To see what happened on the Olympic site see: http://202.139.230.209/oca/html/monitoringresults.stm The dust control was apparently not effective based on the level of complaints from Residents of nearby Melrose Park. Based on complaints by people of Mortlake affected by the work of the proposed tender for Rhodes, the dust control of the preferred tenderer is not of a sufficiently high standard for a remediation as sensitive as the Rhodes Peninsula. 

The Process used at the Olympic site has not been entirely successful. Although the stage one processing was initially signed off, it has since been found that the process was flawed and there are  now 6 analytes still in the treated materials which should not be there. The Stage 2 processing plant has had to be rebuilt because it has been such a failure and test batches are scheduled for 17 Feb 2001, almost six months after the Olympics are finished.

Questions

| Dust Control | Water Pollution | Remediation Process | Transport | Noise |Homberg like Oversight Group |

The following questions were sent by email to Neil Mudge of DPW&S by email on 21 November and he was requested to endeavour to provide answers at the presentation on Remediation held on 30 November. The presentation turned out to be on the history of the contamination, and the questions  remained unanswered for many months. The answers provided are set out below. Green is a note inserted by the web master RED is an answer causing concern

A. Dust Control:
Q 1 What are the proposed standards of dust control at the site boundaries? U How do they compare to American EPA standards? 
The standards to be used for the control of dust at the boundary of the site will be those stipulated by the EPA.
The question of the relative merit of NSW EPA dust control standards versus US standards is a question for the EPA and I have sought advice from them on this matter.

Q 2 How do these compare to the standards used by OCA at their treatment plant at North Newington? 
Similar standards would apply to this project unless substantive arguments could be lodged to justify change. {PMH: See next answer} It should be kept in mind that the standards for this type of work may not be the issue but rather how the appropriate standard is applied. 

Q 3 Were the standards for North Newington found to be satisfactory by nearby residents, eg Melrose Park? 
I understand that the residents of Melrose Park were deeply troubled by the issue of dust migration from the North Newington site run by the OCA. It is hoped that the results of the subsequent dust sampling and testing went a significant way to alleviate fears in this matter.

Q 4 How do they compare to the standards at AGL? 
Thiess have agreed to supply their records on the results of the dust monitoring on the site. I do not have these yet. The license for the work has the same dust standard as at the North Newington site. {PMH: Mortlake residents lobbied City of Canada Bay Council over dust. Noise and traffic issues because of their continuing dissatisfaction with the performace of Thiess and its (sub) contractors/employees on these issues.}

Q 5 Were the standards for AGL found satisfactory by nearby residents? 
I do not know. {PMH: Clearly not. See comment above}

Q 6 Will there be 24 hour monitoring of dust levels? 
NO Residents suggested web cam monitoring by the community {PMH: only after Mudge said there would not be full time monitoring. City of Canada Bay has resolved to try to get a full time employee committed to the AGL remediation to address the issues raised by residents}
There is no intention at this stage for 24 hour monitoring of dust levels once remediation work commences.

Q 7 What will be the penalties for breaches of dust standards including failure to cover loads? 
It is understood that the residents concerns are for the implications of non-compliance to the standards. A range of measures need to be established if non-compliance occurs. These measures would include fines as stipulated in EPA regulations. {PMH: Council now also have the power to issue infringement notices for some matters, but their jurisdiction will not extend into the site.}

Q 8 How many sanctions were imposed in respect of 
a) North Newington
Unknown however EPA will be able to advise on this matter.

b) AGL for breaches of dust standards? 
Thiess have agreed to supply information on this matter. 

Q 9 Does the preferred tenderer, Thiess Environmental Services, have a good record at AGL and at Bellevue in Perth, and if not why is it the preferred tenderer and how will standards be enforced?
The criteria used for the selection of a Preferred Proponent were included in my presentation (Slide8) as being 
- Demonstrating how they can achieve the project objectives
- Their proven ability to destroy contaminants
- The most viable commercial offer
- Their acceptable timetable
Consideration was given to past performance of this type of work within these criteria with the end result that Thiess/Trafalgar represented the best possibility of undertaking and completing the whole project compared to the other offers received. {PMH: Note that the question was not answered. Greenpeace have indicated that Thiess have had severe problems on the Bellevue site}

Q 10 How long will there be remediation going on for at Rhodes?
Indicated as a number of years {PMH: Note the lack of meaningful information. }

Q 11 Will results of the monitoring be published frequently, including on the Internet? 
It is our intention to establish a community reference group, a regularly issued newsletter and a web site to assist in the interchange of information on the project.

Q 12 What research is being done to understand the local wind patterns and to determine potential dust drop areas? 
Indicated some research Is being done

Q 13 Will the Government guarantee that no toxic or contaminated dust will fall on Concord West Public School, Killoola Street Kindergarten, Mcllwaine Park, Brays Bay Park and Rhodes Park and local backyards?
The Government will ensure that the appropriate standards are applied to the project following assimilation of public submissions during the EIS phase. The compliance or otherwise of the work to these standards is subject to independent auditing. {PMH: The DG's requirements for the EIS are more than 2 years old. There was no community input into their development.}

B. Water pollution:
1. What are. the proposed standards to prevent pollution of the water during remdiation of the land and sediments?
The standards to be used for the control of water quality on the site will be those stipulated by the EPA.

2. From where are these standards derived?
The standards to be used for the control of water quality on the site will be those stipulated by the EPA

3. How do they compare to American EPA standards?
The standards to be used for the control of water quality on the site will be those stipulated by the EPA

4. Will there be 24 hour monitoring for breach of standards? 
No. Residents requested 24 hour web cam monitoring. {PMH: This is misleading. The residents made this as a suggestion after being informed there would not be full time monitoring. City of Canada Bay is now trying to get a full time employee funded by the developer to monitor AGL remediation compliance}

5. Will the design of water management adequately provide for rains the worst rains over the last 100 years?
Traditionally 1 in 20, 1 in 50, and 1 in 100-year frequencies, would be considered as appropriate for designing water management structures. In consideration of the project duration of five years, a standard of 1 in 100 year frequency would be appropriate here.

6. What will be the penalties for breach of standards?
It is understood that the residents concerns are for the implications of non-compliance to the standards. A range of measures need to be established if non-compliance occurs. These measures would include fines as stipulated in EPA regulations.

7. How will the children at Yaralla Sea Scouts, Epping Sea Scouts and Concord & Ryde Sailing Club and the various school rowing teams which train to the Homebush Bay area be protected?
It is intended that no contaminated surface runoff will exit the site during the remediation work. The work of removing some of the sediments from the Bay has to be undertaken without creating undue water contamination. Indications from the submissions are that sheet piling may be used to cordon off small sections of the Bay near the seawall to allow sediment to be removed without disturbing the water in the rest of the Bay. On this basis those using the Bay for recreational purposes will not be subjected to unacceptable risk. 

8. How will the various seagrasses, mangroves, fish, other seafood, wetlands, JAMBA and CAMBA birds be protected from dust and water pollution?
An initial assessment by the EIS consultant PPK is that the work will not have adverse impact on migratory species or other fauna and flora in the surrounding area. At completion of the work a better environment will exist for the propagation of mangroves, seagrasses, and fish etc that inhabit the area. 

C. Remediation Process:
1. What are the contaminants and toxins present in the sediments and land? Detailed information has been provided. See contamination.

2. What are the acceptable standards for residential use in the USA? Australia? For each of these contaminants?
A preliminary acceptance criteria list is being made available. This list is a draft subject to review and acceptance by the EPA. {PMH: This list has not yet been provided to Rhodes Peninsula Group as at June 18, 2001}

3. Are there any standards for the appropriate levels of these contaminants in combination?
There are no standards for contaminants in combination.

4. What are the processes for dealing with these contaminants that have been proven on a large-scale remediation?
The range of possible remediation technologies is fully described in the EIS. {PMH: There is no EIS available yet. The DG's requirements are more than 2 years old and should be reviewed with community input}

5. What processes are the preferred tenderers proposing to use for each contaminate? 
Indirectly heated thermal desorption followed by Base Catalysed Decomposition. {PMH: It is believed that the US EPA web site indicates that this technique is not suitable for remediation of High Moisture content soilks and sediments. Kai Tak airport with the same water table issues uses a different process (provided by Global Technologies Inc,) but it is not known whether it would be suitable for Rhodes.}

6. Where have each of the proposed processes been proven on a large-scale remediation to residential standard?
One of the problems confronting us here is we can identify other large contamination projects but none of these that deal with the extent of dioxin like compounds that exist here. Those projects that have dioxin like compound present for remediation are of relatively small quantities. So while the proposed processes may be proven to work on some smaller size projects there is no direct parallel to compare. It was thought more important to focus on getting the process right more so than look at the quantities. For this reason we are carefully watching the outcomes of the OCA work at North Newington. {PMH: These processes have been found to have problems in practical application and may not be capable of remediating the site to an acceptable standard for residential development} The quantities will have some bearing on the process and its impacts but will influence time to complete rather than the technology to treat. 

7. What monitoring of standards is proposed during each remediation process?
The EPA licensing requirements for the North Newington would be a guide for this project. Under the Contaminated Land Management Act the monitoring of compliance to standards shall be undertaken by an independent auditor. {PMH: The dust control standard for North Newington was clearly inadequate based on the complaints from Melrose Park residents. The independent auditor on the former Berger Paints site did not alert Waterways to breaches of the Rivers and Foreshore Improvement Act.}

8. What penalties are proposed for breach of the standards? 
It is understood that the residents concerns are for the implications of non-compliance to the standards. A range of measures need to be established if non-compliance occurs. These measures would include fines as stipulated in EPA regulations. {PMH: sanctions are no help without adequate monitoring, which the Mortlake residents will tell you needs to be during all working hours at least. Wind outside working hours is also a problem.} 

9. Will the results of monitoring be published frequently, including on the Internet? 
It is our intention to establish a community reference group, a regularly issued newsletter and a web site to assist in the interchange of information on the project

D Transport.
1. What toxic or contaminated material will be transported outside the site boundaries? 
It is proposed that stage 1 processing (Indirect Thermal Desorption) would be undertaken on the site. The extract from this process is proposed to be transported to an existing BCD plant (in Queensland)(Base Catalyzed Decomposition or Dechlorination plant in Queensland). Generically the extract consists of contaminate in oil form, fine dust particles, and water. {PMH: Greenpeace have previously advised that the plant was not licenced to accept the proposed materials. RPG is not aware that this has changed}

2. What restrictions will exist on work hours and use of heavy vehicles in local streets? 
The traffic conditions for the project will be an outcome from the EIS process. {PMH: Truck traffic is a major issue at the AGL remediation. Failure to cover loads, excessive speed, failure to wash down before exiting the site, dropped rocks, personal safety of pedestrians are all associated issues faced particularly by residents of Blaxland Road.}

3. What standards will be requires to ensure contaminated materials are not blown or dropped from loads or vehicles outside the site boundaries? 
The EPA has regulations governing the transport of hazardous material. These would be appropriate controls for this activity.

4. What monitoring will be applied to ensure standards are not breached? 
It is proposed that external auditing of compliance to the procedures would be undertaken to satisfy that the controls are in place. {PMH: Auditing was not successful at North Newington, or AGL from residents point of view. It might confirm breaches, but it does not seem to prevent them which is what full time monitoring and sanctions can achieve.}

5. What sanctions will be applied for breach of the standards? 
Unknown at this point of time. I shall refer these to the EPA for advice.

6. Will the River or Air be used for transport of contaminated material? 
No

7. If so what will be the protective measures, standards, monitoring and sanctions? 
NA

E Noise
1. What standards or limits will be enforces on noise on site, at the boundaries and from movement of vehicles by road or river or air? 
The standards to be used for the control of noise at the boundary of the site will be those stipulated by the EPA.

2. What monitoring will take place to ensure standards are not breached? 
It is anticipated that regular dB monitoring at various locations around the boundary of the site will be included in conditions for approval to remediate. {PMH: will this be 24 hour? If not same problems with inability to enforce sanctions}

3. What sanctions will be applied for breaches? 
Unknown at this time.

F. Community and Expert Oversight and Consultation
1. Will a HOMBERG like group be established and be given the opportunity to comment on standards and reporting before any tenders are let? 
We will establish a reference group for the project. The terms of reference and constitution of that group are currently being finalised. {PMH: As at 18 June 2001 no group has been formed}

2. Will it have access to independent, publicly funded expert advice? 
There is no guarantee that any funding will be available for the reference group obtaining additional expert advice. {PMH: If it was good enough for Homberg it shjould be provided for Rhodes.}

3. Will its reports be frequently published, including on the Internet? 
A newsletter and web site will be established for the project. {PMH: As at 18 June, 2001 no site had been established for the Remediation.}

4. Will the group contain local residents of Rhodes, Meadowbank, Concord West, Liberty Grove and Newington? 
The reference group will include representative members of the community in the surrounding area to the project.

5. Will the proposed processes including earthworks be detailed on the web as was done for the treatment processes used by OCA? 
Uncertain at this point in time. Some aspects may be subject of commercial in confidence requirements. The matter needs to be discussed with the Proponent once committed to the project. {PMH: If it was done for remediation of the Olympic site it should be done for Rhodes where there are many times more residents within 1 km of the site}

6. Will there be guaranteed timely and informative responses to letters and emails? 
We will endeavour to provide accurate information as soon as possible.

7. Will there be quarterly public briefings about the progress of the remediation, commencing from the letting of the tenders? 
Should the Reference Group recommend presentation to broader community groups we would consider this. 

Earthworks

1. There have been no proposals about how workers, residents or the environment including endangered species and JAMBA/CAMBA birds are to be protected during remediation.

Workers will be protected under the OHS&R Act.
Residents and the Environment will be protected through EPA regulations. 
It was noted above that an assessment under the new federal Biodiversity legislation showed that there are no anticipated adverse impacts to migratory or threatened species from the proposed work. {PMH: This is a document that could be put on the proposed web site and made available for public scrutiny.}

Sediments 

The proposed treatment of sediments has a number of flaws:
1. It is not aimed at compliance with either the US EPA or World Health Organisation standards.
The assertion that the treatment of sediments is not aimed at compliance to US EPA or WHO standard could not be further from the truth. The reference documents that were made available after the meeting indicated that extensive effort to identify the appropriate compliance criteria has been undertaken. In fact much work has been done to identify the impact of the recent WHO changes to the method of assessing the TDI (Tolerable Daily Intake) for dioxin. {PMH: Based on the work discussed above I believe that the WHO standard for TDI of dioxin will not be met by the proposed sediment remediation standards.}

2. The area of most likely interaction between humans and untreated sediments at the Northern end of the Peninsula and around the Blaxland Road boat ramp has not even been tested, even though the area immediately adjacent requires treatment under the proposed methodology.
Correct and I agree that the most likely interaction for dermal contact with sediments is in the area you mention. The area around the Blaxland Road boat ramp has not been identified as a area of significant dioxin risk. {PMH: Bernoulii effect of tidal flows suggests that it is a possible risk area. Given the relatively high amount of dermal contact it, and possibly the Yaralla Sea Scouts area, should be assessed.}

3. There have been no proposals about how river users or the environment including endangered species, JAMBA/CAMBA birds, fish stacks, mangroves and seagrasses are to be protected during remediation.
This is correct at this point in time. The compilation of the EIS should deal with this matter. 

Treatment Processes

It is believed that the treatment proposed to be used by the preferred tenderer is as for the Olympic site's treatment of Dioxins.  It involves washing of the contaminated soils and a heat process. a full review of the process is on the OCA website: http://202.139.230.209/oca/html/environment.stm  {PMH: See comments above re Kai Tak Airport and the problems of moisture content for the proposed process}

Transport

1. The preferred tender has proposed the transport of unprocessed toxic waste to a plant in Queensland for processing. That plant currently has no licence from the Queensland EPA to process the materials. There is a significant risk in transporting large amount of toxic waste over long distances, particularly if in an accident that waste was deposited in watercourses. Greenpeace is against the transport of the toxic waste to Queensland.

It is inaccurate refer to the product from the stage 1 treatment as "unprocessed". {PMH: technically correct but it is concentrated toxic material and is unprocessed in the sense that the toxins have not been removed.}  It It is important that a professional assessment of risk from the transportation of any material be undertaken to appropriate standards. In this case Australian Standard AS 4360-1995 would be used to identify both the likelihood of an event occurring and the impact of that event.

It is noted that Greenpeace is against transport of this waste but discussions with Greenpeace indicate that their concern is a philosophic one in that they oppose the establishment of treatment centers for these materials. Greenpeace recognize that there are tried and proven methods for the transport of these wastes that minimize risk. It should be borne in mind that the establishment, and running of a BCD plant at Rhodes may offer greater risks to the surrounding community than the properly controlled transport to another facility. The Queensland BCD plant if used as part of this project will need to obtain an upgrade to its license to treat the extract from stage 1 processing.