12/04/2013

Kendall Bay Sediment Remediation ProjectStakeholder Focus Group: 18 March 2013

Project ManagersEnvironmental Consultants Community Consultation

2

Purpose of Session

• Provide an update on recent planning and technical work

• Provide an overview of the findings of options analysis undertaken to date

• Hear community members’ ideas for alternative access options and alternative approaches to the remediation process

• Discuss areas that Jemena can control (access, works methodology)

• Discuss next steps.

3

Roles and Responsibilities

• Jemena: update on company approach to the Project, including access options and works methodology

• Environmental Resources Management: update on planning process

• APP: technical findings of options analysis

• Urbis: facilitator, ensure everyone has an opportunity to speak

• Participants: opportunity for information update, opportunity to identify alternative access options and works methodology.

4

Ground Rules (Speakers and Participants)

• All questions and comments through the facilitator please

• One person to speak at a time

• Be brief

• Respect other people’s views and values.

5

Feedback to Date

• Strong desire for further information on options assessment:

– Range of factors being considered by Jemena

– What alternative access options have been considered by Jemena?

– What alternative remediation designs have been considered by Jemena?

– What is Jemena’s position on barging sediment?

• Concern about the use of Cabarita Park to support remediation

• Queries as to how feedback from the consultation process will inform Jemena’s approach to the remediation

• Strong desire that noise, dust and odour generation is well managed.

6

Overview of the session

• Overview of Remediation Project – Tyrone Singleton, Jemena

• Update on Planning Proposal and Project Application –Adam Coburn, ERM

• Overview of Remediation Options Analysis –Chris Graham-White, APP

• Break

• Discussion – alternative options, issues, feedback

• Next steps and close.

REMEDIATION PROJECT UPDATETyrone Singleton, Jemena

Remediation Project Update

Approvals Process Update

Remediation Options Analysis

Jemena’s Project Commitments

8

• Jemena is committed to:

• Remediating Kendall Bay, in line with the voluntary remediation agreement (VRA) as was entered into with the EPA in 2005;

• Meeting the EPA requirements for the remediation of Kendall Bay, such that it meets all ecological and human health objectives as stipulated in the original declaration;

• Providing the community with information with respect to access and EA specialist studies, in line with regulatory process and timing. This includes consultation and consideration of issues and alternatives raised by the local community; and

• Improving and/ or maintaining stakeholder expectations during the project and strive to build and maintain trust.

Planning Application

9

• Based on extensive research to date, Jemena remains of the opinion that accessing the remediation site through Cabarita Park is the most appropriate approach.

• Subsequently, on 11 February 2013, Jemena requested a review of Council’s decision via the pre-Gateway Review process which will involve:

• To ensure that all practical alternative options are fully assessed, Jemena will continue to expand and review its research and analysis of possible alternatives while the Departmental review is occurring

• Should an alternative, viable option – when compared to all of Jemena’s evaluation criteria - be identified, the option will be considered by Jemena.

10

Project Criteria

• The identification of a project method, including alternative access options is dependent on a number of constraining factors:• Environmental: consideration is required for issues pertaining to

noise, odour, human health, water quality, tidal fluctuations• Engineering: Several technical consideration include, but not limited

to the handling and management of soft sediments (high water content), depth of the Bay, loading and unloading facilities at various sites, logistical factors concerning barge movements and travel distances

• Program: The overall works program has the potential to be significantly influenced by a number of factors, including site access, treatment methods, and complexity of site establishment

• Regulatory:

• Contaminated Sites Guidance for the NSW Site Auditor Schemeidentifies the preferred soil management strategy as being ‘on-site treatment of the soil’. A guidance that is in accord with the Commonwealth Government National Environment Protection Measures (NEPM)

Feedback on Previous Commitments

11

Our commitments made during the Dec 2012 consultation

Status

Seek extension to the submission date of

the Part 3A Application to facilitate ongoing community consultation.

On 15 Feb 2013 Jemena wrote to DPI seeking an extension. To date no formal response has been received.

Demonstration that Jemena has considered options other than the park for access.

Jemena commissioned a consolidation study, which represent approx 3 years of work focussing on the review of alternative access options. The findings will be provided as part of the EA. Jemena has reviewed nearly 50 sites and evaluated them against technical, planning and environmental considerations.

Continued community consultation and further meetings.

Today’s discussion represents only part of the process during which Jemena wants to listen to your views. There will be further opportunities for you and the larger community to take part in open discussions.Aspects that cannot be answered today we will responded to via the project website.

Provide on the project website the Powerpoint presentation and Q&A’s from the Dec 12 stakeholder sessions.

Now on the project website at www.jemena.com.au/kendallbay

Demonstrate Jemena has completed specialist studies and understand the heritage issues associated with the park.

As part of the EA, specialists Jemena have conducted a number of studies reporting on the existing values (including heritage and environmental) surrounding Kendall Bay.

APPROVALS PROCESS UPDATEAdam Coburn, ERM

Remediation Project Update

Approvals Process Update

Remediation Options Analysis

The Planning Process

13

Project Application

• On behalf of Jemena ERM commenced the preparation of the

project application

• This application and accompanying specialist environmental

reports have been temporarily put on hold pending the outcome

of the Planning Proposal review and ongoing consultation and

review of the remediation options

• Jemena have also written to the DP&I requesting an extension

to lodge the project application

• Jemena have not been advised as to the outcome of this

request

14

Planning Proposal

• The Planning Proposal to use a portion of Cabarita Park as part of the project was not supported by Council at its December 2012 meeting

• An application was made in January 2013 to the DP&I seeking a review of the Planning Proposal and support for the proposed use of a portion of Cabarita Park as part of the project

• The Planning Proposal review process has a number of steps, which generally include:

– DP&I initial review and assessment

– Referral to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for an independent review

– Final consideration by DP&I

• The review process is expected to take several months.

15

REMEDIATION OPTIONS ANALYSIS

Chris Graham-White, APP

Remediation Project Update

Approvals Process Update

Remediation Options Analysis

Remediation Goals (summarised)

Remediation strategy must satisfy the following requirements:

• No unacceptable risk to human health or the environment

• Remediation strategy is technically feasible

• Remediation work is environmentally justifiable

• Consistent with relevant laws, policies and guidelines.

17

18

Proposed remediation areas based on Draft Remediation Action Plan 2012

Proposed Remediation Areas

Proposed Remediation Principal

• Remove top layer of sediment

• Cap sediments with clean material

• Treat removed sediment with cement or other stabilisers and dispose to landfill

19

Before Remediation Capping Activities After Remediation Capping Activities

Clean sandy fill layer

Aqua Block © layer

Remaining sediments

Existing impacted sediments

Existing sea bed Same sea bed level

Two Approaches to Sediment Removal

1. Dry environment

• drain

• treat sediment in-situ

• excavate top layer

• place cap

2. Wet environment

• dredge

• treat removed sediment

• place cap

20

Options Considered

No.Sediment Removal

Sediment Treatment

Land Access

required?

Other site required?

1 Dry excavation In situ � XXXX

2 Dredge On site � XXXX

3 Dredge Off-site XXXX �

4 Dredge On barge XXXX �

5Dry excavation and dredge

(land access only)In situ + on-site � XXXX

6Dry excavation and dredge

(barge sediment and fill)In situ + on-site

� �

7Dry excavation and dredge

(barge everything)In situ + on-site XXXX �

21

Non-viable Options

No.Sedimentremoval

Sediment Treatment

TechnicalEPA

Guidelines

1 Dry excavation In situXXXX

Sub optimal approach for Area B �

2 Dredge On-siteXXXX

Insufficient area for treatment tent �

3 Dredge Off-site

XXXX

No site available. Technically feasible is site available

XXXX

Treatment off-site

4 Dredge On barge

XXXX

At least 4 large barges required, slowest duration, highest

environmental risk

XXXX

Treatment off-site

7Dry excavation

and dredge (barge everything)

In situ & on-site

XXXX

Logistically very difficult, much longer duration

�

22

Feasible Options

OptionSedimentremoval

Sediment Treatment

Technical NSW EPA

5 Dry excavation

and dredge (land

access only)

In situ + on-

site � �

6 Dry excavation

and dredge (barge

sediment and fill)

In situ + on-

site

�(subject to confirmation of

available offloading site)

�

23

Search for Barging Sites

• Carried out searches in 2009, 2012 and 2013 (dynamic environment)

• Search area: all waterfront properties between Camellia and Sydney Harbour Bridge, plus potential locations east of Harbour Bridge

• Search criteria:

• barge accessible

• reasonable truck access

• potentially available

• land use suitability

• Identified nearly 50 potential sites, including industrial, former military, boat ramps, boatyards, waterfront industrial and port sites.

24

Access Options – Summary

Sites considered Comments

Breakfast Point Development Not applicable, permission denied.

Cabarita Park Nearest accessible land.

Barge accessible sites (approx50 sites reviewed)

Ongoing investigations.

25

Options Summary: Current Status

• Feasible Options: those that are technically feasible and comply with NSW EPA requirements

26

Option Methodology

5 Dry excavate/treat in situ Area A. Dredge Area B and treat in Area A.

Land access only

6 Dry excavate/treat in situ Area A. Dredge Area B and treat in Area A.

Land access for project servicing, move treated sediment and fill by

barge.

• Continuing to look for suitable barging sites to provide additional options

• Continuing to optimise works methodology

Key Elements – Area B and Area A “Finger”

• Install single sheet pile and a single silt curtain

• Dredge sediments

• Transfer to Area A to treat

Key Elements – Area A

• Construct cofferdam wall, single silt curtain and drain progressively

• In-situ stabilise exposed sediments with cement using a specialised excavator head

Remediation Option Assessed in Pt 3A Environmental Assessment

Legend

Remediation Areas

Coffer Dam Wall

Single Sheet-pile Wall

Silt Curtain

Site Compound

Proposed Access road

Traffic Control to Ferry

27

Discussion

28

Ongoing Community Consultation

29

Stage two consultation:

• Website/ telephone hotline and email address• Newsletters to 3,600 local homes and businesses

• Group discussions with community groups

• Website/ telephone hotline and email address• Newsletters to 3,600 local homes and businesses

• Further small group discussion sessions

•If the remediation process is approved:• Community liaison group • Potential for visits to local residences• Potential for open house community information and feedback session

Next Steps

• Awaiting outcomes of decision of DP&I on Planning Proposal

• Consider community views on the options analysis and new ideas tabled

• Refine approach as the detailed design and consultation progresses.

• For further information:

- Website: jemena.com.au/kendallbay

- Phone no. 1800 266 901

- Email address: kendallbay@jemena.com.au

30

31

Dry Environment Assessment Summary

32

Factor Advantages Constraints

Site Reduces excavation in shallow water.

Soft mud difficult to traffic

Constructability Proven techniques, good control and safety.

Need to strengthen sediment to make trafficable.

Odour In situ treatment avoids handling untreated sediment.

Odour management of exposed surfaces.

Community Impact

Shorter duration. Requires land access.

Environment Stabilises remaining sediment.

Time Not affected by tides. Time to construct cut off wall.

Cost Lower cost.

Wet Environment Assessment Summary

33

Factor Advantages Constraints

Site Avoids need to traffic soft mud.

Lack of suitable site to land untreated sediment. Disturbance of sediments within declared remediation area.

Constructability Avoids need to drain area. Over excavation required to create draught for vessels. Adds marine safety risks.

Odour Avoids exposing large areas. Handling untreated sediment more difficult.

Community Impact Reduces impact in Park. Affects more communities.

Environment Maintains tidal inundation. More disturbance of sediments.

Time 4-6 months longer

Cost Higher cost