatment technologies, (incineration and both direct and indirect thermal desorption) only the two thermal desorption technologies are being considered for the Homebush Bay remediation. 
CLG participants were invited to take the information presented by Mr Troxler back to their respective community/environment groups in order to ascertain their groups' considered opinion. It was noted that understanding the perspective and preferences of the organisations represented on the CLG regarding the two prospective remediation technologies is a crucial component of the EIS consultation process.

1. The meeting commenced with the discussion of the previous meeting record.
The previous meeting record was accepted with the following amendments: 
1.1 It was noted in the previous meeting record that the 1997 EPA's State of the Environment Report had nominated the levels of metals in Homebush Bay as having a detrimental ecological impact. The word ecological should be changed to biological. 
1.2 The question was noted in the previous meeting record of how the "fill" would be homogenised. This question referred to all the material going through the remediation process, not just the fill. 
Response: A pre-treatment process that homogenises all the material going through the remediation process will take place in an enclosure. The enclosure will be fitted with negative pressure entrance/exits and carbon filters.
1.3 The King Street Residents' Group should be correctly noted as the King Street Area Residents Group.
1.4 Louise Hayes from the Meadowbank West Ryde Progress Association has been wrongly noted as Lisa Hayes in Household Update No. 2.

2. Matters Arising
The adequacy of dust and particulate constraints was noted for discussion in the future. This topic will be one of the main focuses of the CLG meeting scheduled to examine the environmental management plan. 

3. Ongoing Consultation
3.1 Sara Phillips from PPK outlined recent activities including the letterbox delivery of Household Update No. 2 and the local newspaper advertising of the site open morning.
3.2 CLG Terms of Reference
Rowena Lennings asked for comments and input from CLG members to the Terms of Reference to allow her to consolidate all comments for discussion at the next CLG meeting. 
The fact that the current landowner was not represented on the CLG was raised as a concern in view of the possibility that the landowner and the remediation contractor may come into conflict at some stage of the process. CLG members were asked to consider this matter for discussion at the next meeting.

3. Paul Hanly's email
It was agreed that the content of Paul Hanly's email relates to the primary subject matter of the next meeting, the Health Risk Assessment, and would be considered at that time.

4. Parliamentary Inquiry
It was noted that Thiess welcome the Upper House Inquiry and look forward to being able to assist the Parliament. Further, the EIS studies and Remediation Action Plan currently being worked on will address many of the issues raised in the Inquiry's terms of reference. There is therefore good synergy between the Inquiry and the EIS work. 
A copy of the Motion raised by The Hon. Ian Cohen is attached for the information of CLG members.

5. Thermal remediation methods - general overview
Presentation materials referred to by Mr Bill Troxler were distributed to participants at the meeting. 
Issues and Questions
5.1 US EPA Dioxin remediation standards
Is a re-evaluation of the US EPA Dioxin Standard underway in view of the draft report produced in 1998 that identified dioxins as being ten times more dangerous than previously believed? 
Response: No a re-evaluation is not underway. The US EPA standard for dioxin remediation is currently 1 part per billion. This is considered to be a very conservative standard. The report referred to is still in draft form after several years. 
5.2 Condensed organics 
What happens to the condensed organics in the off gas?
Response: See Slide 21. The gas goes through a condenser and carbon filters to collect the organics. Recovered water is also treated with activated carbon. These residuals then go on to a further destructive process.
5.3 Geomelt 
Could Geomelt (electrically heated soil - in situ vitrification) technology be adopted in this situation? 
Geomelt is a very expensive process used only a handful of times in the USA for low-level radioactive waste. 
5.4 Metals 
Are there thermal desorption contra-indicators? Are there contaminants that don't respond to thermal desorption?
Response: Thermal desorption does not remove metals very efficiently, which is why metal emissions from the process are not a problem. Metals (with the exception of mercury and cadmium) tend to remain in the soil and may need to be stabilised further by adding cement or lime. The proposed remediation process will result in a minimal reduction in metals.
5.4.1 So unless the soils are disposed off site there will be no reduction in metals?
Response: The level of metals we are dealing with is an ecological risk to the Bay but not a risk to human health. Therefore, material taken from the Bay will not be returned to the Bay. It will be treated and returned to the site, where the level of metal in the soil will not pose a risk for residential landuse.
5.5 The size of Homebush Bay project compared to projects in the USA?
Response: The size of this project is not unusual for a project of its type. USA has many projects in the 200-500,000-tonnage range with 30-50,000 tonnes being the average site.
5.6 How do the levels of contaminants in this project compare?
Response: Many projects fall into the 10-100ppb range. There are many precedents for treating Dioxin levels in the concentrations we see here at the Union Carbide (Lednez) site. 
5.7 How do these processes rate in terms of energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions?
Response: Incineration = 5 giga Joules
Direct desorption = 2 giga Joules 
Indirect desorption = 2 to 2.5 giga Joules
The two thermal desorption are very close in their energy use per tonne of soil.
5.8 How long do these two soil heating processes take? How long would you be on site?
Response: With direct thermal desorption Thiess could treat 500 tonnes per day, indirect could only treat half of that and therefore it would take twice as long on site. The total remediation project is expected to take between 4 to 5 years.
5.9 Proximity to residential areas and relocation
How many projects in the US are near residential areas?
Response: Most are near residences, sometimes people are as close as 50 metres away. On average residences tends to be within a ¼ to ½ mile away (400 to 800 metres). At Times Beach people in a caravan park were relocated.
5.9.1 How often have people been relocated? What are the reasons for this?
Response: Very seldom, the US EPA goes to great lengths to avoid this. Noise impacts tend to be the main reason. Times Beach was a special case where a caravan park was relocated because one of the locals had unknowingly mixed oil contaminated with dioxin with normal oil and spread it over dirt roads. 
5.10 Subsequent land use
Was the remediated land used for residential development?
Response: No Times Beach was restored to a State Park. Most sites are redeveloped as industrial areas because they were in industrial areas in the first place. At that time Dr Troxler was unable to name an example of residential development.

6. Commissioning, monitoring and environmental performance of thermal remediation plants
Presentation materials referred to by Mr Bill Troxler were distributed to participants at the meeting. 
Issues and Questions
6.1 What are the potential odour impacts?
Response: Odour complaints are not commonly associated with thermal remediation processsing. There may be odour concerns from excavating material.
6.2 Monitoring
NSW EPA allows companies to monitor their own activities. Does the US EPA and the NSW EPA have similar standards and protocols? 
Response: In the USA there are requirements for a performance test monitored by the contractor, a firm appointed for the oversight of the contractor, the US EPA and a State Authority. In NSW, Homebush Bay example, the EPA, the contractor and a separate firm conducted monitoring. 
Can we have a copy of a typical USEPA licence for a remediation project?
Response: Superfund sites are not licensed but are asked to comply with Federal and State regulations documented in a performance test plan. The US EPA approves the test results and they become the operating conditions. 
Regarding the Union Carbide (Lednez) site - the Director General's requirements (previously distributed) require Thiess to nominate operating conditions and point out and justify any differences to the operating conditions of previously conducted jobs.
6.3 Residuals destruction
Indirect desorption requires a second stage to the process where the residuals are taken off site for destruction. It was previously nominated that this would happen at the BCDT plant in Queensland. The renewal of the regulation in Queensland will require the BCDT plant to consult with local stakeholders prior to the issue of the relevant licence. What will happen if this licence is not issued and the plant cannot accept the dioxin containing oils?
Response: The dioxin containing oils will have to be treated here and further community consultation will need to be conducted. 
6.4 Emissions
How do you control fugitive emissions?
Response: Potential emissions from pretreatment of contaminated soil involving screening, mixing, turning and possibly crushing will be contained inside a building which has ventilation and emission controls.
6.5 Monitoring of water, prevention of run-off and control of ground water
There are a number of aspects to controlling water on site: 
§ The system is designed not to leak and secondary containment is put in place as a back up; 
§ Decontaminated water is used to cool the soil and soil sampling checks that soil is not being re-contaminated; 
§ Water used in the process is treated on site (carbon polishing) and eventually either discharged to the sewer, or re applied on site for dust suppression;
§ During the remediation process, clean water will be prevented from running onto the dirty parts of the site; and
§ More information will be provided in the CLG session that will focus on environmental controls.
6.6 What are the main concerns of community groups and residents near major sites?
Response: Dust control - mitigation measures include to keep dust wet during excavation activities, keep tops or covers on trucks, keep treated soil piles covered, conduct processes within enclosures.
6.7 What is the typical monitoring protocol for dust?
Response - dust monitors are placed at the perimeters of the site and operate 24 hours per day apart from the 20 minutes required to change them.
6.8 How often have the topsoil and ceiling dust of residences been tested before and after remediation?
The testing of residences before the remediation process has taken place about 6 of 172 times and not after the process because of the emphasis on ensuring appropriate control during remediation. 

7. Media coverage
The chair noted that some recent media quoting CLG member Cr Pauline Tyrell could be construed as criticising the current EIS consultation process. She was in fact referring to the consultation of the whole Rhodes Peninsula. CLG members noted that one of the key functions of the CLG is to provide a feedback loop regarding consultation activities. Several suggestions have been put in place to date that have added value to the process. CLG members were encouraged to mention any issues/concerns or suggestions for improvement regarding the consultation process to Rowena Lennings prior to taking them to an outside party. 
A number of suggestions were made at the time and at the close of the meeting. They included:
§ investigating key other languages spoken in the region and considering printing information materials in Italian or other key languages;
§ trying to influence the owners of neighbouring sites; and
§ facilitating a more direct involvement of residents of Blaxland Road in the consultation process.

8. Next Meeting
Next meeting will be held at the Rhodes Community Centre on Thursday 15 November 5.30 to 8.30 pm.

****************

Formal minutes for the meeting on 1 November on Remediation Technologies aren't available yet. These are some of my brief notes. 

A US expert did a presentation on thermal technologies including incineration, indirect thermal desorption (a separation technique requiring later destruction processing on site or elsewhere) and directly fired (an outright destruction technique). We have not been provided with information on other technologies at this stage as Thiess are proposing them. Other alternatives will be covered in the EIS but not proposed. We have asked for a background paper on other technologies.

Mr Troxler wasn't able to name a single US site that had been redeveloped as high density residential. Thee zonings were apparently not changed from the pre-existing zoning for the sites he could remember off the top of his head other than two, one which became a golf course, the other a state park (the infamous Times Beach where a whole town was closed down because of gross contamination through the streets of the town).

Mr Troxler said roof dust testing occurred but was uncommon.

Mr Troxler said rarely residents were moved out during remediation, and not necessarily for dust or remediation of their property, sometimes for other reasons such as noise.