CommInfoSession agenda rev 0 - Orica

ORICA

VILLAWOOD COMMUNITY INFORMATION SESSION

2 Christina Road, Villawood

Thursday 6 August 2009 3.30 – 5.00 pm

Agenda

ITEM PRESENTER TIME

1 Welcome and introduction

Bill Crowe/Wendy Salkeld, Orica

3.30 pm

2 Site history

Gwenda Lister, Orica 3.35 pm

3 Planning for Remediation

• Soil, groundwater, air investigations

• Contamination - onsite - off-site • Remediation Action Plan - what is it - what is required

Brad Eismen, AECOM 3.40 pm

4 Human Health and Environmental Risk

• Assessing risks • On-Site risk • Off-Site risk • Criteria for cleanup

Jackie Wright. URS 4.00 pm

5 How to Remediate

• Options • Directly-heated Thermal

Desorption

John Hunt, Thiess Services 4.10 pm

6 Timing

• What next • Regulatory/approvals steps

Richard Giles, Thiess Services 4.20 pm

7 Consultation

• History • Future

Wendy Salkeld, Orica/ Catherine Fletcher, Thiess Services

4.30 pm

8 Questions/discussion 4.35 pm 9 Close 5.00 pm

Villawood Remediation Project

Community Information Session

6 August 2009

Investigations to determine contamination

• Site history

• Environmental Site Audit/Phase 1

• Air and dust sampling

• Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment

• Conceptual Site Model developed

• Groundwater and Soil investigations

Villawood Community Information Session

6 August 2009

• Remedial Action Plan

Previous Investigations/Assessments/Plans

• SHE Pacific Pty Limited (2000) Site Historic Review

• Woodward Clyde/URS (2000) Stage 1 Phase 2 Environmental Site Audit

• CH2MHill (2004) Additional Stage 2 ESA

• CH2MHill (2005) Conceptual Site Model

• CH2MHill (2005) Preliminary Report Voluntary Investigation Part 1A – Groundwater and Soil. September 2005


6 August 2009

1A – Groundwater and Soil. September 2005

• CH2M Hill (2007) Validation Report Pharmaceuticals Site

• HLA (2005) Phase 1 Remedial Investigation

• HLA (2006) Phase 2 Remedial Investigation

• HLA (2007) Phase 3 Data Gap Investigation

• HLA-ENSR (2007) Remedial Action Plan

• URS (2007) Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment

Contaminants of Potential Concern

• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs);• Benzene;• DDT (and its degradation products DDD and DDE);• 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA also known as EDC);• Trichloroethene (TCE);• Chlorobenzene (MCB);• 1,4-dichlorobenzene


6 August 2009

• 1,4-dichlorobenzene• Hexachlorobenzene (HCB);• Lindane; and• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), including

Benzo(a)pyrene.

Soil Sample Locations


6 August 2009

Summary of soil contamination

• Soil sampling has been conducted from approximately 300 locations across the Site

• The depth and lateral extent of the soil contamination have been delineated

• Impacted soil zones have been identified

• A Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment has been undertaken


6 August 2009

undertaken

• The HHERA has determined safe criteria for soil based on the proposed future land use (continued commercial/industrial)

• These criteria have been used to determine which Impacted Soil Zones require remediation

Groundwater Sample Locations


6 August 2009

Groundwater Plumes


6 August 2009

Summary of groundwater contamination

• Groundwater monitoring has been conducted since 2000

• Five plumes of groundwater contamination have been identified

– three migrating offsite

– plume geometry generally controlled by surface drains rather than soil contamination locations

• The HHERA concluded that there was negligible risk to human-health from the offsite groundwater plumes


6 August 2009

health from the offsite groundwater plumes

• Off-site monitoring points within and south of Christina Road indicates that no contamination reaches Byrnes Creek

• Groundwater modeling indicates that contaminants would not reach Byrnes Creek within 100 years and beyond

• Concentrations within Byrnes Creek do not exceed relevant guidelines under current site conditions

Conceptual Site Model – Off Site Plume Development

• Surface drains controlled plume geometry off-site

• Drains moved surface run off to the south of Christina Road to the former ‘No 9 Branch Drain’

• Plumes now stable and unlikely to migrate significantly as


6 August 2009

significantly as demonstrated by data set and groundwater model

Conceptual Site Model – Early


6 August 2009

Conceptual Site Model – Late


6 August 2009

Conceptual Site Model – Post Remediation


6 August 2009

Conceptual Site Model – Migration

• Stage 1 - the DNAPL is migrating down the fracture and the aqueous phase is diffusing away from the fracture into the matrix;

• Stage 2 - the DNAPL has drained to residual and is dissolving away and diffusing away from the fracture into the


6 August 2009

diffusing away from the fracture into the matrix; and

• Stage 3 - the DNAPL is completely dissolved, clean water moves through the fracture and diffusion occurs in two directions.

Conceptual Site Model – Groundwater Remediation Issues

Remediation of fractured porous media contaminated by DNAPL is very difficult due to:

• The complexity of fracture networks making it hard to locate and delineate contamination

• Dead-end fractures that are inaccessible to pumping or remedial fluid flooding


6 August 2009

remedial fluid flooding• The significant contamination mass diffused in the relatively

inaccessible matrix• The large timescales of backward diffusion

Conceptual Site Model – Conclusions

• The contamination is largely distributed in the clay and shale matrix

• The geology on-site and off-site comprises fill materials, residual clay on-site, alluvial clay off-site and basal Bringelly Shale

• The historic migration of contamination (particularly off-site) was predominantly over the surface of the land in drains and


6 August 2009

was predominantly over the surface of the land in drains and swales, followed by downward migration from the drains into the clay and weathered shale deep underground

• Shallow vertical migration of contamination is the predominant migration pathway, with deeper migration controlled by vertical fractures and diffusion into the bedrock

• Lateral spread of contamination rapidly attenuated

Conceptual Site Model – Conclusions

• Remediation of the impacted soil zones that exceed the Risk Assessment soil criteria will remove a significant source of groundwater contamination and attenuate the mass of contamination migrating to the watertable

• This will enhance the remediation of deeper groundwater• The groundwater plumes are stable due to diffusion in

rock/soil and to some extent biodegradation


6 August 2009

rock/soil and to some extent biodegradation• Although groundwater may reach the Byrnes Creek concrete

lined channel, the contaminants do not

Remedial Strategy

• Soil

– Excavate and treat soil with concentrations greater that risk based soil criteria from seven Impacted Soil Zones (ISZ)

• Groundwater

– Removal of source in soil and shallow bedrock to the extent practicable;


6 August 2009

extent practicable;

– Reduction of contaminant mass that is accessible to the extent practicable and readily available to contribute to groundwater (i.e. not sorbed in matrix); and

– Protect relevant environmental values of groundwater (human and ecological health) through demonstrated plume stability over time (no discharge to creek)

• Long Term Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

Proposed Remedial Action

• The remedial action will include:– Impacted Soil Zones 1a, 1b and 2: DDX, MCB, OCPs and toluene

soil contamination:– Impacted Soil Zone 5: DDX soil contamination– Impacted Soil Zone 7: DDX, OCPs and HCB soil contamination– Impacted Soil Zone 8: DDX, OCPs and TCE soil contamination– Impacted Soil Zone 9: DDX and OCPs soil contamination


6 August 2009

• The remediation works will also include:– DDX impacted soil in the licensed Secure Storage Facility (from

remediation works in the south west part of the Site)– Securely stored materials from the Orica Chester Hill remediation

project

Impacted Soil Zones requiring remediation


6 August 2009

The remediation process - the way forward

• Remedial Action Plan approved by DECC and Site Auditor• Environmental Assessment is prepared for the remediation project

for approval by DECC and the Department of Planning• Community consultation meetings held during the preparation of

this document• The remediation works will be conducted and will be overseen by

the Site Auditor• Site Auditor prepares a Site Audit Statement confirming that the


6 August 2009

• Site Auditor prepares a Site Audit Statement confirming that the Site is suitable for the proposed land use (continued commercial/industrial) following remedial action

• Long Term EMP prepared to inform future owners/tenants on how future development works at the Site need to be managed

• Long Term EMP will include ongoing monitoring


Community Information Session – Site History

Gwenda Lister, Site Manager

6 August 2009

Gwenda Lister, Site Manager

1943


6 August 2009

early 1950s


6 August 2009

2008


6 August 2009



6 August 2009

John Hunt, Thiess Services, Manager Technical Services

Presentation outline

1. Thiess Services

2. The Problem

3. Remediation Options

4. The Solution


6 August 2009

Thiess Services

Remediation experience

• Commenced in 1989 – Rum Jungle NT

• Over 100 sites in 20 years

• Only major contractor in Australia


6 August 2009

Olympic site

• On site 1992 – 2000

• 17 projects over 8 years

The Problem

Soil Contamination

• Organochlorine compounds in clay soil

• DDT (30,000 mg/kg average)

• EDC, TCE, TCA, others (<200 mg/kg average)

Persistent Organic Pollutants (eg DDT)

• Slow to degrade, hard to destroy


6 August 2009

• Slow to degrade, hard to destroy

• Mobile in the environment

• Accumulate in the food chain

Regulation

• International: Stockholm Convention (reduce or eliminate)

• National: Schedule X Guidelines (DDT and others)

• NSW: Environmentally Hazardous Chemical Act

Remediation Options

Option Social Financial Technical

Do nothing� � �

Landfill� � �

Encapsulate� � �


6 August 2009

� � �

Physical� � �

Chemical� � �

Biological� � �

Thermal� � �

Thermal Treatment Options

Option HTI ISTD DTD ITD ETC

Soil / waste

Waste Soil Soil Soil Soil

Gas / electric

Gas Electric Gas Gas Gas

Destroy / recover

Destroy Recover / destroy

Destroy Recover Destroy


6 August 2009

recover destroy

Cost $2000/t $300/t $100/t $200/t $200/t

Capacity 5 t/h 1 t/h 25 t/h 10 t/h 2 t/h

Duration long long short medium long

Thiess No No Yes Yes Yes

The Solution – Directly-heated Thermal Desorption Plant

DTD Process

Soil Treatment

• Hot enough to boil contaminants from soil

– 450°C and 10 -15 mins residence time

• Remoisturise in pugmill

• Dust and contaminants in off gas


6 August 2009

Rotary Dryer

DTD Process

Off gas treatment

• Thermal oxidiser to destroy contaminants

– 1000°C and 2 seconds residence time

• Evaporative cooler to prevent dioxin formation

– 1000°C to 200°C in <1 second

• Bag house to remove dust


6 August 2009

– fabric filter bags

• Scrubber to remove acid

– hydrochloric acid from chlorinated compounds

Thermal Oxidiser and Evaporative Cooler

DTD Process

Mature Proven Technology

• Technology well proven and understood

• ~100 projects since 1987

• ~1,000,000 tonnes chlorinated soil treated since 1987

• Extensive performance data available

• Soil treatment and stack gas results predictable


6 August 2009

• Schedule predictable



6 August 2009

Richard Giles, Thiess Services, Project Manager

Presentation outline

1. Project Assessment Process

2. Key Dates


6 August 2009

Major Project Assessment – General Stages

Stage 1 – Preparation of Environmental Assessment

Stage 2 – Exhibition and Consultation


6 August 2009

Stage 3 – Assessment and Determination

Major Project Assessment – Stage 1 (Preparation of Environmental Assessment)

Step 1– Minister declares the development is a project to which Part 3A applies

Step 2 – Proponent lodges a project application

Step 3 – Director-General consults with other public authorities and issues


6 August 2009

Step 3 – Director-General consults with other public authorities and issues Environmental Assessment Requirements to Proponent

Step 4 – Proponent prepares and submits a draft environmental assessment.Director-General determines whether this is adequate and OK to exhibit

Proceed to Stage 2 – Exhibition and Consultation

Major Project Assessment – Stage 2 (Exhibition and Consultation)

Step 5– Director-General advertises and exhibits the environmental assessment For at least 30 days, notifies relevant parties and receives public submissions

Step 6 – Proponent prepares a response to the issues raised in submissions and,if required, a Preferred Project Report if changes are proposed

Option – Independent Enquiry


6 August 2009


At any stage, the Minister mayconvene an independent hearingand assessment panel in relationto any aspect of the project. The

panel may call for writtensubmissions and/or arrange a

public hearing.

Proceed to Stage 3 – Assessment and Determination

Major Project Assessment – Stage 3 (Assessment and Determination)

Step 7– Director-General prepares an environmental assessment report forthe Minister

Step 8 – Minister decides to approve or disapprove the project

Step 9 – Proponent is notified of the Minister’s determination. People who made


6 August 2009

Step 9 – Proponent is notified of the Minister’s determination. People who madea submission are also advised and the notice of determination is placed

on the website

Project is carried out (if approval granted) in accordance with the terms of theMinister’s approval

Key Dates (Estimated)

• Environmental Assessment Document:

– Completed by mid November 2009

• Public Exhibition

– From late November to late December 2009

• Consultation between Proponent and DoP, and Review/Amendment of Environmental Assessment

– January 2010


6 August 2009

– January 2010

• Issue of Assessment Report and draft Conditions of Approval

– April 2010

• Final Determination

– June 2010

Step 1 – Project Declared a Major Project

• NSW Department of Planning has provided preliminary advice that the proposal should be declared a project under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EP&A Act) 1979

• “Trigger” is definition of Designated Development under the EP&A Regulation 2000, which includes:

– Contaminated soil treatment works that treat more than 1,000 cubic metres per year of contaminated soil not originating from the site on which the development is located


6 August 2009

the site on which the development is located

• Approximately 1,760 cubic metres of contaminated material was brought to Villawood from the Orica Chester Hill site, for treatment.

Step 2 – Initial Application

• Thiess Services submits a project application to NSW Department of Planning

• NSW Department of Planning requested a preliminary environmental assessment to accompany the application

• A preliminary environmental assessment provides information such as:

– Project description


6 August 2009

– Project description

– Site history

– Environmental risk analysis to identify key potential issues

Step 3 – Environmental Assessment Requirements

• The Director-General of the NSW Department of Planning establishes requirements which outline the key issues that must be addressed in the environmental assessment of the project

• Also known as Director General’s requirements (DGRs or EARs)

• Relevant public authorities such as the Department of Environment and Climate Change, and Council, are consulted during development of the EARs


6 August 2009

• The EARs also outline any public consultation requirements and may require a statement of commitments that set out the commitments Thiess Services and Orica are prepared to make for environmental management and mitigation measures on site

Step 4 – Preparation of the Environmental Assessment

• Based on previous experience, consulting firms with expertise in the fields of noise, traffic, air quality (including human health risk assessment) and hazard identification and mitigation will be brought on to undertake relevant environmental studies

• These studies will address the EARs. NSW Department of Planning will review the environmental assessment and will request it to be revised if the EARs are not satisfied.


6 August 2009

Step 5 – Public Exhibition, Consultation and Review

• The Director-General exhibits the environmental assessment documentation for a minimum of 30 days and invites public comment

• Advertisements are placed in appropriate newspapers, and relevant State agencies and local councils are notified

• Adjacent landowners are also informed

• The documents are made available for inspection at the NSW


6 August 2009

• The documents are made available for inspection at the NSW Department of Planning’s head office, local council offices and are published on the Department’s website

• During the exhibition period any person is able to make a written submission to the Director-General regarding the project

Step 6 – Considering Submission and Finalising Assessment

• The Director-General provides copies of public submissions to Thiess Services and Orica, and to relevant public authorities

• Thiess Services and Orica can be required to prepare a response to the issues raised in submissions or to amend the project ansstatement of commitments to minimise impacts on the environment



6 August 2009

• At any stage, the Minister may appoint an independent hearing and assessment panel of experts, or of offices representing the Department and other relevant public authorities to provide advice on any aspect of the project

Step 7 – Assessment Report

• The Director-General must provide an assessment report to the Minister

• The report includes:

• A copy of the environmental assessment and any preferred project report

• A statement relating to compliance with environmental assessment requirements

Thiess

assessment requirements

• A copy of any report of an independent enquiry

• Any advice provided by public authorities

• Any relevant environmental planning instrument

• Any environmental assessment undertaken by the Director-General

• Draft conditions of approval are prepared, if the Director-General is recommending that the project be approved

Step 8 - Determination

• The Minister may approve or disapprove the carrying out of the project and determined the conditions that apply to the carrying out of the project

• The Department will publish the Minister’s determination and the Director-General’s assessment report on the Department’s website


6 August 2009

Step 9 – Compliance and Enforcement

• Orica is responsible for carrying out the project in compliance with the terms of the Minister’s approval

• NSW Department of Planning will monitor the implementation of the conditions of approval, which may include preparation of monitoring and compliance reports and undertaking of independent environmental audits

Thiess



6 August 2009

Jackie Wright

Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment

Overview

• What is a Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA)?

• How are risks assessed?

• On-Site assessment and outcomes

• Off-Site assessment and outcomes


6 August 2009

What is a Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HHERA)

• A scientific assessment of exposure by people or an environment (eg aquatic) to a chemical (or contaminant).

• The level of exposure is evaluated to determine if it has the potential (likelihood/risk) to cause adverse effects.

• Does not assess existing community health, however the assessment addresses all members of the population (including


6 August 2009

assessment addresses all members of the population (including those with existing health conditions).

How are Risks Assessed?

Consider where the contamination is located

• Soil and groundwater (data collected from soil, groundwater and soil gas);

• On or off the site;• Migration of contamination off-site?• Are there environments of importance on or off-site?

What chemicals are present and important?


6 August 2009

What chemicals are present and important?• Chemicals that are not background;• Chemicals that exceed existing guidelines;• Chemicals that are volatile.


What health effects are associated withexposure to the chemicals identified (toxicity)?

• Carcinogenic compounds;• Compounds that have other non-

carcinogenic effects.

How may people be exposed to the

Quantify toxicity using reviewed data – these include safety factors


6 August 2009

How may people be exposed to the chemicals? • Direct contact (skin contact and incidental

ingestion);• Inhalation of vapours or dust;

Quantify exposure using measured data (concentrations) and conservative parameters on how people are exposed


• Quantify risk by comparing the toxicity (expressed as an acceptable level of exposure) with calculated exposure from contamination.

• Assess if risks are elevated above acceptable levels, where these occur and how they can be reduced.

• Pass risk outcomes into the remediation process.


6 August 2009

Contamination at Villawood Site


6 August 2009

On-Site Assessment of Risk

Contamination:• Soil and groundwater; and

• Dominated by chlorinated compounds (EDC, chlorobenzene, TCE) and pesticides (DDX).

Exposure:• No sensitive onsite environment (some regenerated bush);

• Exposures relevant to future workers onsite:


6 August 2009

• Exposures relevant to future workers onsite:

– Direct contact with soil (measured soil concentrations); and

– Inhalation (dust and vapours from contaminants in soil and groundwater – vapours measured on-site).

On-Site Assessment of Risk


6 August 2009

Risk > 1 in most areas – associated with long-term contact with pesticides in soil;

Other exposures (inhalation) acceptable (Risk <1 ).

Remediation of soil – set risk-based guidelines

On-Site Assessment of Risk – Refined Soil Zones in RAP


6 August 2009

Off-Site Assessment of Risk

Contamination:• Groundwater – some plumes extend off-site; and

• Dominated by chlorinated compounds (EDC, chlorobenzene, TCE) and pesticides (DDX).

Exposure:• Contaminants in plumes will not reach Byrnes Creek – no

discharge to an environment;


6 August 2009

discharge to an environment;

• Exposures relevant to existing workers offsite:

– Inhalation (vapours from contaminants in groundwater – vapours measured off-site above plumes); and

– Intrusive works may also intersect and come into direct contact with groundwater.

Off-Site Assessment of Risk


6 August 2009

Risk < 1 in all areas.

All exposures off-site acceptable - no remediation required.

Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment

Outcomes and Status

• On-site – some areas where risks need to be reduced for future development and use;

• Risk-based soil criteria incorporated within the Remediation Action Plan;

• Off-site – no risks to human health or the environment;


6 August 2009

• Off-site – no risks to human health or the environment;

• HHERA issued and reviewed by Site Auditor and DECC;

• Final revision expected in August.



6 August 2009

Wendy Salkeld, Orica/Catherine Fletcher, Thiess Services

Government Stakeholders

•Department of Environment

•Bankstown City Council

•Public Health Unit

•Department of Planning

- Briefing sessions, pre 2004 and yearly since 2004

- Reports

- Letters

- Liaison

Media

•Updates on key milestones as required

Adjacent properties

•Face to face with Site Manager

•Letters

•Background briefing paper

•Newsletters

CONSULTATION AT VILLAWOODOrica is committed to maintain communication links


6 August 2009

Properties where monitoring takes place•Face to face with Site Manager•Letters with results•Background briefing paper•Newsletters

Tripodi MP

•Background briefing paper

•Letters

Orica is committed to maintain communication links

Wider community

•Newsletters (2,500): May, Nov 2005, September 2008, July 2009

•Information Session advertisement local paper

•Email address/phone number

Consultation Next Steps

Community Feedback

• Entering next phase of project – Environmental Assessment

– Will involve Thiess Services Community Relations - Catherine Fletcher

• Information Session held to share projects details, gauge community interest and establish appropriate ongoing communication


6 August 2009

communication

• Concerns?

• Further information?

• Ideas?

• Feedback?

Documents

CommInfoSession agenda rev 0 - Orica