Presentation 2 Template

BENEFICIAL REUSE OF REMEDIATED SOILS
BETWEEN TWO SEPARATE REMEDIATION

PROJECTS IN SYDNEY, NSW
Michael Nicholls (Principal Environmental

Scientist, CEnvP CL Specialist) 11 September 2017
1
info@sesl.com.au www.sesl.com.au 1300 30 40 80
BENEFICIAL REUSE OF REMEDIATED SOILS BETWEEN TWO
SEPARATE REMEDIATION PROJECTS IN SYDNEY, NSW
Outline:
1. SESL Specialisation
2. Perception of Waste and Soil
3. Projects Introduction
4. NSW EPA Resource Recovery Order System
5. A Positive Result
6. Close
2
1. SESL Specialisation
3
SESL Introduction
4
SESL Specialisation
SESL founded in 1984 as Soil/Horticultural consultancy
Offices in Brisbane, Sydney, ACT, Melbourne (~50 staff)
Contaminated Sites Consultants, Soil Science Consultants,
Horticultural Scientists, NATA Certified Laboratory
Major Value Add Soil design, and soil/waste beneficial reuse
in developments
Books Authored by
Simon Leake (SESL
founder)
Barangaroo Headland Park Googong Township Sydney Olympic Park - soil Sydney Landfill/ Sportsfield design,
soil reuse and design Redevelopment soil reuse reuse and design remediation, beneficial reuse
and design
5
2. Perception of Waste and Soil
6
Perception of Waste and Soil
Typical Development Project soil Typical Waste Management - waste
offsite immediately to landfill or to a sent to waste centre
recycling facility What is waste?
Virgin soil sold / free disposal
Waste gypsum, foundry sand, biosolids,

grease trap, can (and should) be used for
soil!!!
Transformation and reuse onsite for

landscaping?
Beneficial offsite reuse?
Save quarrying & reduce landfill waste?
7
3. Projects Introduction
8
Site A AFL Sports field
Site History
1910: former clay quarry
~1960 to 1966: municipal landfill
1969: playground constructed on
western side and converted to a
recreational field
NSW EPA focus
Leachate migration offsite
Landfill gas generation and
migration offsite
Landfill capping deterioration
9
Site A AFL Sports field
Drainage poor making oval

unplayable after rain
Waste penetrating surface
and turf in poor health
Subsidence making play
unsafe
SESL engaged to design
landfill management
upgrade, and overlying
sports field and subsurface
10
SESL Beneficial Onsite Reuse Study
SESL undertook a beneficial reuse study
for <$10k, to look at soil chemistry,
drainage properties and amendment
needed for turf growth media
Ideally 3-6% silt plus clay fractions for the
highest grades of sports field, 6-10% for
A-grade fields and up to 15% for lower
competition-grade fields
Existing top soil average 18.5% silt plus
clay
11
SESL Beneficial Onsite Reuse Study
2016: Wagener Oval soil assessment study
13 test pits
physical and chemical characterisation
Obvious business case for re-use
No more than 40% reuse of topsoil blended with
60% clean sand (many VENM reports rejected)
Approx. $900,000 in clean soil and waste
disposal savings
Disposal Re-use
Disposal $936,000 (@ $150/t) $46,800 (312t @ $150/t)

New soil purchase 6,240t @ $55 /t $247,560 (to blend in
=$343,200 50:50 ratio, 4992t @
$55/t)
Blending and screening $0 Screen 4800m3 @ $6/m3,
and blend 8000m3 @
6.m3 = $76,800
Soil re-use survey $0 $10,000
Total $1,279,200 $381,160
12
Site B Coatings Manufacturer
Costings manufacturer since 1960s
25 USTs mostly solvents (non-chlorinated)
MEK, TEX groundwater plumes
Existing NSW EPA Voluntary Remediation Proposal,
pump and treat system for >15 years 1955
1965
13
SESL delineated impacts
showing >10x higher MEK
conc. under previously
uninvestigated building
footprint
25 USTs mostly solvents
(non-chlorinated)
MEK, TEX groundwater plumes
Better CSM developed
SESL provided a strategy to
exit VRP, increase site value
14
Majority of USTs removed
Sand removed and
bioremediated (surfactant,
land farming)
Oxidant added to tank pit
base for groundwater
treatment
Soil later screened for reuse
offsite
Later MPVEs and ISCO plume
area treatment
15
4. NSW EPA Resource Recovery Order System
16
NSW EPA Specific Resource Recovery Order System
Existing exemption orders
(currently 40) where no application to
EPA is needed
Specific Resource Recover Orders /
exemptions can be applied for -
No existing exemption
Need to supply history of waste and how it
has been amended over time (SRRO)
Define the risks at the proposed
Source: NSW EPA
destination site (SRRE)
Highlight the benefit to the environment of
the reuse
Information and proof of agreement from
both source and receiving property owners
17
5. A Positive Result
18
A Positive Result: $ and Environment
Site A (Council Client) Estimated $900k
savings on onsite reuse of waste soils by
beneficial reuse (less waste, quarry)
Site A (Council Client) Saved 300 T of
specified sand by accepting NSW EPA
approved reuse remediated sand approx.
$30k savings
Site B (Coatings Client) Saved 300T in
disposal of impacted soil (cost $90,000),
remediation costs $20k, screening and
transport $20k - net $50k savings
Reduced waste to landfill by ~6,500 tonnes
Reduced quarrying by ~6,800 tonnes
19
5. Close
THANK YOU!
SESL
Contact SESL:
Where Contamination Michael Nicholls
meets Soil Science! michael@sesl.com.au
0411 492 159
info@sesl.com.au
1300 30 40 80
20

Presentation 2 Template

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Presentation 2 Template

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

BENEFICIAL REUSE OF REMEDIATED SOILS

BETWEEN TWO SEPARATE REMEDIATION

Michael Nicholls (Principal Environmental

Waste gypsum, foundry sand, biosolids,

Transformation and reuse onsite for

Drainage poor making oval

Disposal $936,000 (@ $150/t) $46,800 (312t @ $150/t)

Вам также может понравиться